Majeres' Musings

After going over some comments by Richard Evans over there, I am deciding to give Kate at SDA a week or so to keep out the trolling name callers and bashers.  I figure a week before I remove the link, but Kate of course has every Right to allow what ever comments she wants.   It was a marvelous site for Western views of the Conservative Party.  Below is a comment line from a article.  You be the Judge and Jury (to make it fit I left out other peoples comments, visit SDA for entire comment log).
What About the Victims?
Isn't this just lovely:

Reviled by many, defended by few, Canada's most notorious female inmate won't even be greeted by her family when she is released in less than a month. But CTV News has learned Karla Homolka does have some support in high places.

Homolka made her first public appearance in more than a decade last week at a court hearing in Joliette, Que. After two days of testimony, a Quebec judge imposed restrictions on Homolka's movements for a year after her release from prison.

Liberal Senator Michel Biron, 71, was present in the Joliette, Que. courthouse last week. He sat beside Homolka's lawyer during the hearing in a show of support for the convicted killer.

According to witnesses, Biron exchanged a slight smile with Homolka.

It's a shame that there were no Senators sitting with the French, Mahaffy, and Doe families to speak out in favour of protecting their constitutional rights. You know, the right to not be drugged, raped, sodomized, beaten, and then murdered. But I guess that's not as important as making sure that the people who do these things don't get their widdle feelings hurt.
Comment Section:
What about the victims? Do you suggest that they now recieve financial compensations on top of having the perp pay for their crimes? Or is it only if they don't recieve the punishment that you percieve they should have, that they should be further berated on top of, after their release? That this berating should take place as a lesson to those who do not yet know that what took place was illegal in the first place? Will this make the victims feel any better, a lawyer or someone hired to insult the ex-con upon their release?
Karla got a plea deal, its done all the time to nail bigger fish. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. To me its just a fact of life. And yes, she will end up found somewhere dead caused by some lower iq'ed socio-path looking for some noteriety. One socio/psycho-path killing another.
:) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 01:10 PM

Roger did you even read the post? Sean was commenting on the fact that a liberal senator was standing in support of a convicted killer. There were no senators standing up for the victims at the impact hearings or when they were putting restrictions on Homolka.
It would appear that you feel that Homolka has done her time and as such, has redeemed herself. One has to wonder if you'd consider having her live next door to you...Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 01:40 PM

Hi Richard, yes I did read the entire post several times. I asked what do you want, some government appointed designate to sit with victims in all Court cases? The Senetors' choice of sitting with the Perp is his choice and I respect other peoples choices as long as its not in my backyard. As far as showing support for restrictions on Homolka, sorry, a plea deal is a plea deal which is a deal. Blame the Judiciary, not the government for not haveing some designate there to show support. If the government was serious, they would have reneged on the deal fought the Courts, disbarred the lawyers and kept her in prison. Also, I never said Karla is redeemed, only that she has upheld her end of the deal and now its time for us to uphold are end of the deal, right or wrong. As far as people being my neighbours, no-one can control that, so I stay out of their backyard, frontyard, livingroom, bedroom, garden and they stay out of mine. I also Sean, believe that Capital Punishment should be part of our Justice system for all socio/psycho-paths. I hope I have made myself a little clearer :) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 02:51 PM

lol
MoonBats say: "Not in my backyard"
Conservatives say: "Not in any backyard"
MoonBats say: "financial compensation"
Conservatives say: "justice"
MoonBats say: "It's all ok, because they made a deal!"
Conservatives say: "BULLSHIT!"Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 03:05 PM

Nationaly

Libs    -  34
Cons  -  26
NDP   -  19
Green -   9

Ontario

Libs    - 41
Cons  - 31
NDP   - 19

My Comments;  I was waiting for a Poll which had time to take into account the Grewal Tapes.  Nationaly it appears the numbers would predict a weak minority, a status quo with the Liberals required to team up entirely with another Party.  With the Ontario numbers the way they are it appears to show what could be considered a strong minority where the Libs would only require a partial team up with some opposition members, to a majority win by a seat or two.

I have embedded a few comments in bold italics.

snipped article>

Canadians are growing increasingly negative in their impressions of Tory Leader Stephen Harper as the public shifts its focus from the Gomery inquiry to questions of leadership and stability.

A Globe and Mail-CTV survey, conducted by the Strategic Counsel this week, also finds that, while Liberal support remains relatively stagnant since the week of the historic May 19 confidence vote, the Conservatives have dropped four percentage points and are the choice of 26 per cent of voters, eight points behind the Liberals at 34.

Perhaps the most significant results are those measuring Canadians' attitudes to their federal leaders, particularly Mr. Harper.

Compared with May 8, Mr. Harper's leadership has taken a significant hit — leaving him with the highest negative ratings of all the leaders. A month ago, Canadians were exactly divided in their feelings toward the Conservative Leader, with 50 per cent viewing him positively and 50 per cent viewing him in a negative light.

The new poll finds that 60 per cent of Canadians have an unfavourable view of Mr. Harper, compared to 40 per cent who view him positively.

Voters are also hardening their view. Of those surveyed, 33 per cent say they are very unfavourable toward Mr. Harper, up 12 percentage points from a month ago. Twenty-seven per cent characterized their view as somewhat unfavourable.

By contrast, unfavourable impressions of Paul Martin are down marginally, to 56 per cent from 58 per cent, while only 39 per cent of Canadians have a negative impression of NDP Leader Jack Layton.

The poll found that the issue of leadership and stability has taken over from the sponsorship scandal as the most important facing Canada, with 18 per cent classing it as the most critical. The Gomery inquiry now rates fourth, behind social issues and health care.

Strategic Counsel chairman Allan Gregg said there is a correlation between Mr. Harper's negative numbers and the increasing concern with leadership.

“I don't think there is any question. It's shifted to this issue of leadership. The reason it's shifted to this question is because Harper's negatives have gone up. People have become more down on him.”

The poll, taken between June 6 and June 9, surveyed 1,000 Canadians and is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Mr. Gregg suggested Mr. Harper may be losing personal popularity for a number of reasons, including his support for Tory MP Gurmant Grewal's surreptitious taping of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Tim Murphy, and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh in a what sounds like negotiations before the May 19 confidence vote.

Perhaps most conspicuously, the greatest drop in Mr. Harper's favourable ratings took place in his Prairie heartland, where they declined to 44 per cent to 63 per cent. Among those who consider themselves strong conservatives, he went down from a 92-per-cent favourability rating to 79 per cent.

