Dave_ON

I think to say the ship is sinking is an overstatement. Don't get me wrong all is not well in the LPC but I have confidence that some form of it will rise again; it has to. They were once upon a time the perfect middle ground between the NDP and the CPC. Having said that what is to be done in the mean time? The chances of the NDP moving to me are slim to none and it is far more likely that the CPC will move closer to my personal views. If only they'd distance themselves from the social conservatives in their ranks I could vote for them. However, the Toronto Pride/Diversite fiasco reminded me that social conservatism still holds far too much sway in that party. So I'm left in a lurch, I can't in good conscience vote for the NDP as they wish to socialize/nationalize far more than what I'm comfortable with but on the social issues I'm in relative agreement with them. The CPC are just about where I like them to be in terms of spending priorities but are about 30 years behind on social issues. The LPC is closest to where I like on most counts but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant due to a number of reasons. This makes me wonder if a vote for the LPC isn't about the same as a vote for the GPC. I think inevitably either the CPC will move to where the LPC once was or another party will be created to fill the gap between the CPC and the NDP.

Agreed I wasn't implying that the GPC was making strides among mainstream voters. Even their movement was within the 1.7% margin for error. I think that a lot of voters will poll green but vote one of the major 3, or 4 in PQ. GPC always polls higher then election results dictate. I guess a lot of people use them as an alternative to undecided.

92% I know nothing of BC politics and guessed at all of them. I agree with the Metis question being off. I also think the question about what the three industries that helped build the atlantic economy was wrong. Shipbuilding, Fishing and Forestry, should have been an answer, the bloody ships were made from trees. I digress.

Latest EKOS poll that is tacked on the end of an H1N1 Poll. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/11/ekos-poll.html No real movement all with in the margin of error. The only party with any real movement would be the Greens.

Honestly they deserved it. Tossing eggs at another individual is assualt and is not peaceful protest in the least. Fortunately for them neither of the royals were hit, if I'm not mistaken assaulting a royal is considered "alarming the Queen" which is prosecuted under the Treason section of the Criminal code of Canada. Whether they like it or not, Quebec is part of Canada and until such time as their independance is asserted they're subject to our federal laws. Protesting is one thing, resorting to the antics of a 12 year old is entirely another.

Thanks for the link KIS, I'm glad that more and more Doctors and other medical experts are finally starting to speak out about the overblown coverage of H1N1. Sadly the damage is done and there are many who are convinced that the world is going to end and won't beleive otherwise until the flu season passes.

They also know when we say "about" or "eh"

It turns out upon further research that English is the official language in about 27 states and has been so for several decades. One amusing exception was that for a short time the State of Illinois official language was changed from English to "American". I haven't been able to confirm the veracity of this as yet. I guess it would appear about half of America was "multi-cultural" Before Canadians even knew the word existed.

Of all the things not to define and enshrine this one seems odd. Clearly I was mistaken, it seems to me it comes up in congress with great regularity however, clearly it's failed so far. So if that's the case if I were an American citizen would I have the right to request goverment documents sent to me in a language other than English? Could I request court documents be printed in Spanish?

Indeed the term is exclusionary by it's very nature. Further it leaves out the umm invisible minorities (for lack of a better term) such as gays and unicorns.

You are quite correct that there is a great deal of multiculturalism in the US. But I still maintain that our approaches are vastly different. In Canada you do not need to give up your original, language, culture or community. You can exist in you bubble and never learn English, the national anthem, who the PM is, or have maple syrup on your pancakes (I find this last one to be particularly reprehensible) In the US you can't really function if you're not English speaking, there are many, many Spanish speaking individuals in the US but English remains their sole official language. Integration is expected. There are many other cultural groups in the US but those cultures adapt to fit into and integrate into the culture at large.

Former USSR, Former Yugoslavia Republic, China/Tibet to name a few. Also you missed a very obvious distinction in many of your comparison, namely language. The problem with the US and Canada, we both speak English, sure the 'mericans decided to get creative with their spelling but it's essentially the same. All true but hardly indicative of a national identity. We are a nation of regions, each suspicious of the other and each trying to make sure they get as big a piece of the pie as all the rest. Mutual benefit isn't the driving force, self interest is. Nations are born out of commonality; our founding commonality was mutual protection from the impending American threat to our sovereignty. That reason d’être has long since passed, what do we have left? This is a phrase that has always rung true for me, and really it's about the only thing we can all agree on.

