Sir Bandelot

Here's another nice little aside to this media-driven panic. "I have a headache..." "Oh my god!!! That could be the swine flu, rush little Johnny to the emergency ward!" Meanwhile there's 500 other people already there, coughing and sniffling. Wait in line. Almost all of them don't need to be there, except that they are ill with either a flu or cold, and scared for their very lives.

Well it sounds like a hell of a fight. Too bad most of us have no idea how serious it is. All we hear is how wonderful and well its going, and then we hear less and less, and then, nothing. Except "send more troops..." So at this point I'm beginning to say, to heck with this. What's in it for us, for Canada or our troops, or me. Nothing. Whats in it for our allies in Europe, who don't even want to be there, don't fight alongside of ours? Nothing. Whats in it for the Afghanis, who don't seem to want to help themselves by helping us? Nothing. Time to cut and run.

I see. So maybe they all live right here, then.

In my expert opinion, we are doing just as well by properly washing our hands and not coughing and sneezing openly in public (use your elbow, etc) as we would be getting the shot. Some simple precautions alone is all it takes. And in either case there is no guarantee you won't get it. I know several know who took the dope and got sick anyway. Another observation- - Of the small group of about 20 or so that I work with, not everyone got the shot. - Of those that did, 4 became really ill after getting the shot. One had to be rushed to emerg after having an immediate reaction. I find this disturbing because its only a small sample, and the failure rate is high. - When one of my colleagues reported getting ill immediately after the shot, he inquired if the shot could have made him sick. "Absolutely not, no way" he was told by the medical staff. This response was given without any investigation or lab testing. Stick that in your arm... not

Based on real scientific evidence, there is nothing more here to worry about than any typical flu. Yet the goverments are putting some kind of psychological pressure on the public, telling us to be fearful of this disease, without any apparent scientific basis. An excessive and inappropriate response, once again... along the same lines as SARS and West Nile viruses. To me this demonstrates how easily the poorly-informed masses respond to inflammatory media hype. It seems to work very well.

It underscores the impotence of our current political leaders, where a minority government can rule without debate because they know the other parties are in such a position of weakness, they will go along with anything thats put out by the government out of fear that they will lose more seats in an election. They have no choice but to protect their own self interests... to the detriment of fair and just political process in Canada. The system has degenerated into a plutarchy. A neo-democracy. In other words, a fools game, but the joke is on all of us. Away with these charlatans.

Something needed to be done to circumvent a legal or political barrier (in terms of freeing up resources), and doing something is better then doing nothing. In the short term. But if it is not a real "emergency", or if calling it an emergency just to enable the process to respond as necessary, that mechanism is not appropriate, in the long run. We should use the term "emergency" when it is real, not start calling things emergencies simply because that solves a political problem. I hope you get what I mean here by political, not partisan. I am not a pathologist, but I know a bit about statistics of death rates in past years. Yesterday we heard the sad story about a 13 year old who died of swine flu in Toronto. This caused a big media sensation, many headlines in papers and n th web. People at work talked about it throughout the day. Yet I know, these things happen every year, even to some young or seemingly healthy people, by the thousands we die from the flu. So why the big hype, I don't understand that. If this is true, I don't see how its an emergency compared to any other normal season, so far.- http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1...illance-eng.php

I only mention the latter because, there are some who say that big pharma uses its influence to sell their dope to us via their political connections. In this day and age, it's vaguely possible.

I realize that, AW as indicated in my previous post- But to me that is using politics to circumvent legal obstacles, not a direct response to a real emergency. It may have been done with good intentions, maybe for the right reasons, but that doesn't mean it wont undermine the process in a future real emrgency. This, coupled with recent responses to other spooky sounding disease that amounted to nothing, like "SARS" and "West Nile virus", seems like either the reaction of a bunch of amateurs (neo-politicians), or some sort of hidden agenda. At this point I go with the former.

What I find puzzling and sad is that we are in a time when hype and spin account for more than real issues of public safety. Its sad that they would politicize something like calling a national emergency. But not really surprising, when they politicized the nobel peace prize award as well. I think what people don't realize is how it might affect us in a time of real emergency. Like the boy who cried wolf, people are beginning to realize that much of this is being excessively hyped. Although this virus does seem to be rather "virulent", it doesn't appear to be any more lethal than others. Making it political, even for the advantage of freeing up resources, money, and removing legal barriers as Obama has done, could mean that people will ignore it, when a real emergency comes.

