kimmy

That sounds fun. Grab your Doritos and come on along! Seriously, though, is there any merit to this? While shopping the other day I chanced upon a pair of jeans made from hemp fibre. The cloth is utterly superb and I bet that if harvesting cannabis were legal in Canada, a hemp textiles industry could be quite viable. The plant, after all, grows very readily in Canada's climate, unlike cotton. And unlike cotton, pesticides are not necessary in growing cannabis. -kimmy

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you are, I guess all I can say is "oh well." I went at it piece by piece because I felt each piece was shoddy enough to deserve a specific response. If you feel you've been treated unfairly, there are certainly forums where everybody has the same views and spend all their time congratulating each other for them; such a place might be more to your liking if all you're interested in is receiving applause. But really, if your views can't even stand up to scrutiny from Kimmy, what value do they have? -kimmy

No, we don't but we do look at politicians lying to us and endangering the world for revenge or oil. (am I the only one who laughed out loud reading this?) -kimmy

I have to agree with the old people, Jerry. It does sound like an excellent assignment. Was it invented by the provincial education ministry, or was it decided on by local schoolboards? Either way, it's a very interesting idea. It sounds kind of like those "work experience" courses that the dumb-kids take for credit in high-school, except in this instance, citizenship is the job for which you'll be getting work experience. I will mention that during my brief residence in Victoria, I volunteered once at the soup-kitchen just off Pandora. I think it's called the Upper Room or something like that. It was not fun, and I'm not exactly sure I would call it "rewarding", but I do feel it was important. I learned something that I would not have learned in a classroom. Exercise is also of great benefit to you, though I'm not exactly sure how it fits within the curriculum of a social studies program. You do learn something about yourself during exercise. I used to run a 10k 3 times a week, and a half-marathon every Sunday... and I had believed that maybe with some training I could perhaps win an athletics scholarship, compete nationally or internationally, travel, see the world, whatever. Initially I found that 42 minutes was a time I could achieve without difficulty in the 10k... and what I learned was that for each minute I wanted to cut off of that, I had to work twice as hard. I finally cracked 36 minutes, and found that doing so was so difficult and physically grueling that I knew that there was no chance I would ever gain the additional 4-6 minutes or so that I would need to have any chance of being a competitive runner. So, I did learn something from it, and while it's of dubious academic interest, I think what I've just written could be the outline of a report that I could put in a portfolio. Discovering and expanding your physical limits will teach you something about yourself. If you're already involved in hockey or baseball or soccer, or running or weights or cycling, or rollerblading or ping-pong or basketball (etc) then start keeping a training diary. If you're not involved in anything for which you could keep a training diary, then good grief get off the computer and start doing something. -kimmy

Not like Harper's critics on this forum have been holding back -kimmy

Hmmm... I wouldn't want to bet the farm that a detonation couldn't happen, I believe I have read that intense heat is enough to 'cook' a warhead to detonation. What is your source for this information? If you can point me to someone more credible than CanadaR0X0RS4life @ Rabble.ca I would be very interested to read it. Please get back to me on this. In the meantime I will go to the engineers in my life and discuss it with them; they will draw up a few pages of statistical mechanics that demonstrate that even under ideal controlled conditions, heating is unlikely to generate the extreme kinetic energy necessary to cause a fission reaction, and that such a thing happening during an instantaneous impact with an interceptor missile is a virtual impossibility. Given the alternative? Sure. Particularly since I'm not relying on CanadaR0X0RS4life @ Rabble for my scientific information. With that being the case, you'd most likely agree that a cloud of radioactive ash resulting from a nuclear detonation just a short drive from Toronto would be a much greater hazard than some chunks of retrievable radioactive solids landing somewhere in the sparcely populated regions of Canada's north. Yes? So you're arguing that this scenario you've dreamed up is unlikely to happen in any event? -kimmy

You know what, eureka? It really doesn't matter. People will go on about their business contributing to the potential of the country regardless of whether they're an avid nationalist, an avid separatist, in between, or indifferent. People will work for their own betterment; that's how the country's potential is realized, and it will make no difference to the country's well being whether my signiture says "Proud to be an Albertan" or "Proud to be a Canadian." I'll be watching for it. -kimmy

