Some good news…
By: James Burge
February 25th, 2009
I was just emailed this article and thought it was worth the read, so I’m gonna post it.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1–compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1.
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009
The legendary editor of The New Republic, Michael Kinsley, once held a “Boring Headline Contest” and decided that the winner was “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.” Twenty-two years later, the magazine was rescued from its economic troubles by a Canadian media company, which should have taught us Americans to be a bit more humble. Now there is even more striking evidence of Canada’s virtues. Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it’s Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada’s banking system the healthiest in the world. America’s ranked 40th, Britain’s 44th.
Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn’t grown in size; the others have all shrunk.
So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada’s more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking.
Canada has also been shielded from the worst aspects of this crisis because its housing prices have not fluctuated as wildly as those in the United States. Home prices are down 25 percent in the United States, but only half as much in Canada. Why? Well, the Canadian tax code does not provide the massive incentive for overconsumption that the U.S. code does: interest on your mortgage isn’t deductible up north. In addition, home loans in the United States are “non-recourse,” which basically means that if you go belly up on a bad mortgage, it’s mostly the bank’s problem. In Canada, it’s yours. Ah, but you’ve heard American politicians wax eloquent on the need for these expensive programs—interest deductibility alone costs the federal government $100 billion a year—because they allow the average Joe to fulfill the American Dream of owning a home. Sixty-eight percent of Americans own their own homes. And the rate of Canadian homeownership? It’s 68.4 percent.
Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America’s by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes. Life expectancy in Canada is 81 years, versus 78 in the United States; “healthy life expectancy” is 72 years, versus 69. American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America’s largest car-producing region.
I could go on. The U.S. currently has a brain-dead immigration system. We issue a small number of work visas and green cards, turning away from our shores thousands of talented students who want to stay and work here. Canada, by contrast, has no limit on the number of skilled migrants who can move to the country. They can apply on their own for a Canadian Skilled Worker Visa, which allows them to become perfectly legal “permanent residents” in Canada—no need for a sponsoring employer, or even a job. Visas are awarded based on education level, work experience, age and language abilities. If a prospective immigrant earns 67 points out of 100 total (holding a Ph.D. is worth 25 points, for instance), he or she can become a full-time, legal resident of Canada.
Companies are noticing. In 2007 Microsoft, frustrated by its inability to hire foreign graduate students in the United States, decided to open a research center in Vancouver. The company’s announcement noted that it would staff the center with “highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S.” So the brightest Chinese and Indian software engineers are attracted to the United States, trained by American universities, then thrown out of the country and picked up by Canada—where most of them will work, innovate and pay taxes for the rest of their lives.
If President Obama is looking for smart government, there is much he, and all of us, could learn from our quiet—OK, sometimes boring—neighbor to the north. Meanwhile, in the councils of the financial world, Canada is pushing for new rules for financial institutions that would reflect its approach. This strikes me as, well, a worthwhile Canadian initiative.
Israel’s War on Gaza continues…
By: James Burge
January 7th, 2009
In what can only be described as an onslaught, Israel continues to attack ‘militants’ in Gaza, one of the few remaining strongholds of Hamas the terrorist organization government elected by the Palestinians. Israel broke a ceasefire agreement that had lasted about 4 months, claiming their hand was forced by Hamas militants digging a tunnel out of Gaza to apparently attack Israeli soldiers (remember there is a big wall around these people and they were probably trying to get food and clean water, but I digress). Israel has continued a 12 day offensive defensive attack on the region with the supposed intent of ending numerous (mostly unsuccessful) rocket attacks from the region. However, in what is considered the most densely populated Palestinian land that remains, the attacks on ‘militants’ seem to have been abandoned in favor of killing women and children to either further radicalize the region, further justifying these attacks, or to try and turn the remaining Palestinian population against their resistance movement. (which do you see as more likely?) Israel has admitted to deliberately targeting a school, which they now claim was being used as a weapons dump, or had someone fire on them, even though the UN had assured them that no ‘militants’ were present in the school, only civilians attempting to flee the assault on their homes (remember the wall, they have no where to run). After killing over 600 Palestinians (about a quarter of which have been confirmed to be civilians, although I would tend to think this is likely higher than that) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert voiced his plans to travel to Egypt where another ceasefire will be discussed (and eventually broken).