Asked if the numbers mean trouble for Mr. Harper's leadership, Mr. Gregg said he was surprised he has been able to hold the caucus together as long as he has. 
A somewhat contradicting statement.  Poll shows lack of Leadership viewed by the electorate and yet shows him holding together his caucus.  Is the Polled electorate correct, or is the caucus correct in their respective veiws of Harpers' leadership abilities?

On voting intentions, the poll found that Liberal support was up one percentage point from the 33 per cent the party polled in a survey released May 15, while the Tories were down four points from the 30-per-cent figure they posted. The NDP were unchanged at 19.

In Ontario, the Liberals lead the Tories 41 per cent to 31 per cent, while the NDP are at 19 per cent. 
The Ontario electorate again re-affirm that they will settle for the status quo versus the Conservative Policies.

Among committed voters in Quebec, the Liberals come in at 22 per cent, while the Bloc Québécois continues to dominate with 51 per cent. The Tories have dropped substantially in the province, to 8 per cent from 14 per cent.

The Green Party has the support of 9 per cent of Canadians, up three percentage points.

Mr. Gregg said the poll results, if repeated at an election, would likely lead to a similar outcome to that of last June.

Finally, more Canadians are of the view that the country is on the right track than they were in the past. Of those surveyed, 53 per cent said the nation was headed in the right direction, compared to 43 per cent who thought so in the May 15 poll.
unsnipped<

Look to see if the Consevative supporters continue to bash Ontario and the media for their lowering numbers or actually discuss the issues with the intention of actually solving their problems. 
I personally find that there is a lot of bashing going on with very little discussion on the problems and how to repair them. 
Then again, if a Party and its supporters firmly believe that their Policies are for the best for their neighbours and do not want to move on their Policies one iota, thats their Right also.

cheers :)  majere

There are political types out there who use common every day fallacies to try to steer one to agree to their opinions, then of course accept their opinions.  They are listed below, but first a few more comments.

One,  when confronted with these arguementive fallacies can then ask logical questions around these fallacies to try to get to the truth to see if it is an informed opinion, or, an uninformed opinion.

Of course I believe and fully support that anyone can believe in anything they want as each person is a sovereign individual.

here we go, enjoy  :) majere

You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.

 

-Robert A. Wilson

---

When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypothesis that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.

argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)

argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance.

argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons.

bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).

confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning"

excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."

half truths (suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."

misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?

observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, etc.

slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)

statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.

two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.

---

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

1) Skepticism of unsupported claims

2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking

3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.

4) Requires testability

5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses descriptive language

7) Performs controlled experiments

8) Self-correcting

9) Relies on evidence and reason

10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge

11) Produces useful knowledge

 

Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:

1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism

2) Does not require critical thinking

3) Does not require experimental repeatability

4) Does not require tests

5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses vague language

7) Relies on anecdotal evidence

8) No self-correction

9) Relies on belief and faith

10) Makes absolute claims

11) Produces no useful knowledge

CBC Television is developing a Canadian version of "Survivor" the popular TV show.

The rules are simple: Each contestant must travel to Alberta and go from Edmonton to Fort McMurray through High Level, Grande Prairie, Peace River, Hinton, Edson, Jasper, Banff, Red Deer, Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Brooks, Drumheller, Lloydminister and back to Edmonton again driving a Volvo with a bumper sticker that reads: " I voted for Chretien, I'm Gay and I'm here to Take your Guns".

The first to complete the round-trip alive is the winner.

cheers :)  majere

Thirtieth is pretty pathetic.  No wonder I was undertreated which led to treatment resistance, and it took 10 years for my wife to get diagnosed with her ailments!  Only in Canada, eh?

Absolutely Pathetic.

Canada ranks 30th in first analysis of world's health systems

Date: June 21, 2000
Time: 11:44 am

---

The long-held assumption that Canada's health-care system is one of the world's best is called into question today by a report from the World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2000 — Health systems: Improving performance, uses 5 performance indicators in ranking Canada's system 30th among 191 member states.

France provides the best overall health care, says WHO, followed, among major countries, by Italy (second), Spain (seventh), Austria(ninth) and Japan (10th). The performance study found that the US health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country, but ranks 37th among the 191 countries in terms of performance. The UK, which spends just 6% of its GDP on health services, ranks 18th. Canada spends 8.6% of its GDP on health.

"It's a wake-up, folks" Dr. Hugh Scully, president of the Canadian Medical Association told reporters. "We have to pay close attention to this or we're going to be in trouble."

The report comes on the eve of major talks among federal and provincial governments about reforming medicare.

The WHO study uses 5 indicators to assess the world's health care systems: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system performs); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the financial burden within the population.

The 215-page report also revealed that:

• Canada ranks 12th in the world for life expectancy (72 years) behind countries such as Japan (first), Australia (second) and Greece (seventh)."
• Canada ranks eighth (tied with Norway) in the world in terms of its system's responsiveness to health needs, lagging behind countries such as the US (first), Switzerland (second), Denmark (fourth) and Japan (sixth).
• A surprising 17% of Canadian health care spending is paid for by patients. In the UK, patient's out-of-pocket expenses account for only 3% of the total health care bill. In the US, 16.6% is paid out-of-pocket (56% of all US expenditures are paid privately).
• Canadians spend $80 billion annually on health care (US$1783 per capita) and ranks 30th overall in health-system performance. The UK pays US$1303 per capita, yet ranks 18th. Andorra, a tiny European country, ranks fourth overall with per capita expenditures of US$1368

The WHO report breaks new methodological ground by comparing each country's system to what experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country's system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries. — Barbara Sibbald, eCMAJ

cheers :) majere

I just wish the Conservative supporters would realize that the onus is on them to defeat the incumbent.  That it is up to the Cons to prove they have the Right to replace them.  If not, the Libs get the vote by default.

Its like this.  A voter when asked how the ruling Party is doing looks in their pocket book, looks around their lodgings, looks at their employment and decides if the challenging Party can change anything for the better.  I muse that the Conservatives are overusing the "corrupt" word to often in that the corruptness does not affect the voters surroundings.  Sure they say the waste of money, but how much does that affect the individual voter?  Sure they say lower taxes, how much by the way,  but do not say if they are going to take something away to pay for it.

Now to take this one step further with an example.  In their Policies they state that they do not want the Courts creating laws and that it should only be Parliament.  Newsflash, Courts can only strike down laws that violate the Charter, they cannot and have never being able to "create" laws.  This is confusing and its acutally in their Policies!  The only basis for having this in their Policies is to invoke fear of the Courts and that the Conservatives are there to stop it.  Its based on a lie.  Sorry Cons, check the power of the Courts, read in or read down, NOT read up as in create or modify to create.  Its very simple english and High School students learn it.