Do you understand that intercepting a nuclear warhead will NOT cause a nuclear detonation? Shooting down a nuclear warhead over Canada will result in a relatively modest quantity of radioactive solids raining down onto Canadian soil. Horror- a crew of geeks from Atomic Energy Canada might have to drive around for a few weeks with Geiger Counters to get that sorted out. Take a moment to consider the chaos a nuclear weapon detonating on the US northeastern seaboard will cause within Canada (not to mention the potentially enormous loss of life south of the border.) -kimmy

(you're trying to get people to start saying "Eureka!", aren't you ) For the sake of argument, couldn't Canada be considered an artificial union? After all, 2 of the 10 provinces (PEI and BC) joined the union expressly because they needed cash... it doesn't get much more artificial than that, does it? Is the acquisition of Quebec during a long-ago military conquest not also a somewhat artificial union? I have read the contention that among the prime motivating factors for confederation was the fear of American military aggression... a union more out of necessity or fear than anything positive. And later in your message, which I won't quote in its entirety, you say that Canada is held together only by the residual powers, which only Trudeau had the stones to use... does that not also sound like a somewhat artificial basis for a nation? I do not necessarily claim that Canada IS an artificial union... but I ask: if it's not artificial, then what is it that makes it "real"? Aside from a shared need for cash, a shared fear of US aggression, and a rickety constitution, what are these common threads that are supposed to bind us together? I have never really heard a satisfactory answer to that question; even the most avid nationalists tend to start talking about social programs, hockey, natural spaces, and beer. My knowledge of Wales is not strong, I don't know what powers their new national assembly has. However, I think it is noteworthy that they now have a national assembly, after 700+ years of direct rule from England. And I think it is noteworthy that after the near abandonment of Cymraeg during the 20th century, 20% of Welsh can now speak it. Just as with Yorkshire, I think it is evidence that people not only find local distinctions important, they actually desire them, they crave a unique identity. Again, sorry to keep repeating myself, I think there is much more to this than yourself and The Sweal wish to acknowledge. I think that while you two focus on legalism, the real issue is fundamental human psychology. And again, I contend that even without any provincial government at all, regionalism and resentment of the federal government's central power-base will exist; there will still be a "we" and a "they". See my previous message for details. -kimmy

Canada's an exception? Looking around the world, I see the opposite... Czecheslovakia is now Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Yugoslavia used to be one nation, now it's ... several. The Soviet Union used to be one nation, now it's a score of them. I've read that Wales has within the past few years been given its own National Assembly; more people speak Welsh today than did 50 years ago. I don't see Canada being an exception to what happens in other countries where diverse regions have been united out of convenience. That all Canada's regional friction is due to "demogogues" like Klein is another thing I doubt. Regionalism in Canada goes back further than Klein, the NEP, Rene Levesque, or any other convenient scapegoat that might be offered up. Nor, I believe, does resource revenue and division of powers play as large a role as you wish to believe. Before Alberta was the richest province, Alberta was the poorest; there was still intense resentment and mistrust of "the East"... particularly eastern politicians and eastern bankers. Consider the recent conflict between Newfoundland and the federal government for a fresher example. I have read in Toronto newspapers the opinion that Williams was grandstanding to improve his political support at home. That might be true in part, but why does this work? Imagine how it would have played out had their been no provinces at all. Suppose this person "Williams" is not premier but just a local "demogogue." Think his message will still resonate with the people in his region? It sure will. There's still a "we" and a "they". Here's Danny's new speech: No provinces, yet still a "we" and a "they". It's unavoidable in a country like Canada where there's such vast distances and such a huge disparity in political representation. People outside the center will always suspect that the federal government is focused on the vote-rich triangle. Leaving aside the other factors, regionalism in Canada is still an unavoidable consequence of simple geographic and demographic factors. -kimmy

While she apparently didn't actually do anything in this latest instance, she's still at the root of it. First as it is her notorious spending that prompted the comment, and secondly that her staff apparently has developed some kind of seige mentality in response to all the criticism. -kimmy