Eight Israeli soldiers were lightly wounded during battles with Hamas militants Monday afternoon, IDF said. On Sunday, an Israeli soldier was killed, marking the first military death since the ground operation launched Saturday night.
Source: Israeli military surrounds Gaza City, officals say
The above article also mentions of another 4 Israelis being killed during the initial reaction from Hamas, which puts the Israeli casualties in the order of 30, seems a bit one sided (although I can’t seem to find an official Israeli death toll). But Israel’s justification for this precision bombing of Palestinian territory (including hospitals and schools) remains the hundreds of low tech rockets, most of which hit low populated regions of the desert between Gaza and Israel.
With another day of gory news reports inflaming the Arab world, Israel contended that the deaths at the school, at the Jabaliya refugee camp north of Gaza City, demonstrated Hamas’s callousness toward the lives of Palestinian civilians.
Source: Israeli Shells Kill 40 at Gaza U.N. School
I think the above quote says it all, “don’t blame us, all we are doing is bombing what little land you Palestinians have left, blame your elected government because they don’t support the ethnic cleansing of the land we took from you 50+ years ago because it is the rightful Jewish homeland cuz we lived there once too.. Oh yeah, and don’t forget the holocaust, yeah that too…”
Although I support Israel’s right to defend its land from rocket fire, there is little talk of the overt actions of the part of Israel to further radicalize those trapped in the world’s larges internment camp.
Look at this way, let’s say for a moment that the Native Americans and the Mexicans rounded up all North American Europeans, forcing them into ghettos, refugee camps and then put a nice big wall around the whole thing so no weapons, bombs, fuel, food or other supplies can enter. I mean those North Americans should be able to take care of them selves and feel content in their quality of life. Then, in the event that the North American Militants fired rockets into Native American and Mexican territory injuring someone, the Native American and Mexican Soldiers are completely justified in bombing schools and refuge camps and not guilty in any way of provoking such attacks.
Think about it!! Seriously…
Climate Change, Case Closed???
By: James Burge
January 5th, 2009
I just finished reading a blog article from the Huffington Post about Climate Change and the ‘global-warming-is-an-exact-science’ crowd, and have a few things to say.
I have to start out with the typical disclaimers that seem to be required for anyone debating the global warming myth. Firstly, I too see our climate changing and I too am concerned about the possible outcomes. Secondly, we do not require an excuse to be better to our environment or to question the workings of this complicated biosphere. Lastly, my genuine concern for our planet (and its future residences) exists regardless of the global warming science that is typically used to induce guilt.
That being said, there remain a few clarifications.
As pointed out in the article mentioned above, our climate is always changing.
There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
This last ice age, as some of you may be aware, saw the majority of what is now North America under glaciers. But of course, one could (wrongly) assume that after the ice age temperatures leveled out and have remained relatively constant ever since. Average temperatures have gone through warm periods, where civilizations thrived, and cold periods, which tended to coincide with plague, famine, and empire collapse. “History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm.”
Another thing that was brought up by the Huffinton Article is that the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels aren’t as cut and dry as some would like us to believe. Scientists have found that there is about an 800 year delay between the rise in global temperatures and the rise in CO2. This is to say that the CO2 levels could not have ‘caused’ the initial warming, but that it may contribute in some way to the continued warming cycle. So could this actually show that increase in global temperature has an effect on the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere?
When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing.
Doesn’t seem quite as cut and dry when you look at it that way.
Do you know what the most common greenhouse gas is?
Methane?
Carbon Dioxide?
Nitrous Oxide?
Water vapour…
I wonder how long until water vapour becomes a controlled substance and hanging clothes up to dry outside cited for the increase in global temperature? I guess it depends on how much money governments can make outlawing CO2 emissions. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is well above the levels of CO2, so why aren’t we hearing about it in all of the global-warming hoopla?
So since water vapour is a greenhouse gas, an increase in water vapour will increase global temperatures, right?
