Thanks for the thought provoking article Rafe!

My grandfather (RIP) was an old style conservative. Despite some differences I found that I agreed with the old bugger on many issues...especially environmental issues! He had worked in the woods in the early 20th century, and was a member of the Depression-era work camps. As a result he had a great respect for the wild!

I'm a former Green Party candidate (three federal elections, two provincial and two municipal). I joined the Greens because the other parties refused to push environmental issues. However, at the time I joined the Greens they were also very strong on social issues such as poverty, free trade and solidarity with the South (Majority World).
At that time I really liked our federal leader, Joan Russow, who was very well spoken, and was also knowledgeable on international issues. But despite my Green background I don't have much faith in the new leader, Jim Harris. I think he is "Green in name, not reality".

If my friend runs for the Greens I will vote for him in my riding. If not I will vote NDP.

Provincially, I'm looking at the Workless Party.

Let's just be honest and say that political parties often start out with good intentions but...(PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE)...

It is both frustrating and satisfying to be living in South Korea now. Satisfying in that I can still vote, but frustrating that I can't do more to change the political system in Canada from here.

Wither Canada?

Kevan Hudson
Suncheon, South Korea

I wouldn't worry too much about the green creds of the current leader of the Green Party. If Jim Harris can shepherd the party through a period of increasing popularity, that's all we should expect of him. The Greens won't be a force in Parliament until we have either a) PR in Parliament or b) an environmental collapse. By then, Harris will have been replaced by someone else, and if we're lucky, the party will be popular enough for us to worry about whether he/she holds the proper green politics.

Greens are basically just conservatives with an environmental platform.

Again Rafe's dead right, voting for the Libs, Conservatives, and/or the NDP only encourages them. If we could get just 10% of the vote this time, it would send shivers up party organizers of the big 3.

Hell, if the BQ ran here I would vote for them!

We had better wake up to the fact that Canada is badly damaged by politcal corruption, greed, and ignorance and a large Green turnout would send a loud message that none of big three are woth a vote!

It's so bad, I think I would welcome a military coup!

Oh by the way in Brand-X this headline. Sorta fits, doesn't it!

Canada's political parties rated among the most corrupt in new global survey

Well said Rafe, as usual.

As a (recently) former member of the NDP, the more material I read from the Greens, the more they make sense.

The Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP are all about retaining or obtaining power, rather than getting down to business on those issues that really matter most to Canadians, and in a larger context, the world. The Big Three parties will argue that their platforms are comprehensive roadmaps for the future, but experience has shown that one can say almost anything in an election, and then once power has been achieved, they de-scope, deny, or delay.

Cynical? You bet.

But not I'm not cynical enough to believe that a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote. Presently, the Greens are the only party that is prepared to tackle real issues with new thinking, rather than the old-school approach of pandering to voters with promises that will never be kept.

Come January, the Green candidate in my riding will probably place a distant third or fourth, but at least I will be able to sleep comfortably knowing I haven't played a part in perpetuating our country's blasé acceptance of the status quo. Because if you haven't noticed, the status quo no longer works.

Collective suicide.

I also will vote green. I already know that the big C's(incumbent) will win in my mostly elderly, retired and wealthy riding. There's a few artist-hippy types too who vote Green, so I don't believe my vote will be wasted. The green candidate in my riding beat the Ndp one last time.
Andrew Lewis got the most Gree votes in Canada! If that's collective suicide than so be it. At least I'm not a sell out to the NDP. I'm sorry but the united steel workers and co. don't speak for me.

rafe, you scare me sometimes.

i also have been wasting my vote on the greens for 2 elections, and for the same reasons, and more.

the greens are electorally challenged because the issues they support are relatively invisible to the average ignorant, selfish voter.

results would be similar; hard for the average person to see, or appreciate what they are getting.

in contrast, the big two would eliminate guns, drugs, cancer, babysit your kids, give you more money, stop stealing your money, improve education, health care, spiritual well being, cure baldness, and increase breast and penis size, gender specifically.

historically, some of the above are simply impossible to achieve due to physics, while the others are equally impossible because enough of the population likes them.

but they are all things people have feelings for.

yes, the libs have the economy in great shape.
so great they decided to take a secret bonus.

gun control is less important than, and just as impossible as, banning tobacco. but it appeals to some idealist types who think canada would be safer if guns were illegal.

harper will cure cancer and babysit your kids, but you have to get religion. he denies the last part, but there are many in the party who place god first, kind of.

one of the great cornerstones of freedom is the separation of state from church.

look at what happens in countries where the church is the state. they are never on the best ten thousand places to live list.

the half party hopes to influence a minority govt, yawn.

non of the big 2.5 has the big picture in mind, but only small minds with big plans for themselves.

real democracy would give all parties a voice in parliament.

Well, of course Rafe will be voting Green ... why would anybody be surprised by an old Socred voting Green?! That's Green in name only, as Former BC Boy says. Just like it was Social Credit in name only. Or its latest transformation, B.C. Liberals in name only.

Well, I'm part of "the sorry lot" Rafe rejects. His old hero, W.A.C. Bennett, called us "the socialist hordes at the gate" ... very sophisticated thinking, really. When those gates did open to the NDP, B.C. got auto insurance, agricultural farmland protection, etc.

So I'll vote for the NDP candidate in my riding, precisely because of the continuing trust I feel for a grand old party which has endured every form of elitist abuse but has never forgotten its mandate to serve the people. And people, in my world, naturally includes the environment.

Just one question, Rafe, didn't you tell us recently that you, too, had become a socialist?

Good on you for going Green once again Raif.

The Greens will double their vote this time out, I doubt any other party will do that.

We are on the doorstep of having a Green MLA or MP in this country, we recently elected 15 Green leaning candidates in the BC municpal elections [inc the Mayor of Whistler].

Someone needs to hold Paul Martin's feet to fire over the lack of action on Kyoto, we know it won't be Jack Layton once he gets his comfy seat back.

For Grumpy that was prepared to vote Bloc, have a look at this Bloc de l'Ontario spoof:

http://demaisonneuve.com/bloc/index.html

A bit more humour in politics would help IMHO. Some of the more serious stuff they are doing is really not funny.

"Every problem once was a solution."

The Greens know there is an environmental crisis. So does everyone. So what will the Greens do about it? Subsidize industry, big surprise.

Rafe, you reject the Christian right but not the environmental right. And, typically of political commentary in the mainstream media and much of The Tyee, your comments aren't actually about policies but rather the personal shortcomings of the party leaders. One party leader, though, apparently not only has no shortcomings, he doesn't even exist for you. I had to read your readers' postings to see Green leader Jim Harris's name. Why is your candidate above criticism?

No vote is wasted if it represents the best-informed, best-reasoned opinion a citizen can bring to bear. (Of course, if we all did this we'd still produce a wide range of opinion.) But a belly-acher vote is a wasted vote. Or worse, being a vote for cynicism, it helps elect cynics. When you vote to throw the bums out, you also vote to throw the new bums in.

I'll vote NDP because in my riding that might make a difference. I'll hope for a minority government this time and every time. Nobody's perfect, no one has all the answers. So we should elect governments that have to listen to as many views as possible.