I think that most people here would disagree that they (or Canadians in general) hate Americans. I expect you'll get a lot of challenges to that claim; I'll leave it to others. I think the recent American election illustrated that there's quite a divide in that country, and Canadians in general feel a lot of support towards the "Blue State People". I think that the amount of support shown to Americans on one side of that political does show that Canadians (as a group) don't hate Americans but rather oppose the ideology of the other side of that divide. I do think that many Canadians feel a sense of superiority to Americans, but that's different from hate. We all know of Rick Mercer's experiences "Talking to Americans"; I'll mention my own. In my former position as a technical support agent, my job consisted of more or less talking to Americans for 8+ hours a day. Most people that I talked to were very nice; some of them had odd notions about Canada's weather ("Whoa, must be cold there!" in July, etc) but other than that I didn't encounter the sort of gross ignorance which some believe runs rampant among Americans. Several mentioned Canada's healthcare system as something they wanted in America. A few did indeed tell me that they wanted to move to Canada if Bush was re-elected. (I've not held that job since the election, so I can't report on what their reaction has been since.) As generalizations go, I'd mention that I found that often the nicest people I talked to were from the "Red States"-- particularly the Deep South, Texas, the Midwest. Florida callers in particular were most often very pleasant to deal with. On the other hand, many of the least pleasant people I dealt with were from the northeast, particularly New York City. I often found them combative and impatient. I attribute it to environmental stresses, not any political ideology. West coasters were also often easy-going and easy to deal with, though not generally as gregarious as the southerners. That's my experience with Americans in a nutshell. I mention it by way of pointing out that the red/blue political map represents many many real people, and that the southerners and midwest people, despite their general "Red State" tendancies, are in my experience some of the nicest people you could hope to deal with. -kimmy

I don't mean to downplay the significance of those two departments, Eureka. It might be an important issue, but I doubt it is a "hot button" issue for Canadians of any political stripe. It appears to be primarily an administrative issue. Which, most likely, is why the Conservatives picked this particular vote to defeat-- there's likely much less chance of it coming back to haunt them in the form of campaign rhetoric. "The Conservatives defeated a bill that would have split Trade and Foreign Affairs into two different departments!!" is not likely to score points on the campaign trail; "The Conservatives defeated a bill that would have provided more benefits to seniors!" or "The Conservatives defeated a bill that would have provided tougher regulation of kiddie porn!" could have been tremendously effective campaign material. In hindsight it only makes sense that the opposition parties would pick a vote of little interest to most Canadians. This article provides more background on the issue. While it initially appeared as nothing more than sabre rattling, there does appear to have been some discussion between Foreign Affairs critic Day, Trade critic Stronach, and Harper on how to proceed on the vote. http://politicswatch.com/house2-feb16-2005.htm The Conservatives claim that the Liberals have provided no rationale for separating the departments, and suggest that people in the departments are opposed to it. The Liberals say this has been in the works for a year, will continue, and that legislation will eventually be passed to reflect the administrative changes already being made; they dismiss the Conservatives defeat of their bill as playing games of power-politics. -kimmy

CBC: details I'm puzzled. Is splitting International Trade and Foreign Affairs into separate ministries something that the opposition parties feel their constituents are deeply concerned about? I'm kind of guessing no; I kind of doubt anybody outside the civil service would notice much change either way. The article says Conservatives voted against the bill in protest of the Liberals taking too long to table the results of a foreign policy review. Be that as it may, this isn't exactly what everybody promised on election night. All the parties talked about a spirit of cooperation to make the parliament work for Canadians. Doesn't exactly sound like that happened in this instance. This sounds like a complete breakdown of cooperation. -kimmy

Well, to borrow a page from Sweal's book, I must first ask what makes "Yorkshireman" an identity? Isn't he just an Englishman? Why does he think he's any different from somebody from Manchester? Are there rostrums involved? Why would these people take pride in being from Yorkshire? Not that I have any doubt that what you say is true; I'm certain that it is: I'm just interested in your opinion of *why* there's a Yorkshire identity. And of course they view themselves as English most of all. They have centuries upon centuries of common history and they're geographically close. They've got great national institutions like the Royal Family, military conquest, and football riots to build this sense of a collective whole. How could they not feel a tremendous sense of nationhood? We in Canada... don't have those things going for us to nearly the same extent. Our collective history is decades old and contains little to inspire the heart. We're spread across geographical distances so vast that most Canadians have little opportunity to experience other parts of the country. And our national institutions often seem to do more to divide us than unite us. -kimmy