Wrong! Increased water vapour actually reflects more UV light thereby decreasing the amounts seen on the ground. Increase water vapour would also contribute to high levels of precipitation that also have a cooling effect. Also, due to the high heat capacity of water, a lack of water vapour in the air contributes to increased temperature fluctuation from day to night as seen in most arid climates.
The fact is our planet has seen global averages well above and well below levels we see today. The only certainty is that the climate will continue to change. The resulting questions are two fold, 1) how will humans adapt to climate change? And, 2) will guilt, through man-assisted-global-warming be used to justify these adaptations? or will the natural sense of pride in our Earth along with the acceptance of a dynamic/changing climate?
The article goes on to mention the fact that there is evidence that other planets in our solar system are warming and that cosmic rays from other galaxies could actually have an effect on cloud cover here on Earth.
As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling “Svensmark clouds,” low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
My point: ‘Proof’ exists on both sides of this issue, and although I agree that Climate change will likely be one of the major tests of humanity, in my opinion, the human influence on climate change is irrelevant and is only wasting time. Also, the claim that climate change is case closed is at best dubious (would they not welcome science showing that we aren’t doomed as some claim). There is no statute of limitations on truth, something seen as true in science today can (and will likely) be proven false at least in part, whether the science was in already or not (see Newtonian Physics vs. Quantum mechanics). The best evidence for ulterior motive is when ones mind seems to be made up and evidence is then cherry-picked for only those discoveries that prove that point.
In conclusion, should we recycle and use less energy and be more environmental? Of course!!! Should we sturdy the climate and begin preparing for monumental shifts in climate? Of Course!!! Should we each pay governments to save us from the boogie man climate change? HELL NO!!!
Possible Link Between Morgellons Disease and Genetically Modified Food?!?
By: James Burge
December 16th, 2008
I’ve been following the stories of Morgellons disease closely because it was, until recently, considered by Western Medicine, to be part of a mass delusion. The idea that just the perception of suffering from an unknown disease could spread amongst a population of educated individuals intrigued me because something about it just didn’t fit.
Acording to an article I just came across:
Morgellons Disease was first described when a woman’s 3 year old son developed rashes and intensely itchy sores which produced weird multicolor fibers emerging from his skin. She put up a website about the condition in 2001 and named it “Morgellons Disease” after a 17th century report of a similar affliction.
Common symptoms include the sensation of crawling beneath the skin, the growth of multi colored fibers from leasons and scabs that have formed in the skin. Some have even reported inexplicable hair loss, loss of visual acuity, and loss of the sense of smell. In addition to these, lets call them physical symptoms, there are also many mental symptoms that are reported and are (for me) the most interesting. Things like short term memory loss, an inability to focus or concentrate, mood swings, confusion, depression, disorientation and other neurological problems such as clumsiness, stumbling while walking, and impeded speech. More symptoms can be found here.
As mentioned above, one of the most identifiable symptoms is the various colored fibers that appear to grow out of leasons in the skin. It was because of this that most western physicians concluded delusional parasitosis, when patients (or their parents in the cases of delusional parasitosis by proxy) would bring in to physicians fibers that they would claim were expelled from the skin.
Nearly any marking upon the skin, or small object or particle found on the person or their clothing, can be interpreted as evidence for the parasitic infestation, and sufferers commonly compulsively gather such “evidence” and then present it to medical professionals when seeking help.[1] This presenting of “evidence” is known as “the matchbox sign”.
Source: Delusional parasitosis
So until recently it was nearly impossible to be taken seriously by a physician who, rather than look at the many symptoms that do present themselves, would dismiss the individual as delusional. This has caused Morgellons sufferers to be ridiculed and marginalized and have received very little help for their suffering as a result.
Recently the US Center for Disease Control has in fact begun a study in California, of a small number of sufferers so they have at least for now come to the conclusion that more information about this condition is needed.
We do not know the cause of this condition or whether this condition is new. CDC has received an increased number of inquires from persons who report similar symptoms; therefore, we are conducting an investigation to learn more about this unexplained dermopathy.
Source: CDC Unexplained Dermopathy (aka “Morgellons”)
However, where the CDC was slow in their reaction to complaints from people, others have not been so slow to investigate the fibers that are produced. A recent article made the following claim.