Gee Rafe... I thought the 'X' factor was working for Harper.

sorry, tonib but your greenie did NOT beat the NDP in the last one as you claim

NDP 21.6%
Green 16.71%

Whose lies are you believing?

I'm going to agree with most of your comments Rafe, in particular your comment on the Conservative candidate as we unfortunately have “one of those” in my Richmond riding. But I’m going to take you to task on Jack Layton. It's true that not all of the NDP is as green as some of us would like it. Environmentalist social democrats like myself are often at odds with some of the more short-sited union environmental positions within the NDP, as our history has shown, but Jack is different. He is one of us and deserves that chance to prove you wrong, and I believe he will.

I don’t believe for a minute that the current conservative style Green Party has a hope in hell of getting elected or making the changes to corporate Canada that would be required to ensure our long-term survival both as a country and as a species. If they had any sense they would help the environmentalists within the NDP do what the NDP does best, influence the other two major parties in the House of Commons, and hopefully continue to hold the governing party to task.

Dale Jackaman
(former NDP federal and provincial candidate)

Rafe, your sentiment does you justice; your due diligence does not. In the last federal election - just a few short months ago - the Sierra Club and Greenpeace both assessed the NDP ahead of the Green Party on their environmental platform. I'll stick with the NDP on environmental and social justice issues.

Of course Rafe would "say" he will vote Green.How else could he write this article.
Well he could really stir things up for a few more articles, and say he was voting NDP.

The NDP ahead of the Green party on environmental issues, you must be joking! layton is selling out to the auto unions in Ontario so they can build gas guzzlers.

I have a lot problem with Greenpeace, where the hell are they on our fish farms? And that goes to the Sierra too, where are they on fish farms? No where to be seen! The real heros are those in the Sea Sheperd group and their fight against Canada's Gestapo in the maritimes!

As for the Bloc, it was a bit tongue and cheek, but if we have a seperatist provincial party, I may vote for them!

Mind you a military coup might be the better, option! That would certainly shake thing up!

God help us, anything would be better than Harper, Layton, and/or Martin.

Hey let's not forget Harry Rankin who ran for Vancouver Council about a dozen times. When he got there he was the concience of the council and people from all sides of the political spectrum went to Harry when they needed some help. I worked with two guys who were pretty far right, I'm not, and Harry sorted out their problems in the time it took him to take off his jogging sweats and open the office. They ended up as two of his biggest fans.

If Mair wants to vote Green, well go for it , its called democracy. Quite aways from the old socred's though. One fellow I know says he has always voted NDP in his riding, a place where the NDp never had a hope in hell of winning, but the voter is always right.

Good for you Rafe: I'd consider voting for the NDP if their opposition to corporate tax cuts was a little more nuanced and a little less knee-jerk. I'd suggest qualification for lower corporate rates be determined by the results of a triple-bottom line audit, and that the present low rates for small business (17.62) be retained in BC. The real burden of corporate taxes gets shared between shareholders, managers and customers in proportions determined by the applicable supply/demand configurations in the capital, labour, and product.service markets, so one cannot be sure quite who the NDP or Liberal policies are rewarding or penalizing in any given case. With my proposal, management interest in getting themselves a higher rating on a TBL assessment would certainly be stimulated. These ratings could be made relative, like in a pro-sports league, so regardless how well any corporation does absolutely, 50% always pay the high rate of tax and 50% the lower rate. That would make companies compete as hard to achieve good TBL performance as pro-sports teams compete to get into the playoffs, or as hard as they currently compete to earn greater profits !

I would vote for anyone who vows to get us out of the WTO. This is what needs to happen. No industrialized country can 'compete' and it's really about monopoly Laissez Faire Capitalism and no underprivilaged country can compete either. All it does it create world wide misery. WWM is the real acronym. I think enough people are 'getting it' that wide support for getting out is probable. Once the WTO is out of the way, the domineo effect of its regressive policies will cease and the Canadian tradition of 'peace, order and good government can be restored.

domino...

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1664984,00.html?gusrc=rss

Bang on link, Redrivergirl. Something this country does indeed yet have to face up to-, in the face of our Wingnut Wannabe Bootlicks. (Thinking Swervin' Erwin and Colin again. Who always quickly come to mind around this issue-, for some reason. :-)

And Canada is heading the Mexico route......we are "de-industrializing" at an ever-increasing rate, while our "capital", our natural resources, is being shipped in wholesale lots out of the country.

Voting Green won't help this situation. But niether will voting Lib, Con, or NDP. Vote CAP (if there is a candidate in your riding)

Well at least Rafe throws it out there. What a pickle...

Vote for the Reds and you support years of political corruption and a man who, while he says he is working for the average Canadian, has his fleet of merchant ships registered in obscure countries so he can take advantage of tax and other bureaucratic loop holes. A real stand up guy..

A vote for the NDP is a non starter for me, as Jacky Boy seems to be held up on ancient times with ideals and dogma lifted straight out of the CCF handbook. No new ideas, just being afraid of change.

And while a vote for the Greens is basically "safe", I might as well drive down Kingsway and throw my ballot out the window for all that it will get me.

While I am not thrilled with the Conservatives as a whole, our MP out here (John Cummins) has served us well. He is involved in all manner of local issues, is not a christian hard-ass and is a hard worker. It makes my vote easier to swallow, knowing I am voting for what I consider to be a worthy local candidate.

However, I feel for the rest of you.. One really has to think hard about where to park their vote this time 'round. Good luck.. for all our sakes.

I would also vote Green if did not risk putting the BCGEU back in power. I find them a fresh alternative.

I have to respect Rafe for checking out his party of choice before he votes, but I think he'd better actually get to know who his candidate is before making up his mind. It is a little hard to believe that such a strong advocate for STV is going to vote for someone simply based on the party's principles rather than an individual candidate's worthyness.

Anyone voting in North Vancouver needs to know that the Conservative candidate was a lawyer from Focus on the Family. The former president of that organization is running for the Conservatives in Richmond. I have to vote Liberal just so we don't become a fundamentalist religious state.

You've made a good case for the Greens. This election is the first election I will be voting in and you had me almost convinced to vote for the Greens. The environment is extremely important; I see that and try to act accordingly.

So where did you lose me? What else do the Greens stand for? You said nothing about anything besides the environment. The Greens play nice with things that are green. Yeah, they're the Green party, that's what they stand for.

What about the ridiculous amount I paid in tuition today - what do they think about that? What about terrible organizations like the WTO? What about world poverty? What about homelessness? Where do they stand on these issues? Do they have an action plan? Do they have some new way of dealing with healthcare? Any plans to revamp hospitals?

Yes, the environment is extremely important. But there are other factors too. Perhaps you should have more of a base for why you're voting for the Green Party. One reason, however large, is still just one reason.

There's no way I'd vote for the Conservatives, and I'm not going to vote Liberal. Perhaps I should use my voice to support the Communist party...