SIDE NOTE:  (unless you read Hitzig where the government allowed it and does not admit it, and if you read RvKrieger you will find where they struck down a law only to be ignored by everyone to keep the law valid).  So you have some contradictions now to confuse the electorate which would transfer directly to confusion about what the Challenging Party actually is saying.  Oh, by the way, if the Conservatives admit Hitzig cannot create a law and acknowledge the Courts Right to strike down a bad law as in RvKrieger, then cannabis is as legal as turnips.  Then of course the Conservatives get my vote, my wifes vote, all my aging boomer friends votes (prior 1964), and most of my 26 Aunts and Uncles votes.

These two cases are the only discrepancies in law that conflict with the law.  If you understand.  Very convenient for the ruling Liberals at this time who do not want to face cannabis in everyones backyard this summer.  Typical Lie-Liberal, just ignore the Law if it benefits.  There are ongoing Court Cases by private citizens to correct this.

Too many questions and proofs left unanswered by the Challenging Party leaves the Ruling Party off by default.  Its as if the Conservatives want us to trust them with no basis already established for their trust.  Harper has not been able to convey, period.

It can't get any easier, yet the Conservative supporters do not seem to understand this simple political psychological concept.

cheers  :)  majere

I guess when Kates away....... anyway.

Anyway.  Over there they are starting to feel the frustration of the Conservative numbers from the latest Polling.  They are attacking the messenger and rallying around Harper blaming the media, Ontarians and of course the East.

I wish Kate was back  (States Dog Show) to keep it to the Issues instead of argumentive fallacies.  Oh well.

I brought up a point about it being the Policies of the Conservatives and this one lady just Con-parroted; less government administration equals more money for the Provinces for programs.  Now I basically asked what percentage of admin cuts for what operations and programs (federally) will be cut and how much does that equal?  I asked for some specifics plse so I can decide if its worth a vote.  Nothing but an insult.

I have noticed that very few people (including me at times) cannot come up with more than just a general statement at times, but at least I won't insult someone but actually try to get the info.

So what did I do?

I went and read over the entire Conservative Policy Paper.  I was amazed at how everthing is in general.  One can drive a truck through and interpret their writings anyway you can to benefit your position and still not have any specifics.

Oh well, max-flex is a two edged sword.

Watch out Harper, its not pretty and its going to get uglier come election time.

cheers  :)  majere

PS:  I guess as a Libertarian Socialist Conservative I would not get any votes from SDA if I ran for the Conservative Leadership.

Over at Small Dead Animals one fellow replied as a comment that one could get insurance for a Pre-existing condition.  Not so.  His reply was to my; not so.  Apparently he does not understand the Insurance Industry.  Just to clarify.  No Insurance company will give you Insurance just to pay for ones hip replacement coming due.   Just like you will not get Insurance for any type of Heart Treatement when one already has a pre-existing heart condition.

I hope its clear that all the sick people cannot go out and get Insurance just to jump the queue through a Private Medical Provider to get treated for what is ailing them now.

The Insurance will only cover what is healthy now.

Ignorance breeds Ignorance when preached to the Ignorant.

cheers :) majere

Personally I wanted a Poll where the Polling finished on Friday, released Saturday to take more of the Grewal Tapes into account.

Nationally

Libs     -  37
Cons   -  23
NDP    -  21

For Ontario

Libs    -  48
Cons  -  22
NDP   -  24

Ontario is where the action is, eh?  I just heard Debra Gray on "Countdown" with the Duff Man seriously question Ontarians sanity with a self sensored bleeeeeep.  Cool I thought.  Why?  Well I have wrote in previous entries exactly why Ontario and the East vote for the lie-ing corrupt Liberals.  Has Harper changed his tactics, nope.  He appears to have dug in his flats even deeper.  I guess he did not read my entry on Conservative Party Solidarity and how it hurts the Conservatives.  Jack and the NDP will be having wet dreams tonight over the latest numbers.  Even though the NDP do not count as they are no more than a voters parking lot, unless of course your just a die-hard NDP champagne sipping socialist as a Jack wannabe.

With these numbers just watch how pompous Martin is over the next few days and how sombre Harper is .......... an ssri anyone?

article snipped>


OTTAWA — The Liberals vaulted to a 14-point lead over the Conservatives in popular support, suggests a new poll released to The Canadian Press.

A Decima survey last week suggests support for the federal Tories crumbled, putting them in a virtual dead heat with the NDP.

The Liberals were at 37 per cent support, the Tories had 23 per cent and the NDP were trailing them closely at 21 per cent.

Most surprising were the numbers in the critical battleground of Ontario, where the Conservatives were running neck-and-neck with the Grits barely a month ago.

Decima said the Tories had fallen 26 points behind the Liberals and were in third place behind the NDP. The Liberals had 48 per cent in that province, the NDP was at 24 and the Conservatives held 22 per cent.

"The trend lines -- especially in Ontario -- are definitely better for the Liberal party than they were several weeks ago, no question about that,'' said Bruce Anderson, head of Decima Research Inc.

The New Democrats also held small leads over the Tories among women, single people and voters under age 34.

The poll of 1,000 respondents was conducted June 2-5. Decima said the results are accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, but the provincial and demographic breakdowns are less reliable because they have a smaller sample size.

Those kinds of poll numbers could have a significant impact on federal politics and the timing of an election.

A Tory party that just days ago had Parliament paralysed in its effort to topple the Liberal government now seems destined to sit patiently through an election-free spring.

The Liberals have steadily climbed back in a series of polls after being battered by a daily stream of revelations at the sponsorship inquiry.

However, the Conservatives had even less support than they did before tales of corruption in Liberal ranks surfaced in April, the poll suggests.

But Liberals shouldn't feel too triumphant, Anderson warned.

The wild swings suggest a temperamental electorate, and these latest Decima numbers would still likely give the Liberals only a minority government.

"(These are) not unprecedented levels of support for the Liberal party,'' Anderson said.

"I would say it's more reasonable to assume that they're fragile, rather than sturdy levels of support because of the volatility we've seen.''

Anderson blamed the Tories' poor showing on a strategy that has been "out of sync'' with the desires of the electorate.

In their efforts to take down the government, the Tories found themselves running against public opinion among voters who didn't want an election and actually liked the NDP-inspired changes to the federal budget.

Parliament was shut down for a few days as the Tories and Bloc Quebecois boycotted to protest the Liberals clinging to power.