I'm more interested in the idea of identity than pride, Sweal; that seems to be where the source of our disagreement is. What, to your way of thinking, makes "Canadian" and "Quebecer" identities? Why doesn't "Albertan" cut it, in your view? eureka now mentions that the people of Yorkshire county in England have intense pride as an identity within England; it's a miniscule piece of land by Canadian standards, there's no geological isolation worth mentioning, they're all of common stock, and they've been English for centuries upon centuries... so why would there be a Yorkshire identity at all? Why would there be pride of county, as eureka testifies to? Surely there is more to this business of identity than you're acknowledging. I'm lots of things... Albertan, Canadian, high-school graduate, one-time elementary school spelling-bee winner, fair-haired person, licenced motor vehicle operator, and many others. And while they're all part of who I am to some degree, they're not of equal importance to what I feel when I think about who I am. Believe it or not I do take some pride in being Canadian; for all its flaws it's still a much better country than most. If I was called upon or needed to serve Canada in some way I'd certainly do so, as a proud Albertan should. Caring for the health of the whole organism is the most important thing for the liver and spleen and kidneys alike. Of course people in other parts of Canada can take pride in the same kinds of things. But what's my connection to them? What's their connection to me? Only that all of us exist within a larger administrative district called Canada. As you mentioned earlier, an administrative district is a pretty lousy basis for an identity. Not prideworthy, but further to the point of identity. What is there for me to connect with in fighting the Americans in 1812, for instance; that was long before any of my ancestors ever set foot in North America. Likewise; why would residents of Newfoundland or La Belle Province take any pride in the settlement of northern Alberta; aside from contributing tax dollars to the fledgling province, they had nothing to do with it and I doubt it's of any personal consequence to them. As a nation, Canada doesn't really have a whole lot of common history to bind us together. A lot of what perhaps older Canada views as "our history" is to me not the basis of an identity that I feel part of. It's the history of an administrative district, which later expanded to encompass the land on which I reside. See above. That's such complete sullshit. Seriously, it never occured to me that you meant "nostrum". I had only the foggiest recollection of nostrum being a word; until this thread I had probably only heard it used in "Mare Nostrum". "Rostrum", on the other hand, I've encountered just this winter in the neuroanatomy course I'm attending: the rostrum is an area of the corpus callosum, named for a visual resemblence to a beak. (rostrum- latin: beak.) "Empty rostrums" ... "empty beaks"? Shut your beak? "Empty mouthings"? It sounds almost like it makes sense. Intrigued, I researched further. A rostrum is also a pulpit or dais: the ancient Romans decorated speaking platforms with the rostrums (prows or beaks) of captured enemy warships. "Empty rostrums" ... empty beaks? empty pulpits? I assumed you meant rostrum to mean something that would come from a pulpit-- "empty rostrums" ... "empty preachings". As typos go, it's an interesting one. Always interested in learning new things, I turn my attention to "nostrum". From Mare Nostrum-- "Our Sea", I'd have assumed nostrum to be used in a sense of possessiveness... "empty nostrums" -- empty claims of ownership? ...or in the sense of "nos" -- "we"? "Empty nostrums" ...empty sense of belonging? But a quick check of the dictionary indicates that in current usage a "nostrum" is a home remedy or quack medicine. I gather that quack medicine is closer to what you intended? I actually kind of liked "rostrums" better. -kimmy

Again, underneath all the verbiage and posturing, it's the same argument: "Bush must be insane, just look at all the suffering he has caused!" So again, I ask whether any world leader who has employed military force is by definition a psychopath, or if that diagnosis only applies when we disagree with the cause for which the military force has been employed? -kimmy

Thanks, Tawasakm! It's always nice to hear that my rostrums are appreciated! Incidently, I accidently stumbled across something the other day that I thought was somewhat related to this thread: A Canadian reader might assume that this is in reference to Edmonton or Calgary; in fact it was written in regard to Perth, Australia! -kimmy