Maybe it is time we looked at some sort of S.T.V. type of electoral system federaly, get rid of the party system & elect a new group of independant free thinkers who could elect their own lesder & get on with running the country. Of course the day after the election they would form three cliques & we would be knee deep in the same old crap again Oldman

The reference to the Christian right is a bit of a low blow. It's kinda like calling all Muslims terrorists.
I am amazed at how acceptable it is to be a bigoted Christian hater in this country.
If these things were said about any other group there would be a massive freakout.
Would they say the same thing about any other religion ?
Are Christians known for lying and robbing like The Fiberals ?
Are they known as murderes and rapists like Sadam ?
Was it not christians who were leaders in the fight against slavery ?
Is the Salvation Army evil ?
It's seems you can get away with murder when putting down christians ( or Americans )
What a two faced bunch we see here.

I will vote NDP. They are the closest party to my values. They've never had a chance to be the gov't. Mostly though, the more votes they get, the louder the message is that people value social morality responsible public policy, both environmentally and in terms of humanity. Also, here in BC the race is often btwn the NDP and the Cons, so check your riding carefully and don't vote liberal unless they have a real chance of getting in. (and that's who you want to get in)

Thanks Coyote. I think what is happening in Australia is what will happen in every Western country as those policies and traditions that make us country that embraces pluralism, and an egalitarian society are undermined and reversed. Firstly, the cons promote the fear fo terrorism so they can strip us of our rights, then their policies are so regressive that people feel they don't have a chance to achieve and to do well, nor do they feel a sense of community and presto, the law of unintended consequences, chaos. I think Canadians might be smart enough to riot on the neo-cons themselves though, rather than each other. Australia's gov't is enacting neo-conservative policies that are really hurting people.

Another law of unintended consequences the rising success of Socialism in Latin America.

What the neo-cons didn't understand is that under 'enlightened Capitalism' they had it made. They are so short sighted.

Anyway, it's an NDP vote for me.

Isn't funny that no one admits to voting Liberal, but thousands do. What would happen if Liberal supporters stayed home? The pre election poles would show a Liberal sweep, yet those numbers would not equate into votes.

Ron Erwin, the Christian Right, and Christian Fundamentalism have dragged themselves into the political debate by pushing a "Family Values" platform, and having Harper validate their comments by pledging on the first day of the election campaign to re-open the same sex debate and have a revote. No one's comparing them to terrorists in that they don't use violence as a weapon, but similar to Muslim fundamentalists or other groups, their aim to preserve a society based on religious values is very troublesome. Some of us let if go the first time, as we wanted parliament to validate that marriage was between 2 individuals, but now that we have established that as a precedent, to move backwards is only possible through invoking the notwithstanding to waive the charter of rights and freedoms.

The Salvation Army is not the group in question, the group that is in question is "Focus on the Family," and regardless of whether some religious groups show great leadership and caring, any positive qualities FOTF may have are annulled by their clear political agenda. If the candidates for North Van and Richmond state that their motivations are different from FOTF, then perhaps the criticism will not be as relevant.

Currently, Focus on the Family has on its website these comments:

"Helpful guidelines from Joesph Nicolosi that identify practical ways homosexuality may be prevented."

"Furthermore, homosexuality is intrinsically misguided and
sinful, independent of anyone’s response to it"

There are also clear statements that this group intends to push these goals through legislation. When the CPC fails to distance itself from them, we can and should be suspicious of there motivation. Over half of Canadians identify themselves as Christians, and indeed it is only a small minority of them who believe this is an election issue, and only a small minority who are strongly in favour of rolling back the clock. But it is fundamentalist Christian groups and the "Christian right" who are pushing social conservatism and not agnonstic or Muslim groups.

For those of us who believe in the seperation of Church and State, we have every right to bring these behaviors to the forefront. To demonize them is not an attack on Christians, or Christianity, but on the subset of those groups who believe that their religious values should be the values by which Canada should be run. (Who wear their religion on their sleeves) These are not universal Christian tennents such as love your neighbour as yourself, or give onto Caesar what is Caesar, these are groups whose values are often based on intolerance of others.

So Ron, feel free to practice your religion in your house, church, and in your heart, but keep the preaching out of parliament.

Considering you hate everyone and enjoy the fact loggers die for profit, I really don't think anyone cares if this is a low blow to you, Ron.

Yeah, and the other half were leading the fight FOR slavery.

2,720 9,472

Mexico is "streets ahead of Vietnam." Mexico's per capita GDP is 3 and a half times greater then Vietnam's.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

Mexico: $9,472.43 per person
Vietnam: $2,719.79 per person

Trade between nations increases wealth and standards of living for all countries involved. This has been know for over two hundred years since the time of David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Virtually all economists understand this.

Hey Ronnie baby.

I see you bleating on about the unfair way in which the extreme right wing of the Christian Faith is depicted... Well my fine fellow, over the course of history, these fine folks have ruthlessly and in a calculated manner, murdered countless people in the name of their "god". While it is certainly not fair to say ALL christians are bad apples, its is also not fair for you to claim to be as pure as the wind driven snow... Whether it be censorship or the killing of Doctors who perform abortions, whether you like it or not, people have just cause to be leery of the extremist Christian fanatics.

"The Harvard economist Dani Rodrik is one trade sceptic. Take Mexico and Vietnam, he says. One has a long border with the richest country in the world and has had a free-trade agreement with its neighbour across the Rio Grande. It receives oodles of inward investment and sends its workers across the border in droves. It is fully plugged in to the global economy. The other was the subject of a US trade embargo until 1994 and suffered from trade restrictions for years after that. Unlike Mexico, Vietnam is not even a member of the WTO.

So which of the two has the better recent economic record? The question should be a no-brainer if all the free-trade theories are right - Mexico should be streets ahead of Vietnam. In fact, the opposite is true. Since Mexico signed the Nafta (North American Free Trade Agreement) deal with the US and Canada in 1992, its annual per capita growth rate has barely been above 1%. Vietnam has grown by around 5% a year for the past two decades. Poverty in Vietnam has come down dramatically: real wages in Mexico have fallen."

Taken from the above link.

Also, GDP is an archaic way of evaluating economic growth. There's lots on it for those who want to google it. It counts capital liquidation (which we sure are doing lately) as part of the GDP instead of asset reduction which it should. etc. etc.

Here, here, Dan.

Christians are great. These people of the radical right who calls itself Christian and are so hate filled are something else.

themselves, not itself...

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1518/Is_GDP_a_satisfactory_measure_of_growth_.html

There are two towns in Sweden that are fossil fuel free. Homes are heated by a central boiler fueled by wood-waste with hotwater heat piped to 77,000 homes in one case; the other is smaller. Fuel is methane gas derived from manure and garbage. What are we doing? Looking for more oil, not harnessing wind, sun or tidal power, or even much thermal energy. I don't hear any party planning to change this, so perhaps the Green Party is not a bad choise.

It was about ten years ago that Rafe was advocating either Western Canadian/British Columbia Independence. I suppose it's the great benefit of living in a democracy that we are allowed to change our political stripes, no matter how extreme. Rafe is part of the vast majority of the electorate, choosing to vote for the least offensive candidate or party.

