tango

I prefer minority governments, and I would prefer even more parties than we currently have. The Greens are a welcome addition, helping to force the traditional parties out of their entrenched positions of unquestioning support for the corporate establishment. A majority government is a virtual dictatorship, with 40% support of those who voted and only a quarter to a third of the population as a whole, they can force their opinions on all of us. Ridiculous. We all in our working and everyday lives have to negotiate a variety of personal and professional differences to create solutions acceptable to all. Why on earth do some think it's better for our governments to aspire to the unfettered authority of a majority government? I don't understand that, because no one point of view holds all the answers: We all hold pieces of puzzles and our challenge is to put the puzzles together to form the best solutions. I think ... hope ... we're entering an era when new ideas and new perspectives will recognize that economic development has to serve the people, and not the other way around.

b-c it just doesn't matter how you slice it: There just isn't much desire in Canada to move away from universal health care. We love it. We depend on it. And we know that those who want to and can afford to 'jump the queue' can go south and pay the price. So what? Most of us have no serious complaints about the system, and a lot of good experiences, if one can say that about any illness. So rant away, but know that you're not moving anyone.

For the disinformed ... Gates did show ID, not only ID but proof that he lived in that residence. Then I believe he challenged the cops on their manner and their manner deteriorated to the point where they "invited him outside" where they could arrest him, since they could not arrest him in his own residence. Still much to be desired in the behaviour of the cops in that case, imo. I have a hobby-interest in residential architecture and sometimes wander around neighbourhoods and stand looking at houses. It has occurred to me at times that I could be reported for suspicious behaviour, but it hasn't happened yet.

First of all, you are referring to the 1700's, the settlement of America. I'm referring to two hundred years earlier, the 1500's, the conquest of America. Secondly, you are relying on European history records. Do you really expect to find the truth of the genocide there? I think Indigenous oral traditions deserve as much attention. There is no doubt in my mind that diseases were spread by whatever means possible, as widely as possible, pigs and blankets being two reports that occur repeatedly. Point being ... the Indigenous Peoples of North America were not amenable to enslavement, and thus suitable only for extinction.

Geology 101 offered for dump Site 41 decision makers Posted By Posted 9 hours ago The area surrounding dump Site 41 is flat, productive farmland with several prosperous farming operations in close proximity to Site 41. There is an abundance of water throughout the area. Cattails grew in the field where the cells are being constructed. Two significant wetlands are located very close to where the landfill is being constructed. Tiny Marsh, 2,000 acres of marshes, open water and bog is located four kilometres, two concessions to the southwest and Wye Marsh, a 3,000-acre marshy wildlife area is 20 kilometres to the north. Orr Lake is five kilometres to the west. Dump Site 41 is being constructed on top of the Alliston aquifer, which is 3.6 to 12 metres (12-40 feet) below the soil surface, stretching out in a radius of approximately 60-plus kilometres. Farmland and wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate. Clean drinking water is becoming a scarce commodity worldwide. Simcoe County, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen to construct dump Site 41 on 300 acres of prime farmland, in a marshy area, on top a massive aquifer. Not only is the aquifer being put at risk of becoming contaminated, but the construction of the landfill can and will affect water levels (the water table) of the marshland's, lakes, ponds, streams and wells for kilometres around. In order to facilitate construction of the landfill, the area must be dewatered. What is dewatering? This is the removal of large quantities of fresh clean water to lower the water table in the area they are working in. They must remove the water at a faster rate than it can be recharged. This will result in what is known as the cone of depression. What problems does this create? The water table in the immediate area of the pump will drop. Wells in the draw-down area will have their water levels drop or the wells can go dry. Nature likes to remain in balance. To keep the water level in equilibrium, ground water will be drawn from every direction, for a large radius, to replace the water removed. The direction of the ground-water flow will be altered; all water will be drawn toward the area being dewatered. This can result in lowering water levels in the surrounding marshlands. Marshlands are storage areas of water recharge. Toxins in the ground can be drawn toward the dewatered area. In Perkins Fields, a short distance from dump Site 41, there is a toxic plume from an old landfill (Pauze Landfill), which is migrating westward. This plume will be pulled toward the area being dewatered. When enough water has been removed, another problem will result called land subsidence. Land subsidence happens when an aquifer is over-pumped, such as in the dewatering operation taking place at dump Site 41. Water between the soil particles is replaced with air space; the soil is no longer buoyed up by the water, the soil surface collapses. The results are soil compaction and sink holes. The soil's structure is destroyed; it will no longer ever be able to store water. These changes are permanent and irreversible. This is the science being ignored -- geology 101, great damage is being done to a valuable natural resource. more ... http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1702786 "Dewatering" isn't a temporary thing. It will be an ongoing necessity. This is a great description of the horrific impact of this process on Southern Ontario. The only thing it doesn't mention is that the dump is only a few miles from the shallow and beautiful and still clean beaches of Georgian Bay. The cottagers' association is well represented among the protesters. And a tip of the hat to one of the protesters, Don Nelson, who has gone ahead to talk to the Man in the Sky and ask his support for the protesters: http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1702795 On the morning of the first day of Don Nelson's visitation at the Lynn-Stone Funeral Home in nearby Elmvale, his picture went up at the First Nations' encampment across from Site 41 -- clothes-pinned to a line along with other notices. "Remember our fallen warrior," read the attached note. It was pinned next to a professionally produced poster of country music legend George Hamilton IV, promoting an upcoming fundraiser to keep the protest going. But his hand-scrawled tribute stood out nonetheless, just as Don Nelson stood out. Yesterday marked a week since Don Nelson's passing. The 76-year-old local farmer -- Snapper, to his friends -- was hard to miss among the protesters who descended upon Site 41. He hauled around a portable oxygen tank to breathe, and was either sitting in his truck or a wheelchair, saddled further by a leg that had been partially amputated years ago. He was a fixture at the camp, often sitting outside near a banner that reads, "Shoulder to shoulder." His absence did not go unnoticed.