A study of the fibers shows that they contain DNA from both a fungus and a bacterium which are used in the commercial preparation of genetically modified foods and non-food crops (such as cotton). The fibers themselves are primarily cellulose, which the human body cannot breakdown or manufacture.
It goes on to claim:
These fibers twist and twine, grow and divide. In short, living beneath the skin of people, they form parasitic lesions out of what should be non-living material but which, through the horror of genetic modification, has taken on the characteristics of a living thing.
According to the article, “some researchers say that every person they have tested has some level of Morgellon’s type pathology in their skin.”
An even more provocative finding is that biochemist Vitaly Citovsky discovered that the fibers contain a substance called “Agrobacterium,” which, according to New Scientist, is “used commercially to produce genetically-modified plants.” Could GM plants be “causing a new human disease?”
Source: Skin Disease Might be Linked to GM Food
Lastly, it is also worth mentioning that most Morgellons sufferers allegedly test positive for lime disease. It could be that lime disease affects our immune system in such a way as to make one more susceptible to whatever causes Morgellons. However, it seems strange to me that while physicians were completely discounting Morgellons as a mass delusion one could still find information about the apparent link with lime disease. It is possible that such a claim could be used to cover-up these apparent links with genetically modified food and create plausible deniability.
Department of [in]Justice…
By: James Burge
December 10th, 2008
OK so I came across this article and haven’t had the time yet to read it in it’s entirety but thought that something mentioned strikes me as extremely odd.
William J. Benson was charged with falsely telling the American people the 16th Amendment was not ratified and therefore the income tax is unconstitutional. The evidence of the truth of his statement was struck from the record as “irrelevant and immaterial.” The appeal before the 7th Circuit raises the question of whether American citizens will continue to be allowed to prove their innocence in the courts of this country.
What is really amazing here is not the claims that none of the states properly ratified the 16th Amendment allowing for the government to collect from forced slave labour citizens income. It’s the fact that this man is not being allowed to defend himself!!! It also makes one wonder what they had to hide that is had to be struck from the record, because if it was truly irrelevant and immaterial, why not leave it in so anyone reviewing the case could make similar decisions about the validity of his evidence. Is it because the department of justice is funded by revenue from taxes? Seems like a miscarriage of justice AND a conflict of interest all rolled into one.
Take a closer look at that one. Benson is charged with falsely claiming that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, then the court declares any and all proof that might vindicate him as “irrelevant and immaterial.”
This is, of course, the logical outcome of a court system which is itself funded by tax dollars. There is a clear conflict of interest which precludes justice being done in this case.
The government’s attitude towards the 16th is that it no longer matters if it was really ratified or not, the tax system depends on it, therefore by fiat it is legal. Judge James C. Fox, in Sullivan Versus United States, admits right in the court record that examination shows that the 16th Amendment was not actually ratified, then goes on to say that since the nation has acted as if it was ratified all this time, there is no reason to change things at this late date. This is akin to saying that if a man get away with a murder for, let us say, twenty years, there is no reason to go back and prosecute him even if the evidence proves his guilt. [emphasis added]
Source: www.whatreallyhappened.com
Worth the Read… The FED
By: James Burge
December 3rd, 2008
I just came across an amazing post about the privately owned US Federal Reserve.
Basically, Congress was given the power by the US Constitution to “To coin Money, regulate the value thereof,” but somehow has given that power to a private bank known as the Federal Reserve. They have never, in the history of the reserve, been audited mostly because no one, not Congress, not the IRS, have the power to do so. When congress spends money it doesn’t have (deficit spending) they issue a government bond that is then bought by the Federal Reserve, thereby providing the money needed. They get the money from the US Treasury which prints the money at a cost of about $0.03/$100. They then charge the American Government interest on moneys provided. The amounts to over $100 profit for every $100 government deficit spending. Any other privately owned company would have to pay taxes on their profit, but not the FED. They claim only $20 billion profit a year which is returned to the US Treasury. The rest is spent abroad, without oversight, in whatever way the owners of the FED desire.