Our outdated UK-modelled Parliamentary system is really a democratic dictatorship; Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, whomever ruled with iron fists, stocking cabinet and patronage posts with those who pledge allegiance. The American system, though imperfect, is much more democratic whereby the electorate can select a leader for their nation, and state representatives and senators proportionate to both population and region.

I believe that a major overhaul in Canada's federal democracy would be supported by the vast majority of the Canadians, however this would never be in the interest of the self-serving traditional parties in Canada. Under the current system would be virtually impossible for any party to win a majority government unless their leader is from Quebec, regardless if they are the best person for the job. Whether it be the Greens or any other emergent party whose major platform would be Parliamentary Reform, it should be very popular with most Canadians. That Party would have my vote.

Once again it is evident we need STV, then Rafe can give his first choice to his preferred Green Party candidate, his second choice to perhaps another Green Party candidate, his third choice to an NDP candidate, and so on.
With STV we can all vote for who we really want as our MP without thinking the vote is wasted, as it gets transferred to our second, or third, etc choices.
STV will give us real choice. We should find independent liberals, conservatives, socialists and greens who are not members of the main parties on the ballot, and we can vote for them. Some could be elected.

Remember - no vote is entirely wasted now. Each vote is worth around $1.75 to the Party. Netted the Greens over a million last time. If we keep having elections every year or so.....who knows???

you can heap scorn all you like on rafe. however, the bottom line is where he is correct....the environment is in serious trouble.

the only way voters can effectively emphasize their environmental concern to the mainstream parties is by voting for the greens.

get it right...it's a protest vote!

if enough voters protest, then, and only then, the 2.5 big parties will be forced to produce genuine policies for the environment. they will want your vote back...next time!

by continuing to vote as you always have just allows the ndp, conservatives and liberal leaders to continue to 'talk the talk'.

all you are doing is demonstrating your gutlessness to change and maintain the 'safe' status quo. ...

and the environment continues to pay the price.

JKR, there is simply not the consensus you seem to think there is on liberalized trade among economists. There have been lots of Nobel winning economists that have disagreed with the likes of the Sun's Mike Campbell who writes like a character out of 1984, we're never to remember the column he wrote a year ago that contradicts the one he's writing today.

The link that RRG provided is a reinforcement of what many of us have been saying for years. That the promises of free traders always seem to be in the far-off future whereas we have enough data already as to the effects on main street to know that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Yes, trade is good. But put ideology aside and look at the facts, history shows it has to be managed in such a way as to benefit the wider community or the promises made by its advocates will never come to fruition.

"With STV we can all vote for who we really want as our MP without thinking the vote is wasted, as it gets transferred to our second, or third, etc choices."

Sigh. Someone else telling lies about STV. Not everyone's vote gets transferred to their second choice if their first choice doesn't win, and there are wasted votes under STV. So, please don't make statements like the above.

And as time goes on, they will have even less chance if they do not react to changing demographics and voter prefrences. That is democracy whether lefties like it or not. Refusal to change means extinction.

The NDP is down to 14% in the latest polls, which only confirms what I state.

Big Man, Yes I agree, there is good and bad in any group. I am only trying to caution that just because someone running for office is a Christian, they shouldn't be written off as a religious extremist, as so many Christian hating bigots do.

Dale, Dale Dale - how many times have I heard the NDP tell me that theo nly way to really save the enviornment is to sign on the dotted line and join the NDP and work from within ?

Well I used to be an NDP member [88-95], I signed on the dotted line and tried to make a difference. In fact my family were Svend's poster family for the 96 election. What I found was a body of people so entrenched in party dogma there was absolutley no room for the likes of me.

I recently saw Jack Layton speak here at SFU, he is a personable and genuine person, he is a good leader, however his party falls short of his own speeches - all of sudden electoral reform is an issue for Jack, where was it 3 months ago ?

I moved over to Green in 1999, after voting for them since 1996 or so. The Greens have come a long way in the last decade and have got their act together progressively as time goes on. This federal election is no exception, Greens realistically expect to double the vote this time around.

The Greens [in BC] and federally have moved past the NDP in many ways and no offence to your beliefs Dale I think the Greens have my values closer to their heart than the NDP. The NDP do have some of my values but there is so much baggage in that party it ain't worth it.

Ian Gregson
GPBC Candidate
2001 and 2005

I don’t believe for a minute that the current conservative style Green Party has a hope in hell of getting elected or making the changes to corporate Canada that would be required to ensure our long-term survival both as a country and as a species. If they had any sense they would help the environmentalists within the NDP do what the NDP does best, influence the other two major parties in the House of Commons, and hopefully continue to hold the governing party to task.

Dale Jackaman
(former NDP federal and provincial candidate)

Ron:
First you said:

Then you said

So which one is it? Should the extremist views of those candidates be ignored because they are "Christian"?

Or are you trying to imply that it is the Christian right's positions that are valid and every other "Christian" viewpoint worthless?

i agree twice.

the conservative would not change, and look where they are.

harper will not and should not ever be leader of canada. he takes his cues from lyin' brian, so nothing has changed, except they lost some pretty good people.

as i recall, they had a hard time choosing a leader and a name.

i still feel they are pretty much rudderless, drifting where the wind takes them.

ronnie, religion and politics must be kept separated as far as possible.

we are so lucky to live where we can criticize publically, as well as influence who is elected, even if only by one vote.

so yes, religious types from all stripes, as well as athiests, agnostics, and all points in between, may seek office.

but do we really want politicians who have ( fill in the name of somed diety ) whispering in their ear.

besides, every religion is up for interpretation and debate.

polititcians have a hard enough time with integrity, without mixing in someone's interpretation of god.

As Maxwell succinctly put it, "Remember - no vote is entirely wasted now. Each vote is worth around $1.75 to the Party. Netted the Greens over a million last time. If we keep having elections every year or so.....who knows???"

Bill C-22 is making a difference. If you want to ensure Green values become the spirit that propells us to a sustainable future, then bring a friend to the polling station on election day. Bring a lot of friends. Carpool, make it a party. Participate by voting for a party that really wants your participation!

Think twice, vote Green!

M

Michael, What I am trying to say, is that we all the right to disciminate. And if someone wants to disriminate against Christians at the polls, they maybe throwing out the baby with the bath water. For Mr.Mair to right off The Conservative caditate simply because he is a Christian is pretty lazy. Has M. Mair compared his views with the Conservative candidate ?
And if not, he may have unwisely selected Green with a simple knee jerk reaction.
I would have expected more from him.
Beer and popcorn
Merry CHRISTmas.

Does anyone really think the Liberals have managed to reach the heights of corruption that the Conservatives under Mulroney managed to scale. They set a standard that would take twelve Gomerys to begin to delineate! Mulroney and his cohorts didn't even have the excuse that they were trying to counter Separatistism, they were only greedy for money and power. Canada should be embarrassed that the Jaw that walks like a man walks outside the exercise yard at the Pen.

I just don't see how socially conservative these conservatives are. They have indicated that they will re-visit the SSM issue, however they are a pro-choice government.

Harper has indicated that he will not send troops to Iraq, and expressed his disappointment in the U.S. for misleading the public over intellegence surrounding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They have indicated that they will increase military spending, and use the surpluses to return money to taxpayers as opposed to establishing bloated government spending agencies.