Simcoe County has defied a provincial Privacy Commissioner’s order to release a groundwater model in its attempts to contain public concern about Site 41, court heard yesterday. In cross-examination, Simcoe County’s environmental services director Rob McCullough admit the county’s primary reason for refusing to release specialized hydrogeological ModFlow data on the Tiny Township Conc. 2 site was the sensitivity. “The concern was the model could be tweaked in such a way to make the model not work. It had already been peer reviewed,” McCullough told the Ontario Superior Court. He explained the Ministry of the Environment examined the groundwater data, and subsequently the county invited the Site 41 Community Monitoring Committee to discuss the data with the county’s consultant, Jagger Hims. However, he did acknowledge the model itself is what’s key – and another hydrogeologist could modify the computerized model and come up with different outcomes. “We feared a different answer might occur that we’d have to assess, review and answer,” he said. The county, however, said it doesn’t own the information collected by its long-time consulting firm, which has been purchased by a major landfill development corporation, which also bought another company the county hired to do the business case for Site 41. http://www.barrieadvance.com/barrieadvance/article/143240 Don't worry the dump's design is just fine, but no you can't see it!

Craig's got the thread wandering around like his mind. He's loopy, but we'll give him enough rope ... ------------------- Re smallpox (etc) infected blankets ... It's amazing to me how people are so quick to deny even the possibility of this. Why is it so threatening to people alive now what might have been done centuries ago? Why do I get the uneasy feeling that they 'doth' protest too much, too vehemently, too quickly, and with little thought or evidence? According to the history we're taught, the first(?) Europeans found their way to America around 1500 (1492, 1534). The first settlers did not arrive until around 1600 (1607, 1608). So what happened during that 100 year conquest of North America that occurred toward the end of the 'Dark Ages' of Europe, more politely termed the 'Middle Ages', under the authority of the Pope's "Doctrines of Discovery"? It was not exactly a pleasure jaunt to make new friends in new places: It was war against the Indigenous Peoples of America, to vanquish them and take their land, to enrich the powers in Europe and to clear the land of "enemies": 'Overpopulated' Europe needed places to dump the independent peasants who had lived off the common land that was now 'enclosed' ... privatized ... by the powerful, who wanted to keep only subdued serfs to do their labour. For a hundred years, the conquest of America was conducted by: - Explorers and traders/courier de bois, working on behalf of merchants and monarchs to find trade and valuable resources ... for themselves and their masters - ie, to exploit the wealth of the land and its people. - Jesuits and other missionaries ostensibly spreading civilization and Christian (or capitalist?) values. - Merchant marine/privateers/militiamen ... for protection ... or aggression? (It was war.) And by the end of that hundred years, it's estimated that 95% of the Indigenous people of America were exterminated. Is it so difficult to believe ... that during this hundred years of war, it might occur to someone that delivering infected blankets from the plague-ridden, overpopulated cities of displaced peasants of Europe to the susceptible Indigenous people of America might speed their conquest? There certainly was no 'international law' against that tactic. It's not like it was a 'war crime'. Is it so difficult to believe ... that Indigenous oral history in Canada includes the arrival of shiploads of blankets from Europe that were then delivered in wagonloads and boatloads to accessible communities, by 'missionaries' and (private) militiamen? Under those circumstances, and Indigenous Peoples being more likely to defend themselves than to submit willingly to slavery, I personally find it difficult to believe that it didn't happen, during the 100 years of the conquest of America and the 'vanquishing' of its peoples. I've come across two accounts of this oral history online (links now lost), and asked the question of an Elder, who replied only briefly with a nod. 95% extermination over a hundred years of war with minimal 'armies' of private militiamen, without some form of mass genocide? Not very likely, imo.