Really? In that case it goes from being a flippant, evasive dodge to being flat-out non-sequitur. Golly! I believe I indicated that you didn't understand me, as remains evidently the case. Evidently. I've given you repeated requests for clarification, and repeatedly been ignored. In response to August's comment that Canada itself is just an administrative district and therefore presumably nothing to be proud of either, you replied: I asked for clarification on why Quebec, in particular, was a collective entity worthy of being proud of, and you replied: I've asked several times about whether that applies to other distinct entities that predate Canada, such as BC, and have received no answer at all. It goes without saying that I have no idea what you mean; the burning question seems to be whether YOU have any idea what you mean. Perhaps. But certainly repetitively, and usually accompanied by a put-down of some selected untermenschen du jour. Put-down? Hey, I did say I was "moderately pleased" to be Canadian. It's highly serviceable superstructure. What higher praise could there be? All histories are 'distinct'. Some 'identities' are illusory. Some pride is warranted, some is not. I've stated in this thread several times that I feel that the ethnic diversity of the prairie settlers, their much more recent arrival in Canada, and their arrival in virtually unsettled parts of Canada marks us as distinct from the rest of the liver. You clearly feel that this is wrong, but have done nothing to explain why. I again ask for more explanation of what you think makes an identity, with a particular eye to why you think "Quebecer" and "Canadian" are identities, but "Albertan" isn't. Silly me; I'm sure that anybody would have known you meant to say 'nostrum'. Can't imagine what I was thinking. I invite you to re-read my stories earlier in this thread about my grandparents. -kimmy

I'll take that as a vote for "more money to social programs". That's a perfectly valid viewpoint. However, as a nation we've collectively decided that we do place a value on participating in the international community, through peacekeeping, foreign aid, participating in disaster relief, and military commitments to our allies. Money will continue to be spent to support those objectives, even if "women and children are being thrown out into the street" here at home. -kimmy

As I already mentioned, no. First off, "scamp" is most commonly used in the sense of an impish or playful, just as rascal. In context, "it's impossible not to like Guite... he's a charming scamp," it certainly sounds like this is the sense Gomery intends. I am sure that the mighty Plymouth Scamp automobile (which my parents used to drive ) was named with an eye towards the idea of playfulness and fun, not tendancy towards criminal activity (it would have made a rather lousy get-away car, in my recollection.) I'm sure that when people name their dogs Scamp or Rascal, they have the same notion. I'm sure that likewise, the "li'l Rascals" TV program was named for playful impish fun, not criminal behavior. I don't recall ever hearing scamp being used as an accusation of criminal behavior. While "rogue" can be used in the same sense as scamp or rascal, it is most commonly used in the sense of a renegade or outlaw (rogue state, rogue elephant, rogue cop, etc) and has more menacing connotation that scamp lacks; I feel you've included it here to boost your argument rather than because you honestly feel it was applicable. Secondly, whether "scamp" was just a description of Guite's demeanor or was indeed an attack on Guite's character, it doesn't particularly matter. Guite had already testified. Gomery was entitled to have an opinion on Guite and his testimony at that point. Whether he was entitled to express it in an interview is another question, but that question doesn't relate to Gomery's objectivity. Given the amount of testimony and the nature of the testimony given up to the point Gomery made the comments, I think assessing it as potentially damaging to the government goes under the heading of "well, duh." -kimmy

From the "About Us" section of their web-page, you can gather that they feel Israel is being unfairly portrayed in the media, or that media is biased against Israel. They steer clear of saying they're a Jewish group, but I would not be surprised to hear they were. "The Photo that Started It All" is an interesting story. A photo, showing a bleeding young man and a club-wielding policeman, was run in the New York Times with the caption "An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian on the Temple Mount", with the clear implication that the Israeli policeman had beaten the Palestinian bloody. In fact, it turns out that the "Palestinian" was an American Jew visiting Israel; he had been beaten and stabbed by a group of Arabs, and the club-wielding police had saved him. Are there similar such examples? Are the "Dishonest Reporting Award" nominees examples? I certainly couldn't claim to know one way or the other. -kimmy