This looks to me as a pragmatic, responsible government.

rkewen, and we all know the Edmonton Oilers won 5 Stanley Cups in th 80's, what is your point ?
That was then, this is now.
If you had a brother that died in 1992, would you now be expected to take responsibility for his actions ?
Beer and popcorn
Merry CHRISTmas.

I am forced to agree with the ever pragmatic Mr Erwin on this one.. ;-)

The Conservatives under Mulroney WERE a bunch of mask wearing bandits.. That's why they were virtually obliterated.

Different bunch of bandits now that have to sink or swim on their own merits.

Ron:

I think you have been indulging in the Xmas cheer already.

You've failed completely to see my point that Christians are not all fanatical right wingers.

Rafe didn't say that he wouldn't vote for a christian. He said he wouldn't vote for someone on the "Christian Right" and those are two very different things.

Have a joyous holiday season and enjoy your festive tree.

harper will not and should not ever be leader of canada. he takes his cues from lyin' brian, so nothing has changed, except they lost some pretty good people

The so-called "Conservative Party of Canada" is in fact an aging dinosaur made up of disparate freaks of the western Canadian loony political past, the likes of The Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, the Western Canada Concept and various christian fanatic movements from rural Canada. They have tried to dress themselves up as moderates so they can foist their pro-American wacko-christian model on us. Harper is the pretty, moderate face (see his National Citizen's Coalition speeches to see the truth) they have chosen but be assured, the above groups are still calling the shots. They are somehow clinging to a past that never existed where the church-goin' white man beat his wife, dog and kids, and the Injun's when they was nobody looking. They managed to highjack the old PC party but they sure have not fooled anybody far outside their Alberta powerbase.

The NDP is equally as archaic. They are the opposite end of the spectrum. They represent Canada's metal bashing, lunch bucket, beer parlour,past and still hang onto the dogma of the Regina Manifesto while at the same time their popular vote continues to slip. Demographics caused by emplotment changes and immigration have doomed them equally. NDPers continually look to the past for solutions for problems or the status-quo.

This leaves only one realistic, centrist party, the only one that has seen that Canada has changed, has realised that nationalisation does not work and wants to keep church and state separate. They know this and they play for long term. Many actually want to see Adolf Harper form a minority government. Eventually, unless both extreme parties move towards the centre, they will be more and more marginalised.

I do see an excellent future for the Greens, however.

Michael, I agree with you, I only was trying to make this distinction as well. That Christians can be Conservatives without being Christian Right.
Beer and popcorn
Merry CHRISTmas

Rickyboy's equation tells me that .5 is the clear choice for the protest vote, because .5 has already proven that it can force the big party to produce genuine policies.

Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada
From Wikipedia,

The Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada (APEC) was a far right political lobby group in Canada, which campaigned against the Canadian government's policy of official bilingualism.

The group was formed in 1977 by Irene Hilchie, a government employee who felt that she was being discriminated against in her job because she did not speak French. The group's most famous member, however, was Jock V. Andrew, whose book Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow alleged that bilingualism was part of a government plot to make Canada a unilingually French country.

The group was most influential in the late 1980s, as it engaged in activities which contributed to the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord. In 1989, a small group of APEC members in Brockville trampled the Quebec flag at a protest. As well, the group was involved in a campaign to have Ontario municipalities declare themselves English-only, in response to the Ontario government's French Language Services Act. (The act quite explicitly did not apply to municipal government services, but APEC deliberately misrepresented this reality in order to convince municipalities to pass English-only resolutions.)

Most famously, the city of Sault Ste. Marie passed such a resolution on January 29, 1990. Quebec voters perceived the Sault Ste. Marie resolution and the Brockville flag incident as symbols of English Canada's feelings toward Quebec, and the incidents contributed directly to the resurgence of Quebec sovereignism in the 1990s and thus to the 1995 Quebec referendum.

APEC also worked closely with the Confederation of Regions Party and the Reform Party (which later became the "Canadian Alliance" and later "The Conservative Party of Canada), two political parties which held similar views about bilingualism and the role of Quebec in Confederation.

In addition to their anti-bilingualism efforts, APEC has also been involved in the promotion of social conservative causes such as opposition to abortion, immigration and homosexuality. The group was also actively endorsed by the Heritage Front, a Canadian neo-Nazi group.

Although the group is nominally still active, they have attracted little media attention since their role in the Meech Lake debate ended. Only a few references to the group after 1997 can be found on the Internet.

---------------------------------------------

I might add that this group was active with Holocaust deniers Ernst Zundel and David Irving as well as being associated with Victoria lawyer Doug Christie. They are not far from the surface of Haperdom.

Working Man, I am glad to didn't try to link Steven Harper to Ernst Zundel, that would have been very SCARY. How is rhe beer and popcorn going down ? I hope Scott Reid doesn't choke on any husks. But id he does I am sure Paul Martins doctor will rush him to one of his private clinics.
Beer and popcorn
Merry CHRISTmas.

It's become long past due to vote for the Green party canadates for a mere 1.75 a vote. The message the federal media is sending with the Green Party's omission in the up and coming national debate, (along with the other 4 parties official input) is that the support of one of every 25 canadian voters who voted for a party other than the PC's, Bloc, Librals and NDP, simply doesn't count. This is a deplorable exercise of politically controlled censorship in a country that supposedly represents democracy and free speech. When we look at where its coming from, it can only solidify the need for political change. The green parties vision of the future can be easily summed up when compared to the other 4 parties in Federal politics. They actually have one. Criteria required for vision in platforms is simple. It must be sustainable, accountable, responsable and perhaps most importantly, long term in all regards, most notably economical, environmental and social. In a political climate that has political parties representing corruption, religious extremism, unexplained eutopian healthcare plans and outright separatism, the best choice is the most logical one. Vote for the party that has solutions instead of problems.

Since most of us are on this website to learn more about the Green Party and what it stands for, clicking onto the green headings on the top left side pushes past the rhetoric and says it all when clicking onto "policies" and "Find your riding." I'm delighted to know when I click onto "Find your riding" especially, that we can find individuals across Canada who aren't lawyers, lifelong brainwashed politicians or social misfits. These are real people in a time in politics that needs a major reality check.

Uhh. Rafe says that the oil has peaked. If so, then we have nothing to worry about. Less CO2 into the horizon, the less we need to fret and worry, no?

Well that is an excuse. The world's production of coal has not peaked and at current useage rates per capita, the supply of coal will last at least 1000 years. Coal is the worst producer of green house gases there is.....

The real issue therefore is what to do? We cannot forstall or do anything relevant by simply voting green, now can we?

What we need to do is to limit our consumption, limit the number of kids we bring into this world [adopt, or help], and find ways to conserve.

Voting Green here in BC is okay, but it will result in the Libs being voted back in....so be real.

I think Rafe is voting green because his family or one of his kids is voting green, and that is usually what happens. The parents will vote the way the kids will in the end because it makes perfect sense.

