fellowtraveller

Harper is doing the same old song and dance everybody does with China. A polite exchange of differing views on human rights, then down to business, which is.... business. The Chinese will tolerate a bit of grandstanding from foreign leaders on this, they know it plays well at home, but only a bit. They expect foreign leaders to deliver their pitch at their earliest convenience. Canada is trying to horn in on Australias turf as resource supplier to China.

Go to the movie and then tell us if you still think your last paragraph has any meaning in the context of the funds spent, any meaning at all. The research on causes and cures is totally disjointed, undirected and minimal in comparison to the money spent on other things, things that do not really benefit anybody but corporate share value. The risk factors you mention are vague and ill defined when compared to the one overwhelming risk factor: the presence of estrogen, being a woman. That is really about as far as science has gotten in decades, other than the life extending old strategies of surgery, radioation and chemo. It is not nearly good enouigh, there is something very rotten at the core of the breast cancer fundraising industry. One in 8.

Andrew Coyne with some factoids: link

None of those things prevent breast cancer. The #1 predisposing factor for getting breast cancer is the presence of estrogen, or more simply put: being a woman.

That is a central question of the movie, ,more or less. The answer is not pleasant to contemplate, since it effectively involves a big lie to the millions who have given time and money for a 'cure'. Cancer prevention presumes knowing a cause, and very little of the billions raised has gone to finding a cause or cure. The reason is that focusing on treatment means that billions are spent on drugs that extend life a bit, very little is spent on anything that might upset that gravy train. The makers of Tamoxifen have no interest in anything that curbs use of their drug, which does not cure cancer. And the people who can change that focus with funding are not doing it. Nobody coordinates research either. It is more than a mess, it is a disgrace.

The CEO of the big US breast cancer fundraiser- Komen- has had a dustup with Planned Parenthood in the last few days. She is also featured in this movie and does not come off well at all, and her organization even worse. Many scenes of huge corproate presence at breast cancer fundraisers from comapnies like Avon, Revlon , Estee Lauder and many others, all selling hard to captive groups of women. Then the camera switchesd to lists of the carcinogenic compounds found in many womens cosmetics, all produced by the breast cancer sponsors. Shocking stuff. She may not survive this storm of controversy. Very little money going into finding a cause, finding a cure, lots of money into drug therapies that really only extend lives for a short term. Guess who profits from that? Hint- it is not women. The marchers have no idea what is actually happening at the carefully scripted marches.

Who do you think is on the hook when your rented apartment needs repair? You are, of course. Did you think that there was some sort of Repair Charity that intervenes? It ALL comes back onto your rent.

No, Albertans rarely say anything of the sort. Oh, a few redneck Wild Rose fringedwellers do, but the actions of the PCs in the last year have relegated them to the political wilderness. They just don't know it yet but it will be very obvious soon. In general, equalization and Albertas funding -and-not-receiving-role in it are both acknowledged and accepted locally.

Pink Ribbons Inc is a new documentary movie about the marketing of breast cancer awareness and fundraising. The corporate branding of this disease is a multi billion dollar industry involving hundreds of corporations, millions of women findraising and a lot of very sick people. It is a complex and really disturbing relatuionship between them all, and this movie pulls no punches in examining it. They had some sobering numbers: in the 1940s one in 22 women would have breast cancer in her lifetime, today it is one in eight. The movie has a lot of very smart, accomplished and articulate women pointing out some disturbing things about the corporatization of a serious health issue, and wonders why so little money is spent on finding a cause and a cure, and so much on corporate involvement in treatment and promotion of the pink ribbons brand. There is a lot of money involved, and a lot of profit made. Interesting stuff. In theaters now. and so on. one of many links available

Your name is either Garth(The Man Who Is Always Wrong) or Chicken Little. As I recall, you are also the guy whose opinions on renting being better than owning in large part because you have a sweetheart, cheapo deal on rent. I own my house free and clear. if I choose to stay here, my overhead per month will be far less anybody renting. Better yet, I will not be vulbnerable to a landlord making decisions on whether I eat cat food or steak when I retire eventually.

This would be marginally believable if it was not posted by a wellf ed person from a warm and secure home. Easy to judge from that privileged place. I've been to Afghanistan. The people there have the same aspirations for their families that we do. They are not lazy, evoil or stupid. They have far fewer tools to build anything than nearly anywhere else in the world. Worst of all, they have very little in the way of resources to change that situation. On top of all that, various people have been killing their children for 30 years.