I guess this thread has pretty much wound down. In response to my explanation of why "Albertan" to me is not just a geographic area of Canada, I was offered only the somewhat lame "My Canada includes Saskatchewan." And I didn't receive any response to my question about whether BC, like Quebec, is a separate entity within Canada in Sweal's opinion, since by the reasoning he offered earlier it certainly qualifies. I found August's phrase "superstructure" to be an excellent description of how I feel about Canada. I'd earlier said I would go back and revisit some of the things posted while I was sick. However, most of it appears to have been gone over since I returned. The one in particular I thought I might address would be this one: The first thing that jumps out at me is "rostrum"... we know you're proud of your thesaurus, Terrible, but in this instance it may have let you down... The second is that we have indeed turned up instances of Ontarians braying such empty.. uh, "rostrums". None less than Bob Rae himself, for example. August's "google" search for instances of "proud _____" turned up many for other provinces as well. Which supports what I've said earlier- that identifying with one's province is hardly exclusive to Alberta. But most of all what got me about the message I've quoted was the phrase "meaningless, imaginary tribalism." I've only really felt like I'd witnessed tribalism once in my life; that was when I went to Canada Day festivities on Parliament Hill when I was in Ottawa. I saw chanting. I saw people wearing war-paint. I saw fanatical devotion to symbols. I witnessed the ritualistic burning of ... (sniff sniff, what's that smell? Peyote?) I saw tribal elders work the mass into a frenzy by shouting tribal slogans. I have participated in Canada Day festivities in many places (being, as the tag-line says, moderately pleased to be Canadian) ... Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa... but only in Ottawa did the event take on this sort of ritualistic fervor. I quite honestly found it a little bit disturbing: a rather worrying demonstration of group behaviour. Likewise, Canadians have often made fun of Americans and their "flag fetish", but during my time in Ottawa I saw evidence of a flag-fetish that far outstrips anything I've seen in my (admittedly brief) visits to the United States. There isn't really an Albertacentric equivalent of the kind of berzerk nationalist fanaticism I witnessed in Ottawa; and I'm quite thankful of that. Albertan pride, when stated, is generally stated pretty quietly. Yesterday I saw on TV for the first time a Toyota commercial, presumably hoping to tie in with the centennial, which contrasts the miserable hardships faced by the prairie settlers during the early years, with the vibrant "new west" that's grown from it. It's not an Alberta commercial, as it would play equally well in Saskatchewan, but it's certainly an appeal to prairie people as distinct from Canadians in general; aimed at the belief that people here feel they have a distinct history and identity. It's quite a lovely commercial, and certainly appealed to me in a way that the "empty rostrums" brayed by Tim Hortons and Molson never have. -kimmy

I've heard no further news on poor GI Cody. No news of whether his realistic, poseable limbs have been torn from his body; no news on whether his capturers took pity on him and spared his ...uh, life. In fact, not even any news on who might have been behind this horrific plot. Real extremists? Or somebody trying to make real extremists look dumb? Perhaps we'll never know. But at least we'll always have the memories. Good old Cody, he could always bring a smile. hahaha awesome -GI kimmy

(did Chretien's followers issue a set of "talking points" for people to parrot in discussions like this? Is there a mailing-list or something that I could subscribe to, so that I could read the party line and spare you guys the trouble of cut and pasting it here?) First off I would point out that Chretien is not being "judged" or "tried" here. Second, please support this claim that Gomery's comments show that he's already reached a conclusion. What comment specifically? That giving away Jean Chretien autographed golf balls was "small town cheap"? Hey, it WAS... but that's not a judgment of any wrongdoing on the part of Chretien or anybody within the program. That Chuck Guite is "a charming scamp"? Again, not a judgment of any misconduct, even by Guite, let alone by Chretien. Or is it Gomery's comment that the sponsorship program was run in a disasterously bad way? That's not in question-- that's a fact; it's the reason why the inquiry exists. That there were problems has been agreed to by everyone, including Chretien himself, and certainly Chretien's testimony yesterday that he and Don Boudria discussed calling the RCMP in regard to some of the problems. I do not accept Chretien's mouthpiece's claims as fact. "David Scott says so" is not evidence, in my view. David Scott is paid to say so. I think his threat to go to court to remove Gomery is an empty one; I don't think the case (at least as he's articulated it to this point) is compelling in the least. The whole complaint appears to have been an exercise in public relations, and judging from the reaction here on the board it appears to have succeeded, although I suspect he was preaching to the converted. It was all forced by the Opposition? You don't believe public outrage over the auditor general's report had anything to do with it? You don't feel that prior to fighting an election, Paul Martin needed a public display of accountability to deflect corruption as an election issue? I think you give the Opposition parties entirely too much credit. And I think that you don't give nearly enough credit to the Liberals' desire to manage public reaction to the scandal. I seriously doubt it. I don't think very many Canadians would have faith in an RCMP investigation to do anything more than tag a few bit-players. Justice must be done, and justice must be seen to be done. For Canadians to feel faith in their government and its institutions, they need to know that a proper process has been followed to identify the guilty and exhonerate the innocent. I simply don't trust an RCMP investigation to do an adequate job. Another one from the "talking points" newsletter I mentioned earlier... -kimmy