Gabriel

Seriously, folks... bjre just isn't worth talking to about these matters. He's so off-base it's not even funny.

And they DO have the opportunity. If a company wants to release a product for the a particular illness or condition, or to do something where there is some sort of medical claim attached, it must adhere to rigorous standards. If there are treatments and protocols in traditional Chinese medicine that have utility, proponents of the treatment of protocol are welcome to do the research and follow the steps necessary for the release of the product. The reality is, though, that there probably is few to no worthwhile treatments or protocols in Chinese medicine. It's mostly hocus pocus. People like bjre, on the other hand, would try to tell us otherwise. If anything, I find Canada too lenient with snake oil salespeople. I agree with bjre in one way, that we should just sue troublemakers. On the other hand, though, I have no problem with outright banning some liars and idiots who exploit the desperate and uninformed. From practitioners of witchcraft to scum like Kevin Trudeau. I guess the problem is - once you start banning some bullshit, where do you stop? Go to any Chapters and I'm certain at least half of the stuff in the 'health and wellness' section is questionable, at best.

This statement just further illustrates that you don't know what science really is. To compare science or modern medicine to 'religion' is absurd.

Hi bjre, In all seriousness, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your question, 'why new medicine still need to pass a lot of tests?' illustrates that you have no concept of what science is. If you're interested, do some research regarding the philosophy of science and the scientific method. Perhaps that will answer your question. Science is all about testing, and ongoing reviews and research as new information is learned. Traditional Chinese medicine DOES NOT subscribe to the scientific method. Please do no try to suggest that scientific philosophy is somehow fundamental to traditional Chinese medicine. I know this is a sensitive subject for you (I'm about 99.9% sure you're of Chinese origin), but I'm telling you the truth. Perhaps there are useful treatments for certain conditions/illnesses within traditional Chinese medicine. For those treatments that ARE useful, they can prove themselves in the scientific community and obtain legitimacy. Nobody is excluded from this community - if there are useful treatments out there, we want them! Spare me your hyperbolic statements that traditional Chinese medicine is somehow helping people more than modern medicine.

Allow me to clarify, to suggest that this is an "anti-rape" amendment is disingenuous. To further suggest that opponents of this bill are "pro-rape" or anything of the sort is also disingenuous. This is a fake controversy. It's Jon Stewart-esque. The OP is perpetuating this bullshit.

Sorry, but you've no idea what you're talking about. Suggesting that the methods through which traditional Chinese medicine maps out the body's components are representative of reality is simply not true. Please do not suggest that traditional Chinese medicine is some sort of alternative to our understanding of the electrical nerve impulses (or any other electrical idea). It is all hocus pocus voodoo magic. Take a look at the pharmacopoeia and see for yourself - it's mostly garbage. I can assure you you're getting into things you don't understand. Again, please don't suggest that the concept of the Chi is somehow rooted in truth via modern science's understanding of electrical nerve impulses. It's as real as astrology. You should also be aware that any medical treatment with utility can subject itself to peer review after studies are conducted. If there are medical treatments in traditional Chinese medicine that are worthwhile, they can prove themselves through research and review. Nobody is excluded from the scientific community.

Requiring an employee to go through internal processes DOES NOT prevent the employee from seeking resolution for some grievance through outside sources - i.e. the justice system. No company prevents its employees from pursuing justice through the justice system for on-the-job problems. The same rules requiring internal reporting apply to virtually every other bad thing within a company - i.e. reporting internal theft, reporting employees who arenot adhering to safety protocols, etc. So my statement remains the same, this is a fake story promoted by some democrats in order to appease some of its extremist base. people who hate national defense, in general, or people who hate Halliburton.

In all seriousness, this story is as dumb as the Obama birth certificate scandal. Republicans aren't supporting rape, they're just opposing a stupid 'revenge' bill that seeks to ban future business dealings with a very important and reputable contractor. A bad story that occurred involving employees of a particular company in no way justifies removal of the company from future consideration of contracts that it can potentially fulfil. If I drive drunk and smash into a kid, should my entire firm be punished for my negligence? Get real, punked.

