Cartman

There does seem to be a problem here. I would like to know if federal cuts has led to increased truck traffic. A friend of mine in Manitoba said he was just waiting for a serious rail accident because they had insufficient time to monitor tracks like they used to. Scary for small towns.

I am just glad that our Liberal PM was retiring at the time and made the right decision. Black Dog was right when s/he said:

You guys are totally off base here and a little sensitive. August is pretending to be Parrish and Caesar is Bush. Wait, no, August is Parrish and MS is Bush and Caesar is Martin. Ahhh...neither really works...I will get back to you.

Stoker, I hope that the last message totally clears up any confusion you may have had 'cuz I know you are searching for a reason to vote for the NDP.

The governments of these nations? My understanding is that Iceland is the last area where the fishing is good and even they have suffered great losses. The trend is to go deeper and deeper.

Eureka, perhaps pensions will not make the news, but ballot destruction will, and it will not be tolerated in this hotly contested....contest. People will respect our authoriti! (no typo). http://calgary.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/...ot20041119.html

I am pretty sure that it did not go ahead Caesar but I cannot say with certainty. I will look into this. I still think that we gotta stop feeding animal products to other animals. It just invites problems in my opinion. If people are interested, David Suzuki's "Nature of Things" has a great program called "Apocalypse Cow: The Mad Cow Story" on Thursday , November 25, 2004, and Sunday, November 28, 2004. It is a great program.

You are right Eureka. I guess I should have been more specific though because I was thinking more along the lines of professors at universities who are a little more independent than gov't scientists (if they have tenure of course). This is why tenure is so important.

There has been some valid discussion about the NDP not releasing its agenda and I have to admit that as a life long NDP supporter, this may be a well founded criticism given current changes in many political parties. A brief recap is in order. Boring as they are, the NDP has remained relatively consistent in its political stance since conception. They are not like the BC Liberals who are actually right of the Progressive Conservatives and in no way similar to the federal Liberals of PET's Liberals who were left of the current federal Liberals who are right of the Alberta Liberals but similar to the current Ontario Liberals yet in no way like the Quebec Liberal leader who used to be a well known Conservative and ran for their leadership (the Progressive Conservatives, not the Conservatives). Or the current Conservatives who are right of the Progressive Conservatives but similar to the Alliance conservatives, yet again right of the original Progressives and the original Conservatives. Please keep in mind that they are also left of the Republicans (by "they" I mean the current Conservatives who are right of the Progressive Conservatives but similar to the Alliance conservatives, yet again right of the original Progressives and the originals Conservatives). Did anyone know that some former Progressive Conservatives did not join the current Conservatives? I wonder why? They are probably too conservative. (Oh no, I mean small "c" conservative unlike...ahhh f!ck...just forget it). :angry: The NDP stands by a philosophy that actually means something over time.

August, I have been thinking about your idea of ownership of the environment since you mentioned this a while back. Actually, I think it is an interesting idea. But, how are we to allot ownership of individual species that transcend national boundaries without resorting to international political agreements (like Kyoto)? I mean, corporations have almost decimated the east coast fish supply when it was clearly not in their interests to do so. They did not own the fish, but their profits depended upon their survival. Even if corporations own the land in which they operate, they will not care about the species that make use of this land because the corporations, not animals that inhabit the area, are considered to own the land. Is this not really the problem? Hugo, I was saying that governments are inclined to follow corporations into hell because they act at their behest. Corporations and the markets they generate are the problem. If they would listen to unionized scientists, there would be fewer problems.

I have a few choice Italian words for this little @$!hole. But, what do you expect from a guy who gained people's votes to do one thing (lead the PC's to victory and promise not to merge with the Alliance) and then do the exact opposite (abandon them in favour of a merger with the Alliance)? Then, he decided not to even run for the "new party"! MacKay is the lowest of the low; down there with Campbell and addicts. (Oops sorree, I am not responsible for any of this...this staiytment was preepaird bi a stoopid ethnick underleeng; a dum inferierr ).

The sad thing is that the problem will continue long after our current politicians have retired on their pensions. Remember, the pensions that they were initially going to refuse in the name of "fiscal conservatism"? Politicians like Klein will get their pensions and awards, maybe a library will be named after him.

I was born and partly raised in Ontario and I know ski hills there suck. But, when you mean "east", do you mean Ontario and Quebec or the east because I mean the east?

So uhmm yeah, we should listen to scientists because they are far less influenced by the all mighty dollar and we should stop listening to private corporations and governments that act on their behalf because they are more interested in profit.

I am no environmentalist as I have only read a few books on the topic. But, I do know a little about how scientific knowledge is generated, how data is accumulated and about scientists themselves. I can see why they are so frustrated and why many have given up. We keep going around and around on similar environmental topics over and over. A scientist or a group of scientists report(s) a serious problem only to be discredited and often threatened because they cannot "prove" their assertions and industry aided by lethargic government does not want to institute change especially when it is costly. So, the problem is noted but quickly forgotten. Years later when the problem becomes impossible to avoid because people die (smoking, tainted water, infected food etc, etc), scientists have to shake their heads and think "I told you so, it was obvious". I know some of these scientists personally. They are not nutbars or radical activists looking for ways to destroy industry and make life harder for the average person. They have dedicated their lives to saving other people's lives. Unfortunately, they are too often depicted as eccentric freaks living out their lives in labs, posing weak ideas and too willing to eradicate jobs or entire industries. We better wake up, smell the toast burning and be willing to accept change because it is coming whether we like it or not. Don't be so easily swayed by the depiction of "activist scientists" and forget about doing so-called "research" on the internet because all of the real science is found in peer reviewed journals.