It's very disturbing that you seem determined to dismiss the violent and destructive impact of child porn, and insist on distorting the facts presented to you (with a viable reference) while admitting that you actually know very little about the research on the topic. From the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children reference provided to you: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazin...;issue_id=32007 Offenders and Victims There are several misconceptions about child pornography. Some believe child pornography refers to baby-in-the-bathtub pictures and others are under the impression that child pornography images are 19-year-old women dressed up in pigtails and schoolgirl uniforms. Neither of these descriptions constitutes child pornography. Child pornography is not pictures of teenagers romping on a beach; it is pictures of children, often babies in diapers, being violently molested. Not only did these children suffer the initial sexual victimization, they will continue to be exploited every time their image is traded online among individuals who use these images to fuel their sexual desire for children. These traded images are photographs of actual crime scenes. ... In the first four years of CVIP, law enforcement has notified NCMEC of more than 900 child victims rescued from the hands of their abusers. Adult porn is a matter of personal preference and consenting partners to the creation of images. Non consensual sexual exploitation of adults to create porn images, however, is a violent crime. Children never consent to sexual violation. It's an entirely different issue than consensual adult porn and cannot be dismissed as offhandedly as you try to do. In terms of punishment, it's a matter of protection of children from the sexual violence that sustains the 'industry'. Lifetime protection suits me just fine, and unless convinced otherwise with rational argument and facts, I assume the courts are doing their job of determining the danger posed by a particular criminal according to the nature of the material in his/her possession. You've said nothing to convince me otherwise, and plenty to cause concern.

I followed it at the time of the hearings, but you can look it up yourself. Point being ... he has not been convicted of anything and it is not appropriate to label him "a murderer" as you did. Legally, at the time of the incident, he was a child of 15. Considering this ... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/04/28/khadr-date-hearings-0427.html Of the 775 prisoners who have been held at Guantanamo Bay at one time or another since 2001, about 525 were released without charge, many after years of detention, and two have been convicted of offences. ... the odds seem to be in his favour!

No I don't "oppose less waste" ... I support less waste, and seldom put out any garbage - just green and blue bins. Mostly though, I just throw my 'green' waste in the garden as I've always done. The site 41 discussion has gone on for over 20 years now, and the rural communities near the site had recycling before the cities, to try to avoid having the new landfill. However, I think waste-to-energy is the better solution. Here's a couple of Ont companies with such processes. I'm not an environmental scientist, so if anyone knows more about these or others, I'm interested: http://www.ctwc.ca/index.php?page=thunderbay 1) Canadian Thermal Waste Conversion Ltd. Thunder Bay capacity: 5,000 tonnes/day (4x amount shipped to Michigan by Toronto) During the first stage of the gasification process, temperatures and airflows are carefully controlled to allow the production of producer gas with desired characteristics. The producer gas is immediately burned in a higher chamber during a second stage of vigorous cyclonic combustion, producing high temperature clean products of combustion. The heat from the second stage is used to generate electricity via steam turbines. In an incinerator, none of the gas is combusted, meaning that it all goes "up the chimney". Expensive scrubbing techniques are generally used to reduce the toxins from incinerator gas. In [gasification], these toxic gases are not created in the first place, leading to emissions which meet or exceed Ontario standards without any scrubbing treatment whatsoever. http://www.sault-canada.com/development/in...l=0,3,43,53,235 2) ENQUEST Power Co. Sault Ste Marie ...a radical new approach for processing municipal waste with the end goal of converting it into usable, safe energy. Sault Ste. Marie, its elected Council and the EDC, however, were singled out for special praise by Jayson Zwierschke for their cooperation in assisting EnQuest at its Fifth Line landfill site. "They have proven this is a very forward thinking community," he said, "and have contributed to the Sault becoming a major capital of the world for clean energy production." Butland said the plant has attracted considerable attention from other centres both in Canada and internationally faced with the escalating problem of how to deal with their garbage. Delegations have visited from Toronto, Chicago, Alabama, and Mississippi, and a group from Australia has expressed interest in coming.

