Wild Bill

No argument! I guess you missed the end of my post: "Post Script: This link proves what I had read in the papers about the officers is wrong! Here it is: http://www.cpc-cpp.g...2-eng.aspx#toc3 The link plainly shows they were regular RCMP officers. Still, that's even more reason they should have known better! " No need to keep at me! I'm not like some of the posters here who can never say he was wrong! I do feel that I have the right to point out that the original error came from a newspaper reporter. I didn't make it up! I had thought that by avoiding the CBC and the Toronto Star I would've been safe from such things but I guess I wasn't.

I'm a bit rushed for time and I'm not finding the reports about the officers. Please note that I am not saying they weren't RCMP. They were indeed. I'm going by memory of newspaper reports telling that the RCMP makes a hiring distinction between an officer whose duties are only for airport security and a "regular" mountie. While both types of officers are mounties the sense is that you don't need the same level of officer at an airport - that a "regular" mountie would be a more expensive waste. Anyhow, when I get home I'll dig deeper to confirm that point. Meanwhile, there's no trouble confirming the multiple taser hits. A simple google brings up pages of confirmations. Even Wiki covers this extensively and confirms at least 5 hits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident As for no organization being perfect, that's not the point. Rather, are we getting true benefit for the incredible amount of inconvenience being added to airport security? Nobody sensible minds if the benefits are real. However, to be put through the motions just to make appearances is a different story. I compare our security to that of Israel. People move through airport terminals VERY quickly, especially when compared to our systems. The plainclothes officers standing around with Uzis are highly trained and educated professionals, NOT minimum wage "warm bodies"! Our success record stems more from being outside the main arena and perhaps simply lucky, at least so far! We are not a large target for most terrorist organizations. We are on their list but it would seem that they leave operations to local "amateurs", such as the Toronto 18. The big money and resources are used for Middle East targets. That leads one to believe that our security has not really been tested by professionals. Let's pray it never will! Post Script: This link proves what I had read in the papers about the officers is wrong! Here it is: http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/prr/rep/rev/chair-pre/dziekanski/robert_2-eng.aspx#toc3 The link plainly shows they were regular RCMP officers. Still, that's even more reason they should have known better!

The RCMP officers who tazed Robert Dziekanski were not "line officers". They were lower paid "airport cops". They were indeed within the RCMP organization but not subject to the same hiring standards or frankly, expectations of intelligence. What's MOST important about that incident is that the poor man was tazered at least 5 times! The "bonehead" public perception of the Tazer is that it is a safe alternative. It's thought of as some sort of Star Trek phaser that can be set on stun so that no one is really hurt. This is unmitigated, unscientific crap! It's a very high voltage jolt of electricity designed to incapacitate the average human body. It hurts like hell and convulses your muscles! Even if we accept the manufacturer's claims that it is indeed safe, I doubt if that manufacturer ever claimed that someone could take FIVE immediately consecutive Tazer hits with no risk! No, these "cops" were dumb, ignorant and poorly trained. They were there because they were cheap labour, plain and simple! This reinforces my point about how our airport security is mostly just smoke and mirrors. It is the very inconvenience itself of the process that is supposed to reassure us! Me, it just makes me even more frightened. It gives me reason to question their competence.

I laughed when I saw this in the news today! It was just so typical! The real problem is that security at airports is mostly a joke. They put us through all sorts of pain in the ass things just to look like they're doing something while not necessarily making us any safer. The politicians and others in charge know this but hey, the name of the game is to fool us rubes and keep us happy. Like the old joke about a Liberal solution: "It doesn't have to work as long as we can say we've got one!" So along comes a female MP who must be well aware of how things really work and she's rushed, tired and in a bad mood. It's perfectly normal to get ticked off at the situation. She WAS being jerked around for no real positive benefit! Where she made her mistake was to forget that she was supposed to keep the BIG SECRET! By flying off the handle she drew attention to how things work (or don't work!) at airport security! That could make us sheep look up and think about it! She also made the mistake of thinking that the BIG LIE didn't apply to her! If the powers that be are going to give us a phony show the last thing they need is for someone like her to think she can ignore the "man behind the curtain". She's part of that establishment. She's supposed to HELP keep up the pretense! As long as we have security systems where the staff are paid minimum wage and intelligence is substituted with blindly following thick rule books they will always be just smoke and mirrors. Ms. Guergis really should have known better. Maybe this incident didn't warrant firing her from cabinet but don't be surprised if she's shuffled off to a corner next time Harper makes his cabinet changes. She's proven that she's politically dumb and prone to snap when under pressure. No such person can ever be a successful politician.