"During the same period, the NDP has been urging that the House (of Commons) keep working, that it expand its agenda beyond ... corruption, and has been promoting social spending over corporate tax cuts,'' Anderson said.

The Tories appear unlikely to try forcing an election again this spring, as MPs suggest the party will spend the summer shaping policy and building popular support.

That would be in keeping with what voters want, the Decima poll suggests.

Only 12 per cent of respondents said the Tories should renew their takedown effort, compared to 76 per cent who said they should wait.

The Liberals responded gleefully to Decima's numbers.

"I've always been confident that the general public in Ontario saw the merits of a good government,'' said Immigration Minister Joe Volpe, the Liberals' political minister for the province.

"The programs that we began to outline and publicize through the budget were ones that galvanized public opinion and won public confidence.''

The Tories said they'll keep working to win public support.

"These things wax and wane,'' said Tory finance critic Monte Solberg.

"I think we just keep pounding away, stay positive, and in the end people will come around to our point of view.''

unsnipped<

cheers from a friendly live and let live libertarian socialist conservative  :)  majere

PS:  I feel sorry for Kate over at Small Dead Animals with these latest numbers and I have noticed she is expanding her reporting repetoir.  Her link is in my favourites.

Its the "front line Leaders", the Mayors that see what is happening on the ground.  The Mayors are the Leaders that see first hand.  Its about time a Mayor stood up for individual soverign Rights regarding a benign herb called cannabis.  Remember the Senate Report?  The latest one that is, that heard from many various experts from all walks of life, and the result?  Should be as legal as turnips for anyone 16 and over.  How is that for stating what it actually is - benign.  It does not even come close to cigerettes and alcohol.

One of my comments about the article is that under taxation the Government will not really make that much money.  You see, there will be so many backyards full of the stuff where who would go to the nearest liquor store to pay for it?  They will make money from those who have no green thumb and no friends who have a garden with cannabis in it.  And just to get this in, there is no difference in garden lights or fertilizers from those growing prize winning rare orchids in their basements or those who have cannabis growing in their indoor gardens.

Vancouver Mayor, I give you a standing ovation and a little advice, tell your local police to put cannabis law enforcement on a lower priority than "jaywalking".

article snipped>

Harper just came out and said that he fully believes Grewal and states that the Liberals are lie-ing.

Reynolds said that The National is just reporting the one side of the Grewal tapes.

Myself as a Libertarian Socialist Conservative; just what are my chances of winning the Leadership of the Conservative Party?

Why I ask?

Harper is toast and McKay is a former Prosecutor who supports his ex-collegue
S. David Frankel, Q.C. who is as corrupt as they come for failing to report his, an Alberta Supreme Court loss to the Regional Deputy Attorney Generals' Office of a law change that had, and still has  implications for thousands of Canadians.

Oh I forgot, McKay does not give a crap about the Courts al la ........ Randy White, "the Courts, who needs them?".

And just to add, I have not heard McKay denounce Randy White.  White is just fading into the background and has said that he is not running in the next election.

So much for McKay setting the record straight on that one.  A political sidestep usually used by people more commonly referred to as assholes.

Its a shame that McKay is the heir apparent.

Oh, my chances are zero to the chagrin of the corrupt.

cheers :)  majere

The Ethics Commissioner, what is there to say.   Someone to pawn off to delay, after all 2 weeks in Politics and the Public just might forget.

cheers  :)  majere

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
NEWS RELEASE

ETHICS COMMISSIONER MUST RULE ON PMO STAFFER, FAILS TO FULFILL LEGAL DUTIES BY REFUSING TO DO SO

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch criticized federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro for refusing to rule on whether the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff Tim Murphy discussions with Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal violated ethics rules, and pointed out that the law gives the Commissioner the power to rule on any activity of anyone covered by the rules rules (although the powers need to be strengthened).

"Federal ethics rules clearly apply to full-time ministerial staff, and the law gives the Ethics Commissioner the power to rule on all activities of anyone covered by the rules," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. "The Ethics Commissioner is continuing his biased, extremely weak enforcement of ethics rules by refusing to rule on the activities of the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff."

Under the Parliament of Canada Act (the Act), the primary role of the Ethics Commissioner is "to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders" (sub-section 72.07(a)). The Act and the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code) both define public office holder as including "a person, other than a public servant, who works on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state" (sub-section 72.06(b) in the Act, and sub-section 4(1) in the Code).

In refusing to rule on Murphy's activities, the Ethics Commissioner is ignoring his general mandate to enforce the Code and other ethics rules. It is true that the Ethics Commissioner is only required by the Act to investigate ministers of the Crown, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries and rule publicly when a member of the Senate or House of Commons files a complaint backed by evidence (under section 72.08). However, the Code also applies to ministerial staff, and the Ethics Commissioner is the only enforcement body for the Code, and so the Commissioner is clearly the only person who can rule on Code violations by ministerial staff and if he does not do so he is clearly failing to uphold his legal duties as administrator of the Code.

"As he has several times in the past year, the Ethics Commissioner has unfortunately once again chosen to protect a public official instead of properly enforcing federal ethics rules," said Conacher.

For example, in his first year in office Ethics Commissioner Shapiro has refused to make public his rulings on the lobbying activities of former Cabinet ministers John Manley and Lyle Vanclief, has refused to rule on Transportation Safety board member Jim Walsh's attendance at the Liberal caucus Christmas party, and hired a Liberal-connected law firm (without a contract bidding competition) to investigate allegations that Liberal Cabinet minister Judy Sgro had violated the Code.

- 30 -

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Government Ethics Campaign - http://www.dwatch.ca/ethicdir.html

Could it be that the Fraser Institute does not like Their Politcal Party aligned with their best friends, the States?  Even though Stephen Harper likes the States and their let the Big Companies run everything.  That the States only go to war to protect their Apple Pie while 5,000 illegal Mexicans cross the Border every day to pick the apples?
That its better to lie to the People to invade Iraq and get their oil instead of sending in drones armed with Hellfire Missles just to kill Sadamm?  And where is Osoma bin Laden, huh?  What about him?  Is it the kicking the shit out of whistleblowers that turns Harper on?  Or, how about picking on and jailing sick people?  That must really get Harper going in the morning better than an extra-large from Timmies.