I can’t say that I disagree with your fundamental premise. But I think that further serves to make my point about our fundamental differences. The very fact that this is all defined means by definition it is resistant to change, ergo progress. The upside of that is the rules are set, and everyone knows where they stand and a general inkling as to where they’re going, at least officially. Whether those definitions translate into actual practice is another matter entirely. Constitutional principles tend to ring hollow if not backed up by anecdotal evidence. The same is also true of the Canadian approach; the French word Laissez sounds remarkably close to the English word lazy. Are Canadians more culturally progressive out of principle or just because it’s easy? My thought is it’s the latter. The upside is less conflict, at least on the surface. The downside is it demonstrates a fundamental lack of direction and conviction that has led us to the identity crisis we have today.

Correct, timing really is everything when it comes to elections. Though barring an epic CPC disaster, the liklihood of a LPC minority is probably nil. I do find it interesting though that the more things change the more they stay the same. Doesn't appear as though we're going to get out of the minority rut any time in the near future.

I'm afraid you're wasting your breath (err typing skills) on wyly. You'll find him pugnacious and antagonistic and the conversation quickly devolves to such statements as "you suck". Be that as it may I would tend to agree with your basic premise that Canadians have more in common with Americans that we like to admit, with several caveats of course. We do embrace our British heritage; our country was founded in the interests of preserving our heritage and ties with the British Empire. Many American citizens who were loyal to the king fled to Canada so they could remain so. This is a fascinating point as if you look at it historically the American culture essentially began with “We’re not British”. They’re system of government, taxation, administration all of it quite “un-British”. Clearly they’re culture has grown since then however, it is interesting to note. As Canadians, we’re still stuck in the “what we aren’t” phase and have yet to move on to the “what we are” phase, if we ever actually do remains to be seen. So why then the cultural crisis? I feel it’s quite simple; we have unwittingly become far more “Americanized” than we care to admit yet we still insist on holding onto the notion that we’re more British than we are American. We need look no further than the programs we copy from the US, Canada’s next top model, Canadian Idol, etc. Slap some maple syrup on it and suddenly it’s Canadian. Honestly I think we’re at a cross roads, we’re caught between our history and our present cultural circumstance and we’re trying to figure out how to move forward. The American influence was inevitable given our close proximity, relations, shared media, trade etc. By the same token the British influence inevitably lessens with each generation we remain separate entities. However, I don’t think we can ignore our fundamental differences. For one we’re more socially progressive than Americans tend to be. This is due in large part to our different approaches to multi-culturalism; melting pot vs. mosaic. We also take ourselves significantly less seriously than they regard themselves. They feel the need to define, enshrine and categorize all manner of things. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; unless your Black or Gay or Cherokee of course. Canadians have a much more laissez faire approach to life, live and let live, no need to “make it official” just simply let it be.

Well it's a private member bill, it's really a free vote. This is what convention dictates at least. I'm just happy that I won't have to fund it with my tax dollars any more. Scrap it or start charging a registration fee I don't particularly care which.

Latest EKOS Poll, http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/04/ekos-poll-november.html It's interesting to note that we're pretty much back to where we were this time last year. As I expected the CPC jump in support was temporary and likely wouldn't make it to an election. A Majority eludes Mr. Harper yet again.

Trends in the southern hemisphere disagree and the death toll was substantially less than expected. While not a perfect model there is little reason to believe it would be different here, that is except the media has had time to whip everyone into frenzy. You seem to have missed THOSE stats there were posted on this very thread on several occasions. I believe you dismissed them as a “copy n’ paste”. I would suggest if you want people to take you seriously that you curtail the snide and flippant aspersions. I’m still waiting on you to quote me where I cited a blog or provided a link to one on this thread. The only links I have ever provided are from legitimate news sites that are quoting legitimate medical personal. Heretofore you’ve provided raw statistics from the CDC that has a small sample and very little data to go on to date. Nothing in the CDC report suggests there is any need to have the level of panic the media is inciting. What it does suggest is that this year’s “seasonal” flu is H1N1 and that due to heightened media awareness “reports” are up. The fact that is reported does not necessarily indicate that overall instances are up as not everyone who gets the flu reports it. I noticed you completely ignored the article on the CBC I posted that shows how divided the medical community is on the matter and that many of them believe that even without the vaccine, we would not be in dire straits or even in the vicinity of it. I think this quote sums it up nicely. But I suppose you'll accuse both of these doctors of not knowing what they're talking about and "pretending to be all mature sophisticated adults" I'm not pretending to keep calm, I am calm and with good reason. Considering that there is now a shortage of vaccine be it temporary or not it is highly unlikely that everyone or even the majority of the population will be vaccinated before we're smack dab in the middle of the flu season. Medical experts have come out stating that the vaccination isn't even necessary, yet the media chooses to focus on and sensationalize every bit of information that comes out about swine flu. That's causing undue panic, and given the shortage this will only be exacerbated. Even in the highly unlikely event that this does turn into a real emergency, panic will not solve the issue yet there are those that insist on whipping others into frenzy.