Health Canada has been regulating "Chinese medicine" for years. It's under the responsibility of the Natural Health Product Directorate. In order to legally sell a product that falls under the umbrella of traditional medicine (which is primarily "Chinese medicine"), a producer/manufacturer must apply for a license from NHPD, which involves submitting data about the product, claims made to its purposes, etc. bjre - I assume you're opposed to regulation of this industry. I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't think we need big brother in this sphere of our lives. Generally speaking, "Chinese medicine" is largely fantasy. I see government involvement in this sphere as similar to government regulation of psychics. Can you imagine is there was some federal governing body that oversaw the psychic industry? Talk about silliness. I also think you're wrong to assume that the motivations behind regulating this industry are to maximize profits for hospitals. You're confusing too many things, here. Regulation of traditional medicine (although largely useless) doesn't enhance revenues for hospitals, which are on the public dime, anyways. What you're implying doesn't make any sense. At the end of the day, without strict enforcement of these regulations, you can still go to your local China-town and buy whatever it is you buy to get a natural erection - some sort of seaweed or exotic shellfish? :-)

Thanks for that link smallc, I think I stand corrected. If those links are accurate (and they look like they are), then I've been wrong for a very long time about this issue. It would be interesting, however, to find information regarding the volume of revenue that all levels of Canadian government pull in through licensing fees, penalties, etc. I'd also like more and more and more details from the links you sourced, but I'll take them at face value for now. For more context, though, we should analyze previous years debt-financing. In other words, for a really accurate analysis of the portion of GDP comprised from government spending, we also need to look at years where the government borrowed beyond its means. How many years were we in surplus? Again, thanks for the link. I've been busy lately (and lazy), but I want to find more information regarding this matter - I find it interesting.

Hi Keepitsimple, Thanks for posting this. I remember Irwin Cotler being on CBC (I am generally prejudiced against left-leaning Jewish politicians) defending Canada's decision to remain at the anti-semitic Durban conference. This was in response to a recent series of mailings from the CPC to Jewish constituents which implied that the Liberal Party is weak in its opposition to anti-semitism and weak in its support for Israel. I agree with the CPC's suggestions - the Liberal Party is weak in this regard. I remember Cotler claiming that Israel had asked Canada to stay at the conference - which I found hard to believe. Thanks for exposing this shill for his lies. I can't stand when Jewish politicians (definitely more than half of them in Canada and the USA) sell out Israel for their own left-wing politics. Rather than tell the truth about his party's errors and showing integrity (by perhaps promising to improve itself going forward), he lied about what happened in order to defend his party at the expense of more important principles. Shameful. Although I would never suggest that my being Jewish permits me to denigrate Jews, I am generally leery of North American Jewish politicians. Even in Canada, Jews historically vote strongly for the Liberal Party, beyond the national average. It's really sad. It looks like Harper is effectively changing this trend. Just for anecdote's sake, we can contrast the Liberal party's decision to have Canadian representation at the anti-semitic Durban conference, enhancing its legitimacy, to the CPC's decision to walk out of Ahmedinejad's latest anti-semitic, anti-Zionist, Holocaust-denying tirade at the UN. That's just one example of how the CPC is a stronger supporter of Israel than the Liberals.

Hi Smallc, I'm unable to cite proof right now, but I guarantee you that information is incorrect (which is disappointing considering it's a link to The Heritage Foundation). I may have overestimated government spending as a share of GDP in my original post (saying it was over 50%), but I guarantee you it's very close to 50%. When taking into consideration federal and provincial income taxes, specific duties and taxes on other goods (i.e. gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, imports), penalties and fines, municipal taxes (i.e. property taxes), sales taxes, and other service fees (i.e. licensing, etc), the government pulls in WAY more money than that estimate indicates. Back in 2001 it was over 40% (I remember speaking to two economics professors about this), it's only grown since then. I'll come back with more reputable information soon. Here's a good general rule about Wikipedia - it is unreliable for complex issues that require a lot of thought :-). Calculating government spending as a share of GDP is not the easiest thing to do, it is a research-heavy endeavour. Obviously it isn't easy to get all the relevant figures for all the relevant information. I'll come back later after I find some reliable sources. Michael Hardner - I'd advise against posting the Heritage Foundation ranking of countries as accurate, as I'm certain they're missing many sources of government revenue and underestimating the total spending of the government.