Hunh??? Hunh???

You don't know the facts. I repeat: ... the US soldiers who were present at the incident stepped up and told the truth, in Omar's defence: Omar could not have thrown the grenade as he was injured and buried in rubble at the time. Also, forensics showed that the grenade was a US issue - ie, a 'friendly fire' accident.

If they are reporting rape and feeling shameful, clearly it was not a desired fulfillment of a fantasy for them. One might fantasize about the death of a rival with no real desire for that to happen in reality. One might fantasize about sex with a former lover, with no real desire to rekindle the relationship. I might fantasize about swimming in a lake of chocolate without intent to do it in reality. I might fantasize about being a Princess, without real desire to undergo the constraints of such a life. Fantasies do not necessarily reflect real desires. Fantasies are often just ... fantasies.

This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard! Since when is any Canadian not allowed the freedom to go abroad to visit family? However, I do think it's wise to update your passport photo as needed.

It would also be a lot more accurate to say that an occupier has responsibility for whatever befalls them as a result of their occupation. Say ... my brother and I have a history of animosity. Say our parents are away and I expand my 'territory' into his bedroom, blockading him in a small corner and limiting his access to food, water and other services and necessities. If he fights back by lobbing spitballs at me, is it his fault or mine? Can I murder him with a baseball bat because he hit me with a spitball while I occupied his territory?

Then perhaps Harper will appeal it to the Supreme Court. However, perhaps he will not too as he may prefer to leave it as a 2-1 decision open to question rather than a clear decision by the Supreme Court. I think regardless of court decisions, Harper has a responsibility to bring him home and take him off the US' hands: I'm pretty sure they are now embarrassed by their mistreatment of an innocent child, one whom their own soldiers have defended, and I expect they want nothing more than for him to just 'go away'.

Good grief! Do you even know that all legislation passed in Canada still requires 'Royal Assent' ? Now provided by the Governor General (fed) and Lieutenant Governors (provs) on behalf of the Queen but nonetheless, still required?

It's apparent that some of the most negative voices here against Omar have not been paying attention to the details of his case: Ignorance and discrimination are poor excuses for victimizing an innocent person, imo. First of all, Omar was born in Canada. You cannot "strip him of his citizenship" as he has no other citizenship and a person cannot, by law, be left 'stateless'. Secondly, the US soldiers who were present at the incident stepped up and told the truth, in Omar's defence: Omar could not have thrown the grenade as he was injured and buried in rubble at the time. Also, forensics showed that the grenade was a US issue - ie, a 'friendly fire' accident. Finally, the international covenant on 'child soldiers' has never yet been honoured in his case, by the US or Canada. Harper is just going to have to suck it up and choke this down, because Omar has every right to be returned to Canada. If 'HarperCanada' wants to try press charges here, so be it: Our courts can figure out the truth.

Michigan can make up its own mind about that, and has - cut off as of 2010, I believe. Toronto is expanding an old landfill to use for itself. However, I oppose landfills period. We have the waste-to-energy technology now and instead of building new landfills anywhere, they should be building wte facilities for new waste, and to clean up leaky old landfill sites too. The only way to force municipalities to convert to the new technology, however, is to blockade construction of all new landfills. And it seems to be working at dump site 41!! Certainly, they have the Warden on the run now. teehee!

If they were here first with sovereign and functioning societies, when and how did they cease to be sovereign in their own right, riv?

Really? When is the last time a soldier fought to protect us from Harper? psssst ... the "scummy vermin"? That's something they made up to reel in suckers like you.

Harper is a pudgy doughboy with botox lips, who has made a fool of himself all over the world. The only Canadian in trouble overseas that he brought home was a white crook who worked for organized crime and claimed she "didn't see a thing". I wonder what she's doing these days? Wait! Is that a blonde head under Harper's desk?

Anybody can start a political party, Bill, and run candidates anywhere. Don't forget the large population of native people in the cities. Toronto is the largest 'reserve' in Canada. Caledonia? Who cares!

Oh come on Riv, sharpen your fingernails and climb out of the 20th century! If you are not about the environment these days, you're not about anything! Nobody said all Aboriginal people defend the land. The ones the government likes and bestows it 'goodness' upon have learned to play the game 'our' way. But unfortunately, 'our' destructive ways are now just that - destructive and unsustainable.