That's open to interpretation I suppose. I perceive as Harper trying to pander to two diametrically opposed groups. Keeping it panders to those who wanted it in the first place and he doesn't get the back lash of getting rid of a program many perceive as in the best interest of public safety. By keeping it but waiving the fees he's pandering to those who feel it's a tax grab by eliminating the fee. Sure they still have to go through the formalities but hey it's free no big deal. I think the excuse that the CPC's are in a minority and bereft of any amount of clout is running rather thin. We both know Mr. Harper will find a way if he wants to; even if he has to act like a Liberal to get it done.

Interesting you bring up the gun registry, now who was it that was going to scrap the gun registry? Who was it that rather than scrapping it has instead kept it going for 2 years and waived the fees? So now it doesn't even offset any of the costs to keep it running. Now it's a complete drain on the federal purse. Yes which government was that? The very same government you have complete and utter faith will do all the costing beforehand yet heretofore has done anything but.

Interesting article on the CBC. I think it demonstrates the obfuscation that is occuring in the media. Yes it's pandemic, but that only means it's widespread. That doesn't mean it's the end of the world and society as we know it. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/28/...ion-debate.html As I have maintained, it's just the flu with media hype.

I don't believe that stating we are not above the balance of nature and that humans often screw them up are mutually exclusive. That's however a different discussion. I agree with your statement that over use of a drug is a primary cause of drug resistant strains but you are incorrect to assert that vaccines do not prevent the spread. You personally may be immune but that doesn't mean you can't spread it to others. I suppose my basic premise is we’re not nearly as clever as we often think ourselves to be. How often have we inadvertently or intentionally introduced a species into an eco system that isn't prepared to handle it? Purple loosestrife is an excellent example of this, sure it's pretty but it's also devastating many of our wetlands. Kudzu is another plant example, zebra mussels, Russian wheat aphids are some other examples. Some are harmless; others thrive due to lack of natural predators and begin to overrun the native populations. Again this is vastly off topic but essentially what I was alluding to. I don't debate the benefit of vaccines for these illnesses, but we're not talking about polio, yellow fever or small pox. We're talking about the flu, nobody wants it, it's not fun to have it and those that are especially vulnerable or have other health concerns should definitely get vaccinated. However, I think that comparing the flu to particularly deadly diseases is unrealistic and all this media hype has the danger of inciting hysteria. Not entirely true, vaccination only protects the person it is given to. It's not possible to vaccinate every person in the world, and that's not to say that the disease won't jump species and come back again. You want the flu shot; by all means go for it. Our species survived for hundreds of thousands of years before the invention of vaccines, sure we didn't live as long but we still survived and each generation was stronger and more adapted than the last. Odd you perceive me as a threat to you. If you can't stand to have your perceptions or ideas challenged than why post them on a public forum where that is inevitable? Sadly there's no known vaccine against mass panic, media hype or hysteria, or is there?

It's not scepticism against modern medicine it's cynicism towards media coverage of an otherwise regular occurrence around the world. Panic and hysteria are never healthy, and do far more harm than good.

I did not say there was no danger, nor did I claim that the vaccine was a government plot. Lying and spreading misinformation really is a way of life for you isn't it? Please quote me exactly where I said it was a government plot and where I stated there was no danger. It’s clear that you're not actually reading my posts. Let me spell it out for you again. I specifically stated that the H1N1 is no more dangerous than the regular flu. You maintain that it is in spite of evidence and statistics that show it is not. Again this only proves you have no reliable sources as I suspected. I don't suppose you care to quote where I state, implied, inferred or otherwise alluded to the notions you are attributing to me? Because I don't blindly swallow the hype you seem so willing to doesn't mean I wish anyone harm. Critical thinking means you approach each and every situation with forethought, you base your decisions on facts and figures, not simply do as the media tells you or go as the masses go. No hype is making the mundane into something sensational. There are thousands of seasonal flu deaths every single year all over the globe and they don't get the level of media attention that the deaths from H1N1 have had. Why all the attention to H1N1, if it has proven heretofore to be no more virulent than the seasonal flu that is indeed hype.

You spread information that will produce undue panic, the flu is not yersinis pestis, stop speaking as if it is. In other words you have none. I don't follow denier blogs or any of that non sense, I use common sense and read statistics. The statistics show that H1N1 only gets more media coverage, it's not more deadly than the regular flu. You sir are a liar, it's hype if the media makes it out to be worse than it is. It's call making a mountain of a mole hill. I expect the media to give fair and balanced reporting, not hype a story to sell papers or get ratings.