To my knowledge, the first case of mad cow was identified in England in the mid-1980's. The British government insisted that everything was fine and continued to export infected cattle and feed around the globe including Canada. They also initially claimed that Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (CJD) in humans was not related to this problem. They said as much until other countries would no longer accept their meat products. All along, they claimed that they had an adequate tracing program when they did not. We know how this ended. Their industry was essentially destroyed and many of us probably recall how they had to destroy millions of cattle. We are doing the exact same thing here. We have rendered infected animals who have then been fed to other animals. Our industry initially claimed to have a perfect tracking program, but when pressed to locate the origins of these animals, the answer was muddled and quietly avoided. We claim that there was only one infected animal and it was from the US but we do not know this. Blood products and possibly infected feed are still given to some animals. The problem is not solved and scientists who complain are suspended when they "blow the whistle". I feel terrible for the decent ranchers negatively affected or destroyed by this problem, but it is a problem that we have helped perpetuate. Everywhere here, there are bumper stickers saying "I love Alberta beef" and "Back your beef", BBQ's to support the industry and ranchers have even sold meat out of trucks without gov't inspection because prices are so poor. We pretend that we are completely innocent and victims of unfair US trading practices or blame the feds for poor relations with the US. Some even blame Parrish for crying out loud. This has turned into a circus. The problem still exists and I suspect that it is just a matter of time before more cases of this and many other diseases are reported. What we need is stronger and transparent gov't regulation, whistle blower legislation and to stop injecting animals with hormone and feeding animal products to herbivores! The Canadian industry is mad and the global market irrational. But. to say as much in Alberta is to generate fury, so people just put their heads in the sand but the problem will not just go away that easily. This is not the end of this problem.

Look everyone has to clean up their acts on this issue. Stop trying to defend the industry at any cost and start to initiate rapid and strict changes. I still remember when Oprah showed people how US ranchers treat animals destined for food consumption. Rather than take the criticism as valid and alter their methods, they tried to sue her?! She ended up spanking them by bringing her entire show down there. Our politicians must change their attitutes too. Scientists critical of public policy should not just be suspended when they are right. If the Liberals had just listened to their union from the beginning when they made these criticisms, none of this would be happening right now. Remember that mad cow in Alberta? The one our minister said never went out for consumption? Well, it was rendered and will go back into the animal food chain and possibly back into our food chain. If they find another case or so, we are completely screwed as the entire industry will be gone.

I am not sure why people keep saying that it is so diffifcult to know which dogs to ban. It is very easy. Simple mathematics can be used to identify the breeds that are most likely to maul (statistically significant). Alternatively, maybe we should only allow the most placid dogs. I do not see any comparison between the right to own a dog and the right to walk safely down the street. Hey, I love dogs but this is a no brainer. As BBM says though, even a relatively pleasant dog can be made malicious if the owner makes it suffer enough. I know for a fact that some people just leave their dogs tied up and basically forget about them even if they do feed them. These people should be identified and prevented from owning any pet.

I cannot recall a more boring election in my entire life. Even the civic election stirred up more interest. Klein and the PC's are really conceited because it does not even seem like they are trying. The PC's will win easily, but they will do damage in terms of the popular vote and encourage the opposition to work harder. I suspect very low voter turnout.

Mind you NC, I would never have thought there would be ski hills in the east and I think it was you who left a link to one? This is an incredible country.

For example?

No! If the opposition does not call for a non-confidence vote, my theory will be proven when she does not go to the NDP, but sits as an independent and yet continues to vote in favour of government legislation.

You know MS, I believe in conspiracy theories. For example, this whole Parrish thing? Total bunk. After she received coverage for accidentally calling Bush a war monger etc. before the election, she and Martin hatched a plan to use this media coverage to their advantage in order to re-establish a Liberal majority government. By booting out Parrish for staged anti-Bush comments, the opposition is encouraged to call for a vote of non-confidence because the Libs look so weak. But in reality, Martin will actually be better off becasue he will look really cozy when Bush comes here at the end of the month. It totally nullifies Harpers' whining that Martin tolerates US bashing. Why else would a confirmed Martin supporter bash her own campaign and endlessly criticize the leader she publicly supported? Renegade? No way. Strategic planner? Absolutely! She was after all, a very strong Martin supporter not so long ago. http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vie...parrish20040609 Thought you would like that. Layton is in this too.

Wow. Any predictions where she will go?

I truly feel sorry for legit. ranchers that have been negatively affected by this whole affair, but we should stop blaming the Americans for this. I buy my meat from a small family ranch operation down the road because I trust them. I am not very confident about what is out there on the market. BSE is just one of several problems with this industry and if we spent more time regulating and less time whining, we could probably reassure more folks about the safety of the product. If you keep pumping crap into these animals, these things are inevitable and people will not want the product. I could be wrong, but I think we also have a similar policy (to the US) to ban such products when these problems emerge.