Voting New Democrat is better because they will form a government and in time will be forced to accept the evergrowing greens policies to survive. In fact they have already adopted most of the things greens stand for, including limiting commercial fish farms.

chao

John Foster

My name is Peter Davison and I was the Green candidate in Beaches East York in the 2004 federal election. I met over 2200 people that ended up voting green. They would not have voted for any other party.

Enough is Enough........the same old story of voting green and how it is going to split the votes. All the major parties need to be fearful that their loose coalitions of individuals that are getting tired of compromises on the main issues that Canadians are worried about are going to vote Green.

If your family and friends are those that you respect and they are voting Green, now is the time to take the party seriously. Who better than family and friends to guide you on a very important decision.

It is not a bastion of right wing conservatives and neither is it the Communist Party...They will get votes too!

Stop the scare tactics. This election is wide open and Canadians better wake up to the fact that they can make some real serious changes if they vote green in this next election.

Real issues that impact Canadians in the communities that they live in are being discussed by the Greens and avoided by the other major parties.

Every political party has factions. You would be naive to believe they dont. So- accusations have been thrown about but listen and meet the Greens. I resent being called a "Conservative"..I wouldnt be in that party and I am not a liberal or an NDP'er. I am a Green.

Most Issues that the Green Party, not only in Canada but around the world are for positive changes in society. I due, however take great exception to the whole reason behind Kyoto and the effort to cut greenhouse gases. The earth has certainly been warming over the past several decades, but blaming it on man-made emissions is the biggest phalecy since the prediction since the predicted worldwide Y2K computer meltdown. The earth has undergone four major warming and cooling cycles in the last 1000 years, let alone the fact that most of the northern hemisphere was covered with ice as recent as 8000 years.

If we wish to cut CO2 emissions to curb global warming, we'd better have a morotorium on volcanic eruptions as well; one volcano that erupted in the 1990's, and granted it was the largest of the century, emitted more carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide than all of mankind since the industrial revolution.

Curbing emissions to reduce our reliance of fossil fuels, with incentives to produce cheaper, more efficient generation of energy is a more realistic cause to support.

Beer and Popcorn. Alas, more false election promises. None of the major parties are offering beer, nor popcorn. And I just about got excited about this campaign.

Heck, if I got a deduction for all the money I spend on beer, it might even ward off my libertarian values. No beer, no vote!

Dangrice, nuttin' but free PORK rinds, straight from the BARREL.

The beer guzzlers vote, isn't that how Lincoln came up with the Civil War DRAFT?

Hyderized, you may not want to be a member of my club. I don't blame you. But your reference to volcano pollution is right on.
I find, the the ego of most human beings makes them think they are the most influential force out there, wheras this is not true at all.
The volcano knowledge, diminishes our influence on the climate big time.
If The Green Party had more spokespersons like you, I think you would have a chance.

I'm glad my brain hasn't been washed with Alaskan Everclear. And dangrice. You could always vote for the PC's who want to hand out 500 bucks annually to families who get their kids into organized sports. There's beer and booze there somewhere for you both, if you like getting bribed with poor promises. We can always run it up on credit just like the last time the PC's were in power. What lies did we tell ourselves that last time we had 40 billion dollar deficits? "It won't matter, we won't have to pay it back". That's educated.
And it always amazes me how we love to talk about what we do and do not have as far as hydrocarbon energy reserves go, without looking at realistic models of Earth sustainablitity in terms of whether or not our atmosphere can sustain life with longterm hydrocarbon consumption rates at current levels. It's not a question of what we have to burn. It's a question of what kind of planet we have left if we actually live long enough to burn it all. Its not the question of looking at how much more hydrocarbons we can burn. It's a question of whether we can turn our greedy eyes away from an energy cash cow that is at the same time, giving the States a falling currency rope to hang themselves with. The big quesiton is, can we stop the pursuit of our greed and ignorance just long enough to find safer, more renewable new (or old) energy sources? Because we know, or have always known that the source we need is and always will be heat.
I'll save us the longwinded physics and chemistry models and their explanations that point to the doom we are headed for if we don't change our ways, because it is truly over most of your heads and give you all the short answer. The most dangerous forms of heat for our energy needs requires the formation of free radicals and/or CO2. Keep this in mind, as 55% North America's current fossil fuel emissions come from natural gas and coal to generate power, while China is responsible for another 30% and Europe is 90% nuclear with their power sources. Keep it in mind when the United States is responsible for 25% of the worlds current CO2 gases. The safest forms of heat for our worlds energy needs is generated from light refraction to steam or ammonia (heat or cold, take your pick), and/or heat captured through heat tranference from rock to steam to turbines to electricity and from there, everything runs on power. That's right, refractive sunlight (safe heat) to steam or geothermal power(radiated heat from the Earths core), take your pick. We can easily lower our current hydrocarbon energy consumption without the need for CO2 greenhousing and free radical ozone depletion. The big question is, "can we do it and make a buck at it?" The answer is yes. We can. But hydrocarbon energy commodity prices will take a correction as these safer heat alternatives to generate power become developed.

There's a reason why Rafe Mair is voting Green, as well as for myself. It's not because Paul Martin is right in addressing our environmental issues on an international level. It's not because any idiot who's travelled in a plane can look at the landscape and see checkered fields, cutblocks and city smog as far as the eye can see, and at the same time blindly declare after their 30 or 40 revolutions under the sun, "We're doing fine with our envirnonments. The world is warming up this quickly because its natural and it has nothing to do with us!" Just because someone would be dumb enough to say it doesn't make it true.
And its not because Paul Martin, or Jack, or Steve or anyone else who brokers power in this nation will talk up a storm about cleaner environments, but won't go for safer energy proposals implemented through corporations, crown or private, leaving it all as is. It's because the Green party has the best chance of being an elected party that will bring about dramatic changes or paradigm shifts for safer energy, including health disease prevention and when we look at the individuals who are currently running for the Greens we'll know they are for real. We'll know that they aren't the deadbeat, unimaginative lawyers of that the past that have been traditionally known for talking out of both sides of their mouths.
It must be said that intelligent people don't vote for parties based on whether or not they have the best chance to win. Intelligent voters vote for the party who is the most fit to govern. This takes more than a collectively represented good goal (a clean physical, social and economical environment), a good will (isn't morally corrupt) or has a good plan (handles national and global concerns with solutions that incorporate PREVENTION). It also takes the individual and collective potential of the party candidates (and their supporters) and thats why this brain is voting GREEN.