The U.S. Government now owes the FED owners the interest on those bonds. Remember the FED owners do not earn the bonds, they simply arrange for printing the money to buy the bonds. In other words, they created money out of thin air, and exchange it for the interest bearing bonds.
When the OWNERS of the FED receive the interest on the BONDS they’re holding, they are receiving that money essentially for free and without the need to pay taxes on the profit.
Why don’t we learn about any of this in school???
Update: Came across another article today that quotes a Thomas Edison New York Times article from 1921.
Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.
Update 2.0: Came across another article, Bag the Fed! Looks like the recent economic ‘crisis’ is sure getting people talking about the Federal reserve.
The Fed always increases the money supply to increase the money owed to it. That money is also loaned out, as said earlier, at interest, creating more debt, which equals a kind of economic slavery because it’s impossible for the government to ever free itself from this self-generating debt-load.
Update 3.0: Come across this google video, haven’t had a chance to watch it yet… Linked from BrasscheckTV.
More Melamine Contamination News…
By: James Burge
December 1st, 2008
So I just came across an article that (finally) confirms the Melamine contamination I mentioned a few days before Halloween.
The FDA’s test results, which the agency hid from the public and only released after the Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request, showed that Nestle, Mead Johnson and Enfamil infant formula products were all contaminated with melamine.
The first thing that stands out above is that the FDA hid test results from the public, something that seems to deny common sense. If the levels are low and of no risk to the public, why hide the info. Why not let people know so that they can try to limit their exposure and commit to reducing, or eliminating the chemical altogether. Instead, after testing baby formula that is being sold in the US, the FDA has decided to raise the limit that it claims is safe for infants from none, to 1ppm, which just happens to be slightly higher than products being sold in the US. They have made these claims without doing any research into the toxic effects.
Prior to these test results being made public, the FDA had published a document on its website that explained there was no safe level of melamine contamination in infant formula. Specifically, the FDA stated, “FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns.”Once tests found melamine in U.S.-made formula products, however, the FDA changed its story. As of today, the FDA has now officially declared melamine to be safe in infant formula as long as the contamination level is less than one part per million (1 ppm).
Astonishingly: The FDA has no new science to justify its abrupt decision declaring melamine to be safe!
The standard is the same as the one public health officials have set in Canada and China, but is 20 times higher than the most stringent level in Taiwan.
Source: link
The second question that arises is how melamine got into the baby formula in the first place. The official claim is that it is due to contamination from manufacturing equipment.
And yet the AP is reporting that the expected level of melamine contamination from manufacturing equipment is only 15 ppb (parts per billion).
Yet the FDA’s own tests found levels 16x that expected due to contamination from manufacturing equipment. This of course leads to the question of how levels could get so high. One conclusion is that Melamine was actually added in order to artificially raise the protein content. Another is that Melamine in animal feed could account for high levels in milk products. The second possibility means that all of the milk produced in the US could be high in Melamine and therefore any milk products like yogurt, cheese, etc. are also at risk.
Canadian ‘War-on-Health’???
By: James Burge
October 23rd, 2008
So I came across an article today that made me think. It is on a topic that hasn’t been getting much attention, which is good, because if it was getting the attention it deserves most would be outraged and the public outcry would likely put a stop to such things, if only for a short time, because, as we have seen in the case of politics for years, something which isn’t popular now, can be made popular under the right circumstances. (Its worth pointing out that much of what I’m about to talk about is nothing more than speculation)
So the article “FDA Running Extortion Racket: Natural Supplement Companies Threatened with Arrest if They Don’t Pay Up” by: Mike Adams talks about the ways in which the US Food and Drug Administration has been using extortion style techniques to strong arm small Natural Health businesses who can not afford a legal fight and will settle out of court to try and salvage their business. What the FDA is trying to do is to get Natural Health companies to stop linking to scientific articles which explain or backup the benefits of various natural supplements.
Cherry products, for example, cannot link to scientific articles explaining the simple biological fact that cherries ease inflammation in human beings. Such links are considered “drug claims” by the FDA.