Geez, you keep sounding like somebody I voted for! Are there negative feedback loops that try to maintain the status quo? I'll grant you that the capacity of such loops can be exceeded. Those would be separate arguments depending on the specific examples. Let's stick to my question. Please don't pull a politician on me. Loops? Yes or No?

You sparked a memory, Mr. B. Back in the 70's young folks used to campaign to clean up the planet. They would have weekend drives where groups of kids would clean out creek beds or parks of garbage. They would have demonstrations to get factories to reduce smog emissions. Such things seemed to have totally disappeared these days. All we seem to see is today's young people calling for Uncle Sam, Canada and Britain to give huge amounts of money to third world countries, with no auditing to make sure they spend it on emission controls instead of bullets. It's unfortunate.

Could you be a bit more explicit? Are you saying that there AREN'T any negative feedback loops in the Earth's ecosystem? Nothing that works to maintain a status quo? Are you claiming that ANY factors introduced by Man as he lives on the planet must be unopposed by the eco-system and have a free rein in changing the climate? And that it must always be significant and certainly, negative? What has stating that a big enough change in temperature would be disastrous for present life got to do with how the eco-system works? A piano on your head is hazardous to your health as well but it still would be a non sequitur to the discussion! You're right that Mother Nature is not an intelligent force but to say that "the earth will do nothing to stop it or regulate it" is an assumption you must defend. For your premise to be true there must be NO feedback factors! I'm glad it's you and not me who must defend that position.

Depends on who you ask, I guess. There's an argument that reserves are sovereign land and should not be subject to Canadian law. Of course, that doesn't stop the natives from demanding and taking federal and provincial money for policing, and manpower for anything that exceeds their own resources. What seems iffier is the idea expoused by some native activists that natives should ALWAYS be under native law, even if they commit a crime off the reservation land. I've never understood this, as it would mean that any native anywhere has diplomatic immunity. I can think of no other country in the world where ALL its citizens can come to Canada and do whatever they want while enjoying diplomatic immunity. I always thought that such immunity was only given to diplomatic personnel. Then again, as certain posters have explained to me many times, if I disagree with them on any native issue anywhere in any way then I must be simply a bigot, by definition. Meanwhile, I hope to remain anonymous, as I have a number of native friends and I wouldn't want to be forced to discriminate against them just to fit under some activist's label.

Yeah, some nations are going to get rich in space and colonize other worlds. It just seems that they likely won't be speaking English...

You limned the "barebones" mechanism but I think that you really have to include feedback mechanisms to grasp how things really work. I am no expert on climate change but as an electronics tech I have to understand the principles of feedback in a system. To give simple examples, if you stick a microphone in front of a speaker you will create positive feedback, where the output signal will be fed back into the system's own input. It will then be re-amplified, picked up again to be sent back and amplified again and again until the system breaks into oscillation. You get a full volume, uncontrollable squeal. However, this happens only if the input wave and the output wave are in phase. If you looked at the waves on an oscilloscope you would see the peaks and troughs of the input wave matching up to those of the output wave, the only difference being that the output wave is much larger. If the waves are OUT of phase, the feedback is said to be negative! This has the effect of canceling out the input wave. If you only use a little, you can cancel out negative aspects to the signal, like distortion and such, while still having more than enough usable signal at the output. Negative feedback can be used to adjust the volume or maintain the purity of the wave. In effect, it is a way of controlling the system. What does this have to do with climate? The Earth's ecosphere is also a system that has positive and negative feedback things happening. When people suggest that CO2 traps heat and can lead to a runaway effect they are describing a positive feedback loop. This ignores MANY other loops, including negative ones that may partially or even completely cancel the effect of excess CO2. For instance, warmer temperatures can increase the amount of water vapor in the air. Unlike CO2, water vapor DOES block sunlight before it can reach and warm the ground! This could or can theoretically negate the effect of excess CO2. I'm not versed enough to argue about all the various climate feedback loops but I know enough that you can't ignore them or pick and choose only those that support your arguments. Feedback loops are how we control virtually any system. One of the simplest would be a governor on a motor so that it maintains a constant speed. The Earth has evolved feedback systems of its own over the eons and it would be silly to think that we have a system that could at any time be kicked over the precipice and break into a squealing howl, frying us all! Mother Nature has mechanisms to maintain her status quo, that tend to fight major changes, in either direction. SHE knows what she's doing and frankly, she doesn't give a damn about us or how we think she does it!

Lord, what did we do before we had you to save us all?