My comments embedded in the snipped article.

snipped>
CBC television news guilty of anti-American bias says new study

    CALGARY, June 7 /CNW/ - The CBC's television news
coverage of the United States is consistently marked
by emotional criticism, rather than a rational
consideration of US policy based on Canadian national
interests,majere: here they are saying that if you don't
agree with the article and THEIR reasoning then you are
an idiot because you are using your emotions instead of 
their science regardless of what you have observed of the
facts at hand, according to The Canadian "Garrison
Mentality" majere: they will not explain what this is
and Anti-Americanism majere:  a few more negative
comments versus postive comments means they are ant-
American?? at the CBC, released today by The Fraser
Institute majere:  who supports Harper.
This anti-American bias majere: if they keep repeating
this before the numbers enough times, you just might be
influenced by it. at the CBC is the consequence of
a "garrison mentality" majere: a soft opinion that has
systematically informed the broadcaster's coverage of the
US. Garrison mentality was a term coined by Canadian
literary critic, Northrop Frye. He used it to describe a
uniquely Canadian tendency reflected in our early
literature, a tendency, as he put it, to "huddle
together, stiffening our meager cultural defenses and
projecting all our hostilities outward." majere: ah ha,
so early writers believed that EVERY, ALL Canadians were
of meagre culture and defended this by striking outwards.
My Grandparents and parents were not of meagre culture,
so this writer who coined the phrase was out to lunch.
    "The anti-Americanism of the CBC majere: the phrase
again before the numbers, we argue, is a faithful majere:
the phrase is based on faith now reflection of the
garrison mentality evoked by Frye," said Professor Barry
Cooper, co-author of the paper and managing director of
the Institute's Alberta Policy Research Centre majere; 
trying to lend credability to the article with this 
coming up ..... . "This mythical and symbolic majere; if
you don't believe the credability you believe in myths
and symbols, how is that for an insult? anti-Americanism
typifies a broad view of the world disproportionately
maintained and believed in by Canadians living in the
Loyalist heartland of southern Ontario." majere; the
insult, southern ontarians have a disproportionate broad
view of the world.
    The authors examine the kind of anti-American views
expressed in one major Canadian news outlet. They
attempt to determine whether views critical of the
United States reflect chiefly a rational criticism of
the United States based on reasonable differences in
interests with respect to policy questions or whether
they are more a reflection of the emotional anxieties of
the garrison mentality.
    "The former is simply an ordinary disagreement
between friends; the latter reflects more the limitations
of Canadians than it does the defects of our neighbours,"
said Professor Lydia Miljan, co-author and Senior Fellow
at The Fraser Institute.
    To gauge the extent of anti-American sentiment on
CBC, one year's coverage of the Corporation's flagship
news program, The National, for 2002 was examined. The
authors chose 2002 because it followed the September 11,
2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon,
but was prior to the US invasion of Iraq.
    In total there were 2,383 statements inside the 225
stories that referred to America or the United States
on CBC in 2002. As with most news coverage,the largest
number of statements was neutral; they constituted 49.1
percent of the attention. Thirty-four percent of the
attention to America or the United States was negative,
over double the 15.4 percent positive descriptors. Only
1.6 percent of the statements were considered ambiguous.
majere: so we have 49 percent neutral, 34 percent
negative and 15.4 percent positive in light of the Yanks
horrible reputation in the whole world as to all their
policies.  Sounds fair from a world veiw, acutally
considering the only person who publicaly endorses Bush
and Company is Tony Blair, I think it is quite a positive
view portrayed of the Yanks by the CBC.
    The main issue, constituting 27 percent of the
coverage, was relations between Canada and the United
States. Within this category 41 percent of statements
were neutral. Of the remainder, statements were over
twice as likely to be negative as positive regarding
Canada/US relations (39 percent versus 18.9 percent).
    Terrorism was the second most-often cited issue area
where CBC mentioned America, at 10.8 percent. Here the
negative comments overwhelmed positive evaluations by a
9-to-1 margin (37.6 percent and 3.1 percent,
respectively). Neutral statements, however, constituted
58.1 percent of the total coverage,which somewhat
restored balance insofar as even a factual report on
terrorist activity is usually seen to be a negative
reflection on terrorism.
    The third most mentioned American issue on CBC in
2002 was build-up to the war in Iraq. At 10.5 percent,
this topic was covered almost as extensively as
terrorism, which received 10.8 percent of the CBC's
attention. The negative evaluations of the American
policy in Iraq were only slightly lower than on
terrorism, comprising an 8-in-10 negative-to-positive
ratio, compared to 9 in 10 for terrorism.
    In total, despite the relative short period of time
after the 9/11 attacks, the CBC's opinion statements of
America during 2002 were overwhelmingly critical of
American policy, American actions, and American purposes.
    "CBC has certainly claimed an important
agenda-setting role for itself. To the extent it
deserves the reputation it covets, the corporation is at
least partly responsible for enhancing and sustaining
anti-Americanism in Canada following the 2001 terrorist
attacks. CBC, in short, helped turn the joint outrage of
Canada and the United States at the terrorists into
mistrust and animosity between the two neighbours," 
Cooper concluded.

unsnipped<

majere:  I guess when one critisizes the Patriot Act
which removes American soverign Rights one is negative
in support for the Government but Positive for the lowly
Yank in his home.

When one is lied to over and over again by Bush and 
Company, Walters has been caught lie-ing while in Canada
by High School students and laughed out of the place.  He
has never returned since to Canada.  He learned his lies
may wash with the ignorant south of the Border, but North
we know better.

When one is lied to about Iraq weapons one is negative
when one calls the American government on it, duh.

When one sides with the rest of the world that the Yanks
are not very nice but remians mostly neutral???? wtf??

cheers  :) majere
ps.  i would have added more embedded comments but felt
like puking to many times.

The Conservatives fully support the Liberals actions of nod nod, wink wink, brown envelopes, and plausble denile.

The Conservatives fully support the good ole US of A invasion of Iraq on no evidence, fully support NAFTA, and basically fully support their present government and actions.  Why?  They say so, and, they don't say otherwise yet they are quick to speak out on Same Sex Marriage and other various bible-moralist issues.

Then I guess they fully support the Yanks in beating the crap out of a whistleblower that hits high up in their Government, and left for dead.  Nod nod, wink wink, brown envelope if not for the good of the Country, plausable denile.

As per article snipped>

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - A Los Alamos lab whistleblower scheduled to testify before Congress about alleged financial irregularities was badly beaten outside a bar - an attack his wife and lawyer believe was designed to silence him.

Police and the FBI said that they were investigating the circumstances of the incident which, according to his wife, left Tommy Hook hospitalized Monday with a broken jaw and other injuries.

Police Deputy Chief Eric Johnson said officers found Hook after responding to a reported assault at the Cheeks Night Club about 2 a.m. Sunday. He provided few other details.