Canadians following the development of Bill C-51 will likely notice the parallels between the US FDA’s tactics and some of the things proposed by this bill. I would be willing to bet that this whole Bill C-51 thing is to pave the way for similar tactics or provide a legal framework allowing Health Canada to continue this practice (assuming this has already happened, which I think is likely). The article says that the US FDA is also trying to make Natural Health Websites remove consumer testimonials and are threatening imprisonment if companies don’t comply.
Can you imagine, even saying something like “An Apple a day, keeps the DR away” or even a simple anecdote recommending the use of Garlic as an antibiotic could be considered a “drug claim” by the US FDA even though they make fraudulent “drug claims” constantly!!!
FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.
So basically, (if my assumptions are correct, I haven’t read the bill, but I’m starting to think I should) it is attempting to criminalize not only the natural health products themselves, but the promotion of natural health supplements as beneficial, in favor of synthetic drugs most of which were deemed ’safe’ under questionable circumstances, and Health Canada wants the same tools as the Americans in order to silence any source of opposition.
Already, it is against the law for any Natural Health supplement to make a claim on its packaging as to any health effects it has, something that usually has decades or more of real world anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, most prescription drug trials go as follows:
- Group A is given a new experimental drug, and group B is given sugar pills,
- Both groups are tested for any number of physical ailments/benefits like blood pressure, cognitive function, lung capacity, and whatever else they can think of, until it is found that Group A has a statistically significant deviation from group B.
- If, for example, Group A has significantly lower Cholesterol then Group B, regardless of any other outside factors for such a discrepancy, the drug is then marketed with the claim that it lowers Cholesterol which little to no mention of the fact that it could have any number of other effects that weren’t statistically significant (or beneficial) enough to mention.
So then the public goes to their DR with high blood pressure and are given a drug that could have any number of long term side effects, yet to recommend Coenzyme Q10, Garlic, Hawthorn (herb), Fish Oil, Folic acid, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, and, of course, Exercise; all of which have been shown to reduce blood pressure, and have no known toxic effects (unlike newly synthesized chemicals), would be illegal.
Its amazing to think that this bill could be used to criminalize vitamins and minerals in the form of daily health supplements and to “penalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children.” As well, if the government requires a prescription for a drug, any naturally occurring source would also require a prescription. What if they decided that potassium has health benefits that should be monitored by a physician and require a prescription to obtain potassium supplements, they would be criminalizing people from buying, owning, and eating Banana’s without a proper prescription. The only question left is if such prosecutions would be made under the controlled drugs and substances act. It really takes the ‘war-on-drugs’ to a whole new level.
Update: Only because I think this is an important issue, I thought I’d include a link on how to find your Member of Parliament here.
Update 2.0: Just came across this article about Vioxx, I havn’t finished reading it so take a look for yourself.
I refuse to be deceived!!!
By: James Burge
October 15th, 2008
I’m not sure whether to be shocked or to feel stupid for thinking things in Canada could be different. In what can only be described as taking a page from the US playbook the RCMP have used taxpayers money to fund a study designed to undermine the work of Insite, BC’s safe injection site designed for harm reduction of a niche of society that has been effectively marginalized federally. Insite, despite the a conservative witch hunt “has been subject to rigorous, independent third party research and evaluation by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, recognized as one of the world’s leading research organizations.” Taken from its own site, some of the results include:
- increased uptake into detoxification programs and addiction treatment. (New England Journal of Medicine)
- has not led to an increase in drug-related crime, rates of arrest for drug trafficking, assaults and robbery were similar after the facility’s opening, and rates of vehicle break-ins/theft declined significantly. (Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy)
- reduced the number of people injecting in public and the amount of injection-related litter in the downtown eastside. (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
- attracting the highest-risk users – those more likely to be vulnerable to HIV infection and overdose, and who were contributing to problems of public drug use and unsafe syringe disposal. (American Journal of Preventive Medicine)
- reduced overall rates of needle sharing in the community, and among those who used the supervised injection site for some, most or all of their injections, 70% were less likely to report syringe sharing. (The Lancet)
- Nearly one-third of Insite users received information relating to safer injecting practices. Those who received help injecting from fellow injection drug users on the streets were more than twice as likely to have received safer injecting education at Insite. (The International Journal of Drug Policy)
- Insite is not increasing rates of relapse among former drug users, nor is it a negative influence on those seeking to stop drug use. (British Medical Journal)
- Insite is preventing overdose deaths and reducing hospital visits (The International Journal of Drug Policy)
Source: http://www.vch.ca/sis/research.htm
The problem is that all the above mentioned benefits to society aren’t enough for the conservatives who are still trying to push an incarceration/punitive based approach to drug enforcement. It seems that the RCMP agree, so much so, after receiving reports from two separate studies which didn’t effectively demonize Insite, they went back for two more, one of which was headed “by the director of a national drug-prevention organization that opposes Insite.”