Not really. Government spending in Canada still composes over 50% of our GDP, which is insanity. In America, I think it's around 35 (which is also insanely high). This is the untold travesty of government encroachment. As you can see by naomi's post, there are no shortage of Canadians who wish to grow the government pie even more. Probably because people like her lack practical skills in the real world, they can only have a "career" doing "research" for the government on meaningless endeavours. As I type this out I'm reminded by a point made in Fareed Zakaria's book "The Post American World" regarding how America (and by extension Canada) needs to mobilize more of its university students towards REAL programs, like engineering, science, mathematics, physics, etc. More phony degrees = more future Liberal and NDP votes, if you ask me. I think what you describe as major victories for the right are small - the new citizenship guide, for instance? Slightly tougher young-offender legislation? Recent movements to review foreign criminals' eligibility for return to Canada? These are common sense ideas, and look how much resistance they meet. We've probably got more battered women's shelters than engineering firms in this country I'm exaggerating with the last statement, but it is sickening how many fake organizations we have in this country where people are clearly unable to provide real value and seek government support for wishy washy endeavours. Remember what I said earlier, we are a country that tolerates a separatist party. We are a country that recognizes as a separate nation Quebec and First Nations. We are a country that hands out "life sentences" to serial killers, child molesters, and rapists (no eligibility of parole for 25 years), we are also very weak on white collar crime (government AND business), we are a country that taxes up to approximately 55% of income tax (plus other service taxes and duties), we are a country that bails out failing industries with an allegedly 'conservative' government, etc, etc, etc.... this country is LEFT.

What in the world are you talking about? Do you even read the articles you link? How do allegations of prisoner mistreatment and murder and an inquiry into the planning of the military operations in Iraq with respect to validity and resources result in Blair doing "serious time"? You are hilarious, I'll give you that.

How is this news? The free world has been concerned about Saddam's regime for decades. To try to paint this as some sort of shocking revelation (this story is "new" for a few days, now) is pure hilarity. Thanks for the laughs.

Definitely. On the spectrum of reason and pragmatism, Canada's on the left.

They've converged on the left.

In reference to where they should be, our parties, and specifically our people, are LEFT LEFT LEFT. See above for examples of leftist lunacy in Canada.

My local rabbi once told me something about charity that I hope I can articulate here. It went along the lines of a good deed is a good deed is a good deed. For example, if you accidentally lose a bill on the street and it is found by a person in need, you have fulfilled a righteous obligation of charity (tzedaka). So although the intent wasn't the there, the act itself still has an outcome, and therefore has meaning. it may not be the full power of consciously giving, but there is still an effect via the outcome. Kind of like the difference between murder and manslaughter. There is responsibility and significance to the act, although the intent varies between the two cases. There is still responsibility and ownership in both cases. The same applies to righteous acts. What's my point? Well, msj, if you want to do a good deed it's a good deed regardless of how 'worthy' we may deem the recipient. I don't think there's any doubt that this family that undergone serious hardship (emotionally and financially), and perhaps could benefit from help. If you want to extend assistance to this family, then you are engaging in a righteous act. I would never criticize someone's good deeds. With respect to the responsibility of Amanda Lindhout for her own circumstances, there is no debating that she and her partner behaved wholly irresponsibly. To young persons who I'm certain had NO experience in necessary skills to be safe in dangerous environment embarked on a dangerous endeavour. A responsible person would not go to Somalia to do 'freelance reporting' without proper preparations. Journalists who belong to reputable companies are under severe risk, and they have much more support available to them (bodyguards, contacts, training, etc). These two who got kidnapped are two kids who went on a stupid adventure, and they suffered greatly as a results of their irresponsibility. They also caused great pain to their loved ones and possibly even grief for their countries, assuming there are some sort of diplomatic operation in effect behind the scenes. That being said, I can still sympathize with fools. Just because these two did something unbelievably stupid doesn't mean I can't be horrified at what they went through and relieved that they are now ok. I can only hope that these two will take ownership of their gross negligence and apologize for being so negligent (going to a dangerous place completely unprepared) and causing so much grief to others. It's as wyly in here has already said, we are responsible for our own circumstances to a reasonable degree. A reasonable 20-some-year-old who knows nothing about being in a dangerous environment DOES NOT go to a dangerous environment unprepared. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. I wonder what degree of support or resistance she encountered from her loved ones. Her and her partner's behaviour is akin to any other manner of stupid behaviour, i.e walking through a dangerous part of town at night. Anyways, it's still righteous of msj to donate to the families of the victims if there is a way to do so.