"We are working jointly with the FBI, trying to determine what may have happened and what the assault may have stemmed from," Johnson said. FBI spokesman Bill Elwell described the agency's inquiry as preliminary.

Hook's wife, Susan, alleged the assailants told her husband during the attack: "If you know what's good for you, you'll keep your mouth shut."

Tommy Hook and another whistleblower sued the University of California in March, alleging that after they uncovered management failures, university and lab managers tried to make their jobs miserable so they would quit.

Hook, a former internal auditor who now works at another job at the lab, had been scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee later this month.

According to Susan Hook, her husband received a call late Saturday from someone wanting to meet with him at a bar. She said her husband told her the man never showed up, but that as he was leaving the parking lot, a group of men pulled him from his car and beat him.

"They left him in the parking lot for dead," said Tommy Hook's lawyer, Robert Rothstein.

Rothstein said the assailants didn't take Hook's wallet, other personal belongings or car. Without any other motive, it appears the beating was related to his whistleblowing, Rothstein contended.

Susan Hook said her husband did not frequent bars.

Los Alamos lab spokesman Kevin Roark called the beating a "senseless and brutal act and should not be tolerated."

The lab and UC also issued a joint statement decrying the violence. "Director (Robert) Kuckuck, the University of California and the laboratory believe that any form of physical violence toward an individual is unacceptable," the statement read.

unsnipped<

So we have the Conservatives not stating that they like the Yanks for this and that but don't say we don't like them for this and that.

The Conservatives cannot have it both ways.

Once again, the Ontarian voters by default, vote for the governing Libs.

cheers  :)  majere
a libertarian socialist conservative

Ok, waying in on Grewals Stress Leave.  Its a farce, the stress part that is, and basic human physiology says so.

When one knows one is correct in something without doubt there is the increased dopamine levels making one feel good and confident.  Same feeling, same thing as cocaine ingestion, ok.

When one knows that one is correct legally and cannot have their personal freedom removed, see above.

When one is doing something, whatever the cause, and is truly alturistic, see above.

The Kicker.  The Tell.

When one has doubt about any of the above, this means that they KNOW they have done something wrong.  This is where the stress comes in.  This is where the Cortisol is pounding throughout the Blood system hitting the brains Seretonin, Dopamine and Eneneprine systems causing a depletion leading to the "fight or flight response".  This is stress.  The Brian messenger dopamine (feel rewards) is forced lower.  The other two prominent brain messengers forced lower also for any kind of prolonged period leads to depression.  Depression of course causing more stress leading to even lower levels leading to increased levels of Depression...... the untreated depression death cycle unless chemically intervened.

Ok, enough of the side track.  Back to Grewal.

Grewal if he loses his job, kicked out, forced to go home, can still pump gas somewhere.  So I know that food and shelter will not be a cause of stress.

Grewal if correct legally in what he did will not face prosecution, therefore no loss of freedom, no stress.

Grewal facing the media and opposition scrutiny causing stress?  No.  He has already shown he can handle dealing with a wide variety of peoples as a politician.  This of course is made very easy if he knows he is correct on his past actions and is riding the dopamine upswirl.

Conclusion.

He has no basis for stress that would be beyond any regular persons day to day living.

His Stress Leave is a farce designed to get him out of the media and Conservative spotlight.  He has been invited on CTV to be interviewed by the Duff Man but has declined.  The Conservatives WANT him to go away. 

Bottom line, his stress leave is a farce as far as "stress" goes.

But then again, he might be feeling pretty guilty about trying desperately to cross the floor for selfish gains while taping it to look like a Conservative Hero if he could not get exactly what he wanted from the Liberals.  That he would only cross the floor with a guarentee of financial gain and/or employment security of a Senate Seat or an out of site, secure, overseas Posting.

Everyone I know knows that.  So to throw in something crude, he is a lying shithead stressed out of his own making.  Do I think that the Ontarian electorate picked up on this in the para above? - Yup.  Then the known libs get the vote by default.

cheers  :)  majere

The following just makes me want to go out and buy a Conservative love the Americans Party Membership.

This comes out from the Yanks right after the Dutch say screw you, stay out of our gardens, stay out of our backyards, stay out of our livingrooms and stay the heck out of our bedrooms.  Also, Alaska just passed a Bill that allows personal grows in ones home and have 4 ounces on hand.

The Americans I guess decided to kick  very sick people in the nuts just to show how big and bad ass they are as a warning to what could happen to healthy people who even dare try to challenge them.  

The sick fucks and the Conservative Party who loves the Yanks ...... go to hell.   One more reason why Ontarians and East don't vote Conservative.

article snipped>

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumour, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralysed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

unsnipped<

cheers  :)  majere
a libertarian socialist conservative

Article snipped>

Liberal MP leaves Grits over same-sex bill

Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, who opposes his party's position on gay marriage, says he's quitting the Grits to sit as an Independent.

The move comes less than two months after he held a news conference to announce he was staying with the Liberals despite misgivings.

O'Brien has been out of step with his party on social issues and has been long opposed to the government's efforts to pass legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

In April, he decided to stick with the Liberals after Prime Minister Paul Martin promised expanded debate of the marriage bill. But O'Brien said the "full and fair'' debate he expected has not happened.

His discomfort with the party had also been growing with each revelation of malfeasance from the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

O'Brien, who represents the Ontario riding of London-Fanshawe, said he was aggressively courted by emissaries from the Tory caucus in April, but was seriously considering sitting as an independent.

The Liberals are pushing to pass the same-sex bill this month before the summer break. But a compromise reached May 30 may postpone final passage of Bill C-38 until the fall.

Unsnipped<

What we have here is a now ex-Liberal who recognized the lip service from the Martin as what it is, just lip service.  O'Brien also recognized that the Courts should not dictate to the Government as to the legal Rights of soverign individuals as directed by the Charter, but that Parliament should be the sole voice as to what the Charter says.  In other words, if you find your Rights being violated, you cannot go to the Courts to seek remedy to find out if Legally your Rights are in fact being violated as in usurped by Parliament.

So much for checks and balances, eh?

Kind of reminds me of the Randy White tapes where he said,"the courts, who needs them".

From an Ontarian perspective.  They will see it as an honourable move on O'Briens' part, but also see it as O'Brien siding with the Conservatives whether he sits as in independant or not.  O'Brien while noble will be seen as a sub-Conservative re-inforcing the "Bible-Moralists" views while not representing the "Non-Bible-Moralists" views.  A parodox for Ontario voters, no.  He will be considered and branded as a Conservative.