Moore is a guy worth watching. He may well be heir to Harper in a few years.

blahblahblahThe Bank Act and the creation of CMHC insured loans mean this to generations of working Canadians: they can afford to buy their own homes, and avoiding having a rampaging capitalist as their landlord. This generation has a higher rate of ownership than the last. which was better than the one before and so on. There is far, far more disposable income and general personal wealth right now than at any time in human history. Inflation is low, interst rates are low, people are so overfed that obesity levles are very high. Calories= prosperity, so save the dogma.

and the companies are most definitely targets of unions.

I get my numbers from the Bank Act, which has been around from about the 1870s.It prevents banks from lending more than 80%. The rest must be insured, and the insurers(mainly CMHC) have very strict rules about qualification. The private inasurers like GE/Genworth have even strciter rules and often take only the best risks. This fact alone is what has kept Canada from haing anything like a subprime crisis in the US, which has little or no regulkation of lenders can do. Note that every borrower at 5% had to jump through hoops. Note also that for the brief period that 0% downs werr permitted, the borrowers had to have impeccable credit etc, higher standards than required for people at 5%. It is true that there are more foreclosures now than there were during boom times, but there are far less than in the USA and not nearly enough to put a scare into our own market. There are always foreclosures to some level, even in the very strongest economic times.

The reality of unions is that they exist to further the interests of their members, by negotiating deals for more money, benefits, job security. The rest of the noble fluff about advancing the cause of the working man or helping build the country is just self serving bullshit. It is business, and big business with serious outcomes. They go head to head with corporations for the money, and the corps have similar ambitions for their shareholders. When you play the game, you win some and lose some. When you play the game poorly, like CAW did here- you lose. Now Lewenza is scrambling for scapegoats. If Lewenza doubted CATs sincerity and likely outcome, all he had to do was pay just a little bit of attention to what happened with Finning/OEM a few years back in Edmonton. That resulted in zero union jobs, and about double non-union jobs, though the jobs did not leave town in that case. CAW better look carefully at their operations, because this is just the first, they can expect US carmakers to be moving operations south too.

I don't see any facts in what Page said. There are hints and speculation, and a question followed by an admission he doesn't know what is going on because he has no facts and no information. Like you, he has no facts. I can see how the not knowing what is going on would appeal to some. No need to mention names. Yes, meaningless speculation and drivel and that is being charitable. See above. Once that throbbing vein in your forehead has settled, read what he wrote.

There are a number of odd things in this article, mostly with the missing information and misleading talk of 'lenders'..... But no, there is no crisis. CMHC is by far the largest of the three mortgage insurers. The other two have always been more cautious than CMHC, and CMHC rules for qualification are strict and pretty much unwavering. In the past, the private insurers have actually been tougher still. I do not think the insurers are allowed to be sloppier. The bakls- or lenders in general- are not the same as the insurers. The banks have their own rules, but can by law only lend up to 80% on residntial mortgages, which provides a built in cushion for their money. The insurer charges a very fat premium to insure the rest of the loan. With this, the insurer stays solvent, the bank stays solvent, people can raise enough cash for a down payment in a reasonable time. But everybody has to have the ability to repay, a sdown payment, a job ad a credit history. No exceptions for insured loans. Perhaps Flaherty is concerned about the 2.99% mortgages? Hard to tell from this article.

why are you speculating on the speculations of Kevin Page, and pretending that any of it came from Harper? You can keep what you wish, why not start a file too? You have no idea what legislation is coming and neither does Page with his paragreaphs filled with nothing but the same old drivel, yet you are hogwild and foursquare that something horrible cometh. You'd better unknot your knickers soon before the loss of blood causes further damage.

Nice try. I want the Gideons banned from schools, same as the Bnai Brith or any Muslim groups or anybody there for the purpose of indoctrination of anything but the approved public school curriculum. No problem with the Bible or KOramn or whatever in the library of a public, nondemoninational school. If students need specific instruction in any of the theology, they can go to the church or mosque or your house on their time.

Why do you persist in pretending that anybody has called for any book to be banned?

Age is most defitniely an issue for health care, as in we are living longer and demanding more. Technology is a factor too, but the prime suck of health care(and pensions) in the next few decades is that we are living longer than was anticipated when these systems were devised.That reality was one of the reason that nearly everybody is moving away from defined benefit pensions. Soon enough, only govts will have them, because there is the illusion that no matter what the cost, taxpayers will support an insolvent plan.

The rules apply to all parties, not just the NDP, Libs or Cons. The reason the NDP do not have any Senators is pretty straightforward: they have never been the government, and they favour abolition of the Senate so would refuse any appointments. Their choice, not the fault of the rules they choose to choose.. Shrug.

There, fixed it for you.

The Constitution says little about comparable taxation for provinces. Each province can levy certain taxes at whatever level they choose, hence all the different rates for sales taxes, income tax levies and a host of other taxes and user fees. The feds already levy the same income taxes nationally and the same GST.