If I understand your implication, if I disagree I must be a "bat-shit crazy". If that isn't ad hominem, what is? Yet you expect to be respected for the science of your argument! You just prove my point. Another troll to be put on the list.

It's been quite a while now since the Cadman affair was a current debate topic but I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how you can get a life insurance company to give you a million dollar policy on a dying man. Anyone who knew Chuck knew he wasn't the kind of man you could bribe. Harper knew him well. Yet the story is still being repeated. Maybe the conspiracy is deeper than we thought. Perhaps the Alliance party owned all the life insurance companies and could force them to issue losing policies. Happens all the time, right?

Michael, it doesn't matter anyway! They ALL could be on one side of the fence or the other and it doesn't mean they're right! At one time, everyone thought the earth was flat. It was thought that man could never fly or reach the Moon! Bill GAtes once said that "640k of RAM should be enough memory for anybody!" Mother Nature works by her own laws. It's up to us to figure them out. We can choose to believe any cockamamie thing we want but the numbers of us don't matter to Mother Nature. The Delphic method of scientific research is a very poor tool. Everyone can agree the ship is doing fine and make each other feel good but if the water is rising it doesn't matter a whit what they think! That's why attempts by alarmists to use consensus as equivalent to proof or belittling their opponents' numbers as the same as rational rebuttal turns me off. That's not science, that's just religious hype and propaganda.

Hey, I didn't vote for Dalton! I figure if I didn't vote for them, I'm not responsible!

Actually, your scenario leaves out a big segment. There are many scientists working under grants controlled by political channels who have no choice but to appear to agree with climate change if they want to continue to be able to feed their kids! So there are biases on BOTH sides of the argument! Me, I tend to put my faith in character. Being a techie by trade, when I hear someone shout "Anyone who disagrees should be thrown in jail!" (David Suzuki) or "The science is settled! There's no need to listen to anyone who disagrees anymore!" that's when I smell a con job! That sort of thinking has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda. While that doesn't mean there couldn't still be some truth to their argument it DOES mean that I have to consider it a very biased source. Hell, just follow the threads here on MLW! See how people who disagree with climate change are labelled "deniers" and called all sorts of names, denigrated to look stupid or worse yet, corrupted somehow by "Big Oil". Again, such tactics go to character. I see them as even more reason to distrust their source.

Of course, what happens in Toronto determines the validity of climate change and virtually everything else! You see, Toronto is the centre of the Universe and everything revolves around it! Just ask anyone from Toronto! At least, anyone on Toronto Council.

http://www.athenapub.com/vinland1.htm "Two types of evidence exist for Norse contacts with North America: written sagas and archaeological findings. Vinland, southernmost of three North American coastal areas described in Icelandic Sagas by Norse explorers, was said to be rich in grapes, timber, and a self-sown "wheat." Archaeological investigations in the 1960's at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland discovered proof of an early 11th century AD Norse settlement, defining both a Viking outpost in Canada, and contact with North American natives called "Skraelings." " These next two came up from a simple google: "1000 AD - 'The northerly retreat of icebergs and pack-ice under the impact of warmer temperatures is a plausible explanation of why Lief Eriksson was able to sail round the top of the Atlantic as far as Newfoundland in or about the year 1000, and why he found vines there.'The northerly retreat of icebergs and pack-ice under the impact of warmer temperatures is a plausible explanation of why Lief Eriksson was able to sail round the top of the Atlantic as far as Newfoundland in or about the year 1000, and why he found vines there. During the “Little Optimum”, Edinburgh enjoyed the climate of London, while London enjoyed the climate of the Loire valley in France, a difference of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit—the equivalent in modern American terms of ... Show more Show less From The 'Great Global Warming Swindle' debate - Related web pages creation.com/the-great-global-warming-swindle ..." "1000 AD - I read an old Farley Mowatt book a while back called "West Viking". It's all about the Viking exploration in Canada around 1000 AD. They overwintered in Newfoundland and grapes grew wild there as climate was much milder there than it is now so apparently these temperature ... From Global Warming Article . - REVscene.net - The Northwest's #1 Automotive, … - Related web pages www.revscene.net/forums/global-warming-article ..." After reading these links I understand why your post is so vehemtly against the idea. It supports the idea of there having been mild spells during the Middle Ages, which apparently amongst the "anti-denier" crowd is rankest blasphemy which should never be spoken!

Is what happened since we were kids really significant? To Mother Nature that's not long enough to blink an eye, let alone define a cycle. What always makes me smile is reading how when the Vikings discovered Newfoundland and Labrador it was warm enough to grow grapes! My poor relations on the Rock! Been waiting all these centuries to get warm again!