O'Brien stating that he does not want to defeat the Government but wants to defeat the SSM Bill.  That he wants to slow the Bill down and defeat it eventually.

While talking to Don Newman.  He is covering his but in Liberal colours while not portraying himself as a Conservative ...... next election he said he will not run as a Conservative but maybe an independant, but is waffling and will not say for sure which Party.  How is that for political speak?

So much for the Liberals representing "free votes" in the House.  I wrote quite a while ago that the SSM vote was only a Free Vote because Marting knew the proponets would win.  I guess O'Brien FINALLY figured that one out (sarcasim intended) and this guy might be the sharpest in the Liberals that are against SSM.  I can say he is a definate credit to politicians everywhere.

 I bet he will seek nomination as a Conservative...... I guarentee it.

cheers  :)  majere

Ok, still waiting for the dates of this Poll and as to how Ontario fairs.

Pollara :  Libs 38,  Con  27,  NDP  19,  Bloc   13,  Undecided  15.

So far just the same trend but without the dates I do not know if it has taken into account the Grewal Tapes.

With the Undecided sitting at 15% I am still looking at a Liberal Minority.

A scary muse follows:

A soft view of these numbers still indicates that the Conservatives are still not trusted as to maintain the status quo (comfort zone of the electorate) and still do as they claim which is to impliment a smaller government with tax cuts.

I bet if you took a Poll of Ontarians and asked which Party is more American Government friendly, they would say the Conservatives.  Now not to be Yank bashing but their Patriot Act allows for the Government to appropriate ones home without compensation.  Now here in Canada the Government can appropriate ones land for Electrical Distribution Lines etc with a very weak compensation plan in place.  My thoughts are that Ontarians know this and the Patriot Act is not just for the appropiation of supposed terrorists homes but of any American citizens land and home it sees fit to carry out its duties.  Big difference and Harpers' Conservatives supports the American Government.  A fuzzy logic of a fuzzy one plus a hard one equals 2, albeit just a slightly fuzzy logical  2.  Its this grey area thats in the back minds of the electorate.

If Harper would just come out and say that we want free trade with the Americans as long as there is  ........

snipped >

CONgress Selling You Out Again

We draw your attention to the article in the Bangkok Post about the huge battle about to begin over the miss named (deliberately) Dominican Republic - Central America Free Trade Area Agreement.  That's corporatese for "If you still have your job after NAFTA, we'll get you on this round."

 

As the People's Economist sees it:  There is nothing wrong with barrier-free trade - as long as all the parties are playing with the same currency such that workers make the same in purchasing power parity.  However, in case you're blind or unbelievably stoopid, the crap pawned off as "free trade" is nothing more than corporations paying fat cats to play the labor spread between the have's and the have nots. 

 

If the workers in China were paid the same as workers here (e.g. a big screen TV worth of income in a month) then there would be virtually no trade with China.  But they are not making that kind of income and so they get the jobs.  Worse, because corporatists are nearly always miserly sots, they will hide the sausage by preaching free trade without preaching equality of purchasing power.  Dishonest to the core. yet do you see the high brow think tanks talking about "labor and wage spreads"?  Nope.  They're on the take from the corporatists who write the checks to keep the discussion limited to the kind of 10-second talking head crap that rolls out of Cyclops in the Living Room.

 

That of course leaves us where we are now - about to further screw American workers out of decent wages and benefits because you can bet your ass that someone in the DR-CAFTAA area will do your job cheaper than you will and without benefits if you have held onto those.  But still, it's a GOOD corporate police state.  Just keep tell'in yerself that.

unsnipped<

AND WHICH PARTY BROUGHT IN FREE TRADE???????  Which Party is the Pro-Corporation MBA CEO's know better Party?

What tells me that non Conservative voters know this?

Now why would a Western Conservative voter go for this?  Is it that their home is about 1/3 the cost of an Ontarian Urban home?   Is it that Ontarians speak of 40 to 50 foot frontage of housing lots costing 100,000 dollars plus while in the West they speak of Sections of land where an Ontarian lot would be substantially less than the 100,000 plus dollars?  Perhaps the Ontarian would have more to lose.  I left MooseJaw about 6 years ago and was paying 410 dollars per month utilities included for an extremely large 2 bedroom appartment (end of 12th or 13th street, can't remember off the top of my head) while I ended up paying 750 per month for a smaller 2 bedroom here.  The landlords in MooseJaw just bought a smallish 3 bedromm home for 55,000 while the same price here is 140,000 dollars.

These thoughts are not overt but are covert feelings in the subconscience.  It is an accumalation of these subconscience feelings that cause the Ontarian electorate to vote in the way that they do. 

It is up to the Political Leaders to chip away at each of these that make up each and every electorate.  Each region has their very own regional subconscience, it is not overt.  Perhaps Harper believes that this is on the forefront of everyones brain and can be confronted as a matter of fact.  Not so.

Harper as intilligent as he is portrayed might be a good economist, which I doubt, but Ontarians know what they want to protect.

Perhaps Harper does not want to protect and advance, but force and advance?

cheers  :)  majere

Waiting for the next batch of Polling to be done.  I can hardly wait.  I must assume that it will be Liberal friendlies that release the next batch as they are well ahead by now.  The Conservative friendly Pollsters won't have releases, can't influence the Public further you know.  It will be interesting to see how Ontario is reported.

Alan Young the disgraced wrong Court, attack his own cause when he sells out, is still a crap head I would like to meet face to face with no witnesses.

The CBC Newsworld was lacking some serious due diligence in having Alan Young as an expert lawyer interviewee while discussing lets make a deal Karla.

S. David Frankel, Q.C.  is still a lying bastard for not reporting his RvKrieger loss to the Regional Assistant Deputy Attorney Generals' Office.  This is where he lost as the Crown Prosecutor in his Appeal to the Supreme Court of Alberta.  The Judges Court Order that he was Appealing had stated that as it stands now Cannabis laws are null and void (paraphrased almost exactly).  The Appeal was denied by the Higher Court because there was no compelling evidence for the cannabis laws to be otherwise (paraphrased damm close)

John Turmel, carried over 7 pounds of cannabis to the Parliament buildings to purposely get busted by the cops to prove once and for all by bringing these not Crown Reported Court Orders all the way up to the Supremes and to any media that will report it.  Its all in black and white and any person with a High School diploma can simply understand the simply written Court Orders.   GO JOHN.  His Court Case is coming up soon.

Kate (Mensa member I believe)over at Small Dead Animals is trying to rally the Conservative Blue in the West.  Inteligence has no bearing on wisdom (sorry Kate, the bible-moralists devil made me say that  :)  ).  Seriously, Kate and her contributors are  doing a fantastic job at explaining the Wests Conservatives opinions.