And volcanoes? Ron Irwin and Hyderized is giving me volcanoes? You both think that dribble about volcanoes is fit to read? I'll give you Ice ages. Ice age formation, melting and reformation doesn't occur from volcanoes. Ice ages and their melting, occurs from the newly formed variations within the 3D orbit of the earth around the sun, due to a collision of a large asteroid that smashed into the gulf of Mexico, creating the Earths new orbital variations more than 6 iceages ago. So we theorize, its what killed the dinosaurs, and knowing that each iceage has been measured to be anywheres from appox 22,000 to 55,000 years between each age, due to vertical and horizontal orbital variations combined with changes in atmospheric conditions, we can also see that our entire timeline concerning the age of man is completely off with our current biology and history books. Imagine a spinning top with a wobble and you'll get the picture of what Earths orbit is like, only with slower revolutions.
The numbers are rusty and old, needing further verification with current orbital equations, but we have at least another 1000 years before we reach the closest distance to the sun, or as a consequence, its warmest peak temperatures. That is, if we have descendants who can survive it.
Just for the record, greenhouse gas accumulations from us and/or volcanoes don't lead to melting ice by itself... But the accumulation of greenhouse gases, timed with an earth orbital patterns that are nearing its closest paths to the sun could easily lead to a similar greenhoused Venus or Mars (or a near frozen planet with the exact opposite).
As it has been explained to me, the consequences of the greenhouse scenerio is one of lifes end. Once the ice is gone, the ocean currents stop. This triggers a boiling of water in the equatorial zones of the ocean beginning with its coastlines. The atmosphere expands to 2 1/2 times its current ceiling height, and the atmospheric atoms lose their gravitational pull from the Earths gravity and drift into space. It accelerates and then we have another greenhoused Venus or Mars.
Point is, ice ages are a natural phenomenon caused by earths 3D orbital paths over time. If we combine the Earths orbital "warm cycles" with accumulative amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, we won't have the time to tell business to stop making money, we'll have passed the point of no return, only to hear some bull about volcanoe's.
It has been theorized that the earth has spent approximately 2/3rds of its life with a frozen crust. Personally, I'm glad that an asteroid came along and killed the dinosaurs and gave us humans and animals a chance to reign. And balance, balance gives us the best of all possibilities, not deadly greenhouse, not frozen iceage, but a nice warm environment. But if all we can do is destroy the Earth's environment with a complete lack of accountability for what we've done, to fulfill the sole aim of doing whatever the hell we want... lets ust say that it makes it easy to say that some people shouldn't become parents. I would love for anyone to dispute what I have said and actually make sense.

I have been a Green supporter for 2 elections plus this one. I will admit there are holes in the platform and there are some things like crime and punishment that I don't particulary like but I find the combination of fiscal conservatism and enviromental concern the closest thing to my beliefs. I would challenge people to actually go and read the platform it is not as shallow and one sided as many of the Green nay sayers would have you believe.

What's better, parties that have 30 platform points and only come through on 3 or a party with 10 points that wants to actually achieve them. Parties constantly promiss more than they can supply. I'd rather have a modest platform that was achievable than all the hollow promisses in the world.

The NDP has proven provincially in BC that it's enviromental agenda is a sham to get votes. They also cannot claim to represent the unions when the average unionized worker is not a socialist. They support subsidies for auto makers, mines, steel manufactures, etc who are the biggest polluters. The Greens wish support clean industries or give the dirty ones incentives to do the right thing. The NDP does not believe in a balanced budget, I don't run my home on a deficit I expect my government to be run the same way.

The Conservatives and Liberals split hairs trying to convince us that their way of buying our votes is better than the other guys pledges. Can we believe either?, I don't think so. I wish one of them would have the balls to say "no tax cut and aggressive debt reduction" Pay the damm thing off while the ecconomy is up letting us better ride the next down turn.

In the Conservatives I don't fear the Christian element, they are not strong enough to control the party but they do want to be heard without being demonized. A secularist can scream god is dead and no one cares, but a candidate says grace and is labeled a zealot. I'm not a believer but I don't see this as fair. Seperation of church and state does not mean that you must expect someone to drop their moral code when they make political decisions.

The Liberals, corruption and arrogance, broken promisses, banning registered handguns while people commit murder with smuggled weapons while out on bail. Liberals do not believe in democracy, they constantly parachute candidates without local approval, don't allow members to free vote. They talk about electoral reform behind closed doors with no public access.

If nothing else the Greens have yet to be caught in a lie or ripping us off, this gives them the moral high ground at least until they prove themselves no better than the rest.

offers Brain.

Sorry to throw a wrench into that bundle of wisdom smart guy, but I come to Tyee mostly to read silly presumptions such as yours.

I don't put a lot of faith in "environmentalists" who are prepared to compromise to protect investments.

I have talked to a couple of Green candidates from Northern BC, they don’t sound anything like their southern urban cousins. If the Greens were elected or even became the official opposition, do you think they could keep it together, I think the Rural greens would get fed up with the urbanite version fairly quickly.

I fondly remember the days when the Rhino party candidates got more votes than the Liberal did in my riding and the Rhino’s were planning on changing driving from the lsft to right, but gradually….

I sympathize with people who do not feel represented by any of the parties, because I am in the same place.

Hi, the brain. Did you say the Chicxulub asteriod hit about 6 or seven ice ages ago? Wouldn't that be maybe 3 or 4 hundred thousand years ago? (Certainly by YOUR math) And you say that's what the theory regarding the demise of dinosaurs is all about? May I respectfully--okey I'm kidding about THAT-- suggest to you that the Gulf of Mexico asteroid hit 65 MILLION YEARS AGO, as every even remotely BRAINY person knows. Maybe, cut it out, eh. Uh...the dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years. You might want to go back and redo your science--as well as reconsider your nom de plume. Incidentally, I'd love to hear some more of your "long-winded physics and chemistry models"-you know, the ones from which you are sparing us. Also regarding the earth's orbit--your stuff is really weird here--the earth is closest to the Sun on January 3, 147.5 million kilometres, and farthest on the 4th of July. There's NO indication that any of this will have changed in a 1000 years. I'm not just trying to "flame" you, brain, honest, but just, uh... ALL of your science is quite silly, eh, and I'm just trying to point this out. I mean, you can't just come on Tyee and INVENT science to suit your political theories, eh.

Ice ages are best described by understanding the 3 precessions of the Milankovitch theory. It's firstly not a new theory, and there is tons of information online concerning Milankovitch and iceages to verify what I am saying, (including a past asteroid collision that could create an orbital change with the Earths orbit we have now)at least, according to Milankovitch. Just to get your feet wet, Milankovitch's theory comes up with these numbers. I suggest that they need to be reworked to be more definitive as they are rusty, but most physicists agree with the first two orbital variations
Eccentricity of the orbit (.0005 to .0607) with a timeline of 98,000 years.
Obliquity of the eccentricity is (22.1 - 24.5 degress), shift in axis tilt with a timeline of 40,000 years.
Precession is the change of orientation of the earths axis, timeline is 19 to 23,000 years.
As you are now discovering, the earths orbit isn't the same through an extended timeline and has directly caused the iceages of the past, with other factors playing roles over time. Atmospheric changes, and changes of landmass rises above sealevel.
Cyclical changes in the rotation and orbit of our planet that influence the amount of solar radiation striking different parts of Earth at different times of year and have been correlated with climatic effects. There are three cycles: changes in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, with a period of about 100,000 years, that alter the distance between Earth and the Sun at aphelion and perihelion; variations in the tilt of Earth's rotational axis (obliquity of the ecliptic), with a period of about 40,000 years; and a wobble in the angle by which the axis of Earth's rotation is tilted with respect to the orbital plane, altering the seasons at which aphelion and perihelion occur (precession of the equinoxes), with a period of about 19 to 23,000 years. They are named after the Serbian mathematician, Milutin Milankovitch, who explained how these orbital cycles cause the advance and retreat of the polar ice caps. Although they are named after Milankovitch, he was not the first to link orbital cycles to climate. Adhemar (1842) and Croll (1875) were two of the earliest.
What does all of this mean? It means that some environments are beyond our control, while other environments are not. Perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces today is to not only find credible information in this sea of knowledge that is both true, false, and often out of sequence... it is in wisely applying the accurate knowledge we do have. My apologies for not calling all of what has been said as theory (and there are many theories) but when it comes to actual scientific laws, there are very few. Even the theory of Relativity is just a theory. Having said this, there is a law that connects all of the dots and it goes like this. "The existence and survival of all life forms are dependent on the environments they live in." If environmental changes occur, the lifeform adapts, or it goes extinct. Its that simple. We can apply it any way we want to. Physical environments, emotional, environments of knowledge, and from here, we can also see the timelines of various political parties and their participants, the timeline of the liberals, the conservatives, the NDP, the bloc and last but not least, the Green Party.