Michael, it's been my experience that those who make such statements have never been hurting for money! If you've always been comfortable it's easy to say that money is not so important. What if you're poor? I remember when I was a very young lad, at my first job. I got a speeding ticket. My own fault, of course. That's not the issue. It was for $65. At the time, that was an entire week's pay for me! Smartened me up in a hurry. Still, I couldn't help but think that for most other folks, the penalty was not nearly so severe. I had to live on KD for a month! My father was a steel worker. He would hardly have missed it. Most business executives would have considered it a trivial piece of "road tax". If some juvenile delinquent robs your home, it's easy to say that "it's only money" and give him a light sentence. To the judge and all the officers of the court paid to work there it's likely a true statement. What about if the home owner is an old lady pensioner on a fixed income? It's forgotten that while insurance might cover most of the theft or damages there is always a deductible of at least several hundred dollars, if not more. That old lady pensioner might have been forced to live on tuna cat food for a year because of that young JD! Where's the justice in his sentence? I have relatives on the police force. They tell me that the average number of times a young offender faces a judge for such a crime (which is only the number of times he is charged, NOT the number of times he's committed the offence or even the number of times he was caught!) is somewhere in the 30's! Even then, rarely does he receive anything more than probation after probation. We could add many more examples. Politicians in various ministries all seem to think they can get away with small increases to our tax burdens, never considering or caring how much they will all total! It's always the details that matter. From our position of historical hindsight, the old frontier times sentence of hanging for a horse thief seems excessive. What we don't understand is that out on the range in those times, if someone stole your horse the chances were very good that you would die! There was no gas station with a variety store close at hand, or a cell phone. You were limited to the clothes on your back and how far you could walk on a diet of gophers and buffalo droppings. So horse thievery was equivalent to murder, or at least manslaughter. My point is that for some, the loss of even a little money can be a SEVERE hardship! To such a victim, cavalierly dismissing their loss as "only money" can incite a VERY negative reaction!

Wish it were true about their Patent Office, Kimmy! Those of us in the technical side of guitar amps know differently. There is a designer with a large guitar amp company who has actually successfully patented vacuum tube circuits and applications that have been around since the 1930's! Apparently, rather than spend the money and resources of patent searches and technical decisions of something in vintage electronics the Office just rubberstamped his applications. The idea is that players "in the real world" can spend the money on lawyers and fight it out in the courts. You can guess how this has worked out. Some small "boutique" amplifier maker in Smalltown, USA gets a letter from the Big Meany Amp Company, claiming his circuit is infringing on their patent. Now, any tech who looked at the circuits would dismiss this as ridiculous. Besides, those patents from the 30's and 40's have long since lapsed into public domain. Doesn't matter! You see, the key point is that BMAC has lots of money for a court battle and the little boutique guy hasn't! He is absolutely in the right yet because he can't afford to fight he has to "cave" and stop using that circuit. This perversion of the justice system is often found in other areas, even right here in Canada. It's not enough to be in the right sometimes. You have to be able to afford to fight or you lose!

Michael, you seem to have missed BC's point. Your premise about saving him is only justified if you're correct about climate change. If you're wrong then it's a money grab, plain and simple. Some folks disagree with the climate change argument. That's WHY they resent being forced to contribute money! Before you can expect a man to smile as you pick his pocket you have to convince him that it's to his benefit. To arbitrarily up and grab it is simple fascism, nothing more.

Quick quiz! How many people were hurt by Three Mile Island? Zip! Zilch! Nada! The safety design and devices all worked like they were supposed to work. To compare Three Mile Island with Chernobyl is like comparing a Lexus with a Lada. Only someone with a simplistic view of science would equate the two in an argument against nuclear power.

Agreed. What strikes me as particularly dumb is that they never consider the possibility of any backlash! Millions of Canadians are strong supporters of the monarchy, particularly those of British ancestry. Often those railing against the monarchy are of non-British extraction. This can't help but make many monarchist Canadians wonder why we had such a welcoming immigration system. It may not be right, but it's human nature. At least at this point in time, I would think that the Liberal party would not like to be branded as against the monarchy. It would likely cost them far more votes than it would gain. Even Bouchard was a monarchist! He wanted to dump Canada but had no problems with keeping the Queen!

What's your point? Are you implying that these candidates bought a Senate seat for such "mice nuts" donations? ANY fundraising dinner for ANY party likely would be charging more per plate than some of your listings here! One would expect that any party loyalist of any stripe would have made such donations. Have you a list for Liberal Senators? Or are you implying something else?