There are no real investigative journalists anymore.  All there is is reporters who get there information from, you guessed it, other reporters who get it from what ever is the simplist form of viewer attractiveness.  Piss me off.

The NDPs' website does not show in any way shape or form any means of putting more money in the hands of the poor.  All they are reporting is that they want the poor to breath cleaner air.  They want the poor to still not be able to afford cheap housing.  They are for protecting unionized workers when the company closes down by declaring bankruptcy by putting the workers pension contributions before other creditors;  but I don't see the NDP trying to unionize the workers at Walmart, how come? I don't see anything on the website that will help the CPP poverty with something that would at least bring them up to the Poverty line.   Oh, its true, the NDP still don't count, silly me.

The Libs Martin and the Conservatives Harper both put up a good fight but will only go down as a slug fest in the mud.  The publics base memories of low blows will only be changed IF the RCMP lay charges against one side or both.

What?  The Lib pollsters should have a Poll released around the 10 June give or take a day.  I would bet on the 8th of June if extremely favourable.

My "stockwell days"god, I've become a rambling fool.

Almost forgot.  Oil will run out in 20 years from now, so get ready for the steady decline.  That will put me into my 60's.  I guess I should have learned from my grandparents how to can, jar, use a wood coal stove, garden vegatables, use a well hand pump, collect rain water into a cistern with a hand pump at the kitchen sink hooked up to it, empty an outhouse, and basically everything else they could have taught me.  Grandkids these days.

cheers  :) majere

Time to email as many addresses at CBC as I can with this one.

Alan Young the several times disgraced lawyer;  went to wrong Court representing a client, and, acutally went to Court to side with the Prosecution to make sure a Defendant did not win.  To put the last statement into perspective.  Alan Young was known as a defender of cannabis Rights until he was found out going to Court and sideing with the Prosecution as a "Friend of the Court" to ensure the Defendant did not win as the Defendant was about to force the Courts to admit cannabis was legal as turnips.

Alan Youngs direct quote from a memo followed by a brief explanation from John:

snipped>

" "I attended at the recent Parker hearing to ensure that Turmel's
motion to invalidate the law would not proceeed."

JCT: That was an admission made by Professor Alan Young after he
had sabotaged Turmel's motion to invalidate prohibition of marijuana
in Canada.
The whole controversy over the sabotage of the motion to
invalidate the law can be read in the latest reports at
http://www.medpot.net
Here is the whole text of the lawyer who ensured Turmel's motion
to invalidate the law would not proceed with the poetic response of
the engineer who wrote the motion to invalidate the law.

unsnipped<

Now here is Alan Youngs' entire memo

snipped<

Subject: CMAP: Prof Alan Young:
A Statement To Our Cannabis Movement and The Sick
Sent To: cmap@... Cc: maptalk@...

I am forced to waste my time responding to John Turmel's recent rant
concerning my involvement in the Parker case. Turmel has served a
valuable purpose in keeping on top of Health Canada through his
numerous court cases. For this effort I encouraged and supported
Turmel. However, now he has outlived his utility and he represents a
danger to the pot reform movement. At the outset Turmel may have had
the best intentions; however, now he is left with simple showboating
and grandstanding and this will not work to change the law.

"I attended at the recent Parker hearing for two purposes. First, to
ensure that Turmel's motion to invalidate the law would not proceeed.
His motion will be dismissed by any judge who hears it because the
record is incomplete
and Turmel does not understand the legal argument. I am in the
process of preparing a proper application which will be filed in two
weeks, and I wanted Parker to join up. The decision is Parker's to
make. We will be successful in invalidating the marijuana possession
offence and invalidating the horrible regulatory regime by year's
end. Turmel's attempt to rush this important application will
backfire and he will set back the movement by many years. I also
attended the hearing to ensure that Parker would walk out of court
with protection from prosecution. The "Pitt" order which Turmel is
so excited about is not worth the paper it is written on and any
judge would set it aside without hesitation. The judge we appeared in
front of was prepared to set aside the order and I convinced her to
replace Pitt's order with a constitutional exemption which would
protect Parker throughout the time it takes to bring a proper
application to strike down the law. The judge sent us out of court to
draft the terms of the constitutional exemption but Turmel convinced
Parker not to play ball. He gave Parker the worst possible advice and
look what happened. Two days later the judge rescinded the Pitt order
and refused to grant Parker the exemption I had arranged. She was so
put off by Turmel that she ended up screwing Parker. In fact, it was
Turmel who screwed Parker and I want people to know that it is very
dangerous to rely upon Turmel to assist sick people with legal
issues.
I want everyone to exercise extreme caution before relying upon the
circus-lawyer. As for Turmel's insulting words I could not care less.
I have worked hard on a pro bono basis for the past five years for
sick people and I am not going to allow Turmel's words to sour my
experience. As for Turmel expressing a desire to "puke" on me, I
think that his expression demonstrates the lack of sophistication and
immaturity in his discourse. I am not impressed and I hope that
others realize that Turmel is nothing more than an abusive paper
tiger.
Alan Young

unsnipped<

Needless to say, Alan Youngs' legal representations were totally wrong and Johns' was correct.  The cannabis community no-longer has any faith what so ever in Young but are holding out on Johns'own Court Case as well as several others he is coaching ..... for free.

With that, CBC using Alan Young as a legal representative for interview advice to the Public.  The CBC should be ashamed.

It was after this that the Cannabis Community began to recognize that Alan Young was just looking after his own pocket book.  He has also invested in edit: the Canadian Company Cannasat Cannabis spray for MS.  Something that would never have happened if cannabis became legal as turnips ... by the truck load.

Alan Youngs' only follower now is the CBC, with all of us who are aware of what he has done and is doing, he has NO Credability what so ever.

snipped>

JCT: Other than the complete responses posted at the "latest
reports" at http://www.medpot.net this is the poetic response as yet
offered:

Professor Alan Young, reputed medpot champion too,
Exposed himself a sham when treason was his duty due:
"I went to Parker's hearing to ensure Turmel's good deed,
His motion to invalidate the law would not proceed.

For my own case, I wanted Terry poached in its support,
Unlike in Wakeford where I was thrown out of WRONG the court."
So Parker must be close for sabotage by Young, we saw,
To fight The Engineer's case to invalidate the law.

http://www.medpot.net Latest Reports
Law Society Complaints coming soon.

unsnipped<

cheers :)  majere
roger m roeder kitchener ontario i am in the book.