Language evolves over time. It's a safe bet to assume that in common discourse, like in an online political discussion forum, that these terms are being used in a contemporary context. Given the 'mercantilism vs. laissez-faire' debate (I'm unfamiliar with it, I would've thought those two terms were largely synonymous), if anything, one would preface such a discussion with something along the lines of, 'from a classical or academic understanding of left and right...' In other words, I think it's safe bet to assume that the default intended meanings behind common use of the terms 'left' and 'right' are contemporary. Unless otherwise stated, academic and classical understandings of these terms don't really apply to common dialogue.

From what I've seen of Naomi Klein (interviews, op-eds, etc), she seems pretty ridiculous on several issues. I remember seeing her name on the list to boycott the latest Toronto Film Festival due to its focus on Tel Aviv. It's unsurprising that you're a huge fan of hers.

Explain to me what 'afro-centric' means, please. Then please explain how it is more beneficial for students to study there than at conventional schools. Should these schools be publically funded?

If you understood what type of people I'm describing when using the term 'emotional leftist', then how is it an archaic term? You understood what I was trying to convey, right? I didn't interpret the OP as suggesting that the terms 'left' and 'right' are archaic, rather than they aren't without their weaknesses. With that I wholeheartedly agree. I disagree with your suggestion that the terms are archaic, however, as they have their place in certain discourse. With respect to context, the terms evolve over time and in different cultures and societies. At a national level, a liberal in Canada is different than a liberal in the USA. Same goes for conservatism. I'll repeat what I said to the OP, in the situation where one might honestly be confused about what is being implied by the use of the term 'left' or 'right', just ask for clarification. I think more often than not, the idea intended by the speaker/writer is conveyed relatively well to the listener/reader. Bottom line - the terms 'left' and 'right' aren't without their limitations, but they're not useless, either.

I think many Canadians are left-left-left. Look at our political composition - we have a Conservative party that bails out failing industries (an emotional leftist move to buy votes), and the remainder of the parties (who hold about 65% of the voters' support, cumulatively) are even further left than that. We've got a socialist party masquerading as something else under the name NDP that seeks to nationalize everything and destroy our economy (with significant support!) We even have a party with strong representation on the national level that is sworn to the destruction of our federation - the Bloc Quebecois. Can you imagine a Texan-independence party? Only an emotional and non-pragmatic country would tolerate these types of things. I am very comfortable labelling Canada and Canadians, generally speaking, as emotional leftists. Only Canada, as advanced as we are, would tolerate such absurdities.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I urge you to reconsider, just for a moment, how you're phrasing this. How is someone "forced" to be free? How is someone "forced" to have more political power? To use the term "force" when describing positive values is strange and makes little sense. Let's put some context here, with respect to Afghanistan. It's inaccurate to simple state that we're "forcing" our ways of life onto Afghanistan. Do I really need to list off the various ways through with our forces and our allies are cooperating with the Aghans? I'm no expert on the theatre of war in Afghanistan, but I do now there are serious collaborations occurring between Afghanistan and the West. Whether it be the somewhat recurring news stories about training Afghan security forces, to the not-so-popular news stories of diplomatic involvement - i.e. consultants advising new Afghan governmental officials on how to develop the political infrastructure. There is a ton of cooperation going on working towards the development of hard and soft infrastructure. So again, we're not "forcing" it on these people, we're working with groups of them to help develop their country. Who knows how long it will take? It certainly will not be a cakewalk. Assuming it does work out for the better over the long haul, history will redeem this military and political endeavour. I agree that the basics must be met before more complex tasks are undertaken. Security, for example. This is why I support a systematic annihilation of the Taliban and similar terrorist groups. Although collateral damage will of course result, it's definitely for the greater good. There's no compromising with animals. I am no expert on the Afghan people, but the optimist in me wants to believe that a majority of Afghans WANT freedom and WANT democracy and WANT the things that make the West superior to the rest of the world. If you even try to respond to this last statement by labelling me as ethnocentric or arrogant I will be forced to label you a naive leftist. There isn't any doubt that on the whole, the values of the West are the root of our unquestionable superiority (morally, economically, technologically, etc) over the rest of the world. Please don't try to debate this obvious reality. Well, hopefully the able Afghans will step up and do their part (I'm under the impression that many of them ARE doing their part) towards making this dream a reality. I'll continue to use those terms as I see fit. I don't use them irresponsibly. There is no shortage of extremists and terrorist supporters among us. Wherever I go, whether it be here, other websites (i.e. CBC comments), friends of mine, work, the gym, etc, I encounter many extremist views.