One problem with it is that it varies from state to state. Or maybe even, county to county, judge to judge. But jail time or no, the stigma of criminal conviction lasts a lifetime. Even if the "soft" crime was commited decades ago. It goes beyond the reach of the courts and jails, when employers will not risk hiring an individual because they hold a prior conviction, mostly for their own personal liability issues. I'm not saying that employers should be forced to hire people they don't like, for whatever reason. I'm saying that the "punishment" already goes well beyond the courtroom. Even if they walk out of court without jail time, they carry that stigma basically forever. The problem is, what is the appropriate definition of criminal in these particular types of cases.

I have no problem with that concept, when there is clearly demonstrated harm. But its not the case with all forms of no-violent offenders, is it. So maybe we need to revist the definition of "harm" to society.

There's violence and then theres harm. He caused a lot of harm to a lot of people. He did get 150 years...

If you must get into semantics over this, we can do that. There is no law explicitly called "drug-using", and nowhere in my post do I in fact call it that. I said, "this makes me think about drug users." I don't think that statement hard to understand. The law is possession, as opposed to trafficking. And the definition of possession as opposed to trafficking, is drugs for personal consumption. That's using. In context of non-violent offenders, some might argue that the "dealer" is potentially more violent since they are often connected to gangs. Whereas the "user" is inherently less violent.

this is not just about money, its about incarcerating people who are non-violent for longer times. That makes me think about drug users. Again we are looking at a more US-style legal system, one which has incarcerated millions of Americans, who cannot get their lives back on track again when the prison sentence is over, because of the stigma of being an ex-con. Ironic that at a time when many countries are going the other way, eliminating harsh sentencing and having alternative programs in place, Canada is doing the exact opposite. If prohibition were eliminated there would be no need for drug pushers and the money would be removed from organized crime. I believe this is a better approach. The neocons are actually dinosaurs, there is nothing really "new" in their ideology. A better name would be something like the Retro cons.

Are you saying somehow, that all of her actions prior to that encounter, like her choices in life somehow lead up to the moment when she is attacked by a complete stranger? Like, some kind of synchronicity? That sounds like pseudo science to me. Or perhaps, pseudo religion. Earlier you tried to come across like your an atheist, a believer in logic and science and this is your argument? Theres a disconnect in your beliefs on this. To put it plainly, it is YOU who are some kind of spiritualist. Not really. I'm willing to discuss peoples different beliefs, if they want to. But I'm not foolish enough to argue pointlessly with someone on a silly topic. Sorry but on this one here, you're just not making much sense.

Nice... Lets blame the victim. By the way as I already stated I am not religious, not christian. But maybe you just don't get that. I completely disagree with your premise, that victims are to be blamed. Sometimes, maybe. But to say bad things simply won't happen to somebody, randomly, is foolish in my opinion. That is a gross simplification. Nice chatting with you though

The important question is, who has the better handicap?

Its an indisputable fact that criminality exists. There are people who go about intending to do harm to others, anyone they can because they are sociopaths. Random acts of violence occur, no matter how good a life you try to lead you could end up being victimized. It's a roll of the dice. Are you saying that, no matter what the circumstances the victims somehow deserve it?

I am not religious, nor do I mean a spiritual evil. Real 'evil' is encountering a person who no longer cares about the outcome of their actions. No amount of liberal tree hugger love will change what they would do to you. Then its either you take direct action against them, ie. a conflict, or you (and maybe your loved ones) WILL suffer. Thats the insidious nature of the "beast". No matter how peaceful, loving and considerate you may be, there are others who simply are not. Their world view is different than yours. So sometimes there has to be a need for fighting. In a sense, the greater evil would be to do nothing...

When I say "trust me", it means I have the bruises to show it Oh get a room

Real evil already exists, completely of its own accord. It needs no goading from us. When you come face to face with that evil, you can try to give it hugs and kisses. Good luck with that concept... I don't recommend it.

Don't be so sentimental. BC has no actual friends. only those he lets live... for now. I suspect he would bayonet you to death in one second, if given the order by his commander. Trust me

But Democrats smile more.