This type of cherry picking from only those studies that reinforce policy IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! This is the same type of shit that convinced the US that Saddam had Newkuler weapons!!!
Its amazing to me, that a Canadian politician can suggest adopting an almost 40 year old failed US policy and have ppl (‘conservitives?’) buy it as a ‘hard on crime’ policy, when it is really just a policy to incarcerate those who obviously need help. This wouldn’t be successful if addicts hadn’t already been marginalized, and organized crime linked so closely with the drug trade, a link which can be blamed solely on the type of prohibition a ‘war-on-drugs’ tends to propagate. (I thought we were smarter than that, but I’m not surprised to see Harper prove me wrong, again, and again and… well you get the picture)
When political policy begins to influence the same studies used to sell the policy to the public, its called DECEPTION!!! I refuse to be deceived!!!
Selling out Canadian Sovereignty
By: James Burge
October 6th, 2008
I was less than surprised to read an article from the Prince George Citizen titled “Prime Minister Harper officially endorses North American Union!” I knew that Canadian Sovereignty was low on Harpers list of concerns, but to so blatantly call for the end of Canadian Sovereignty is actually kinda shocking and I think the tag line says it all.
YOU WANT HARPER IN A MAJORITY GOVERNMENT?? CANADA WILL BE LOST, PLEASE VOTE SMART.
The goal of the North American Union (NAU) (for those unaware, and there are lots of you because Media tends to gloss over the details) is an assimilation of Canada into a “New America” basically destroying any fair trade deals with Mexico and the US and allowing a Non-Canadian body to make decisions that will greatly effect all Canadian citizens without being accountable to those same citizens. You will see most news trying to diminish the roll of the US as directing Canadian policy, but if this is not the end goal then why the push for the NAU.
Indeed, the Stephen Harper government has been reported to be in the process of getting various Canadian government departments and agencies to “harmonize”, with U.S. governmental agencies, to expedite the assimilation of Canada into the neo-conservative vision of a “Fortress North America”.
(I think what they meant to say was FACIST North America, but I digress…)
North American Union architects have used the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to legitimate the take over of Canada by U.S. interests as a “logical outcome” of the terms of NAFTA.
This gives you an idea of how these people think, as far as they are concerned we gave up our rights to set a fair price on Canadian exports once we signed NAFTA. And for those who try to make the case that this is just an extention of NAFTA and has no berring on our soveriegnty, if the NAU is a logical extention of NAFTA what is a logical extention of the NAU, a Canadian State of America?? Just don’t be fooled that Candian Soverignety means anything to US lawmakers who seem to put little virtue in US soveriegnty.
In effect, the Government of Canada appears to be governed not from a sovereign Parliament in Ottawa, but run through a New York City-based political fraternity, which seeks to replace a democratic form of government, with the rule of society by a “Council of Wise Men” (the US Council on Foriegn Relations).
The US Council on Foreign Relations has been criticized for its pursuit of globalization and lack of concern with sovereignty and with great interest in breaking down any barriers for the exploitation of foreign markets, workforce and resources.
The architects of such a fascistic government look upon their vision of society, to be much more “efficient” in dealing with the need to vanquish enemies, i.e. “terrorists”. [...] A terrorist is broadly defined by the architects of the North American Union, as any individual or group which opposes the New World Order agenda.
John Manley, former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who is part of an apparent Liberal-Conservative-Bloc parliamentary alliance on the SPPNA, also endorses the replacement of the Canada-U.S. border, with a new international border around Canada, the U.S., and also Mexico.
How can we expect American politicians to do whats best for Canadians when even our own politicians wont?