My only thoughts on this is that you gotta vote for a person not a party. Party brands only go so far the people behind them is really the issue. There are so many different people from all ends of the spectrum in all of the partys. Some are more or less limited in what they can accomplish becuase of where they are but that is not as relevent as who they are and what they can accomplish. There is so much more nuance in politics then we recognize. Brand names are useful only up until a point. We need to make the distinction between voting and shopping.

Comment directed to Allen. The feds currently spend over 38 billion on health care with transfer payments to the provinces. The provinces match, for the most part, dollar for dollar, federal contributions to healthcare and have the most flexibility in terms of how this money is spent. I won't get into lobby interests from HMO's and pharmaceuticals within U.S. politics and their systems like the FDA and doctorate education institutions in the states. I'm hopeful that it doesn't exist to the same extent here, but our healthcare models are still heavily influenced by U.S. institution in varying degrees. Currently, HMO's and pharmaceuticals spend more on advertising than they do on research. These facts are well known.
There are reasons why doctors know more about drugs than they do about disease prevention. There are reasons why Canadians are still heavily influenced by the Corporate agenda's down south (which is to make money). There are also important reasons why we have a need for 76 billion dollars (and growing) annually on healthcare every year. The reason is that Canadians overall just aren't that healthy.
A third are obese and another third is overweight and headed to obesity. Currently, close to 3% of the population either has type 2 diabetes or does not know it. Heart disease, Cancer, Arteriosclerosis, Arthritis... there are currently over 80 diseases that are entirely preventable (not related to germs or virus's) because the cause (not the effect) is environmental.
I won't get into the theories that suggest this, such as free radical theory pointing to cellular damage from acute and chronic forms of acidosis as the cause of these highly preventable diseases, because again, it is scientific, over most of our heads, and its research is easily found online.
What I will do is easily point out that our current lifestyles that have been preprogrammed by corporate agenda's on what to eat, drink and smoke, simply aren't working and we don't need scientific theory to back it up. All we have to do is open our eyes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the environmental dietary causes and connections to disease and how to prevent them, or the reality that we spend peanuts on prevention, compared to treatment and cure and why this is so (mainly, because health care in general can't make work or money on healhy people or dietary ways of life). In truth, its just not that complicated to see that when a nation lives on credit like the states with nothing to show for it but a lot of exploited resources and holes in the cemetary, at some point the conclusion of mountainous american and canadian debt is one that the economical system itself is one of a house of cards. An american currency crisis is coming from all that red ink and don't think that this won't effect your own stock portfolios at some point.
The answer is simple. spend more money on disease prevention and awareness, and in time, with a healthier population, we can spend less on treatment, knowing that in many ways, prevention is the cure. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, unless people don't know or live by a specific truism. "It's not money that is evil. It's the LOVE of money that is bad." So far, it looks like Jim Harris is willing to address the issues of health care prevention. I haven't heard any other leader remotely suggest or adopt these views on health care.

To Trueman Green: Yes, it is the Chicxulub asteriod that I'm talking about. And yes, I'm suggesting that the timelines of coal formations and oil and natural gas deposit formations around the world caused by events such as the Chicxulub and Milankovich theories of Earths orbit indicate that timelines we've initially been taught concerning how far back the origins to how old humans are and how old life is in general, is much less than we would like to believe. The buildups of ash and dust deposits over specific dig sites that we can accurately date (mainly digs of early civilizations) along with the environments needed for coal and oil formations along with their own timelines and events needed to form, along with lower sea levels needed to accommodate such formations and historic earth events such as the chixilub asteroid, suggest timelines that are much younger in terms of how old the Earths crust is, and how old humanity and the rest of life is, in all of its evolutionary forms. Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. A million years... thats alot of spins and through it a great many changes have occured on this planet, especially on the surface. We know that coal, gas and oil deposits are directly as a result of old life and we can be definitive with the modern techniques of drilling, discovery and resource exploitation, that the Earths crust isn't filled with evidence of life beyond certain depths above and below sea level.
There are two ways of dealing with estabilishing timelines that are for realistic. The first is in establishing the timelines it takes to break down, bury or both, the life that formerly existed. The second, is to go back in history and look for physicist's who asked the right questions. "How long in terms of years, would it take the Earths mass of molten lava to cool to form the Earths crust at the levels and depths we have today?" Mass, temperature variations of molten lava, and atmosheric and space conditons, obviously play a role into the the theories of how long it would take. There was a physicist who crunched the numbers back in the 1860's who asked this question. It would serve you well, to look up who it was and what he had to say.

Geeeez Rafe...are you still around ???
Go south and get some sun or to Iraq and do some real reporting.
"Why I'm not voting Green"....You really must
be searching for something to write about !

Brain, forgive me if I'm overstating it a bit, but it would appear you are into helping to define policy within the federal Green Party.

I certainly don't disagree medicine is following several wrong routes as we see it served up in Canada. The worst, to me at least, is that politicians have managed to keep the focus on medicine as being an economic matter rather than a human right, like water and shelter.

By the way, if you're one of the Green's policy wonks, perhaps you could explain why so many of the Green candidates and officials in Newfoundland are bailing out of the election now that the Greens are officially opposed to any seal hunting.

One size fits all, eh?

I see...uh...,Brain. Then you'd really like the new King Kong movie, eh. They have monster apes fighting dinosaurs. I think I was wrong to ridicule you. You have a right to say whatever you like. Have fun.

To Allen: For the same reasons why PC candidates reveal their own hoof in mouth diseases. Free will, freedom of speech, lack of control towards spilling out their own individual rants and opinions in front of cameras. Its not the first time or last that we'll witness politician hopefuls and incumbents committing political suicide.
The question to ask when individuals do this through hoof in mouth is, were they right? Would any other party or riding electorate touch the candidate with a ten foot poll? (and an independent who was formerly NDP and died recently of cancer but first influenced the passing of our current budget, sets a precedent that it isn't always up to parties to set policy) And if no one can touch individuals who put their foot's in their mouths concerning any subject of controversy (or otherwise. Quitting over seal hunts are at the bottom of the list in terms of what issues are most important), whether it is abortion or gay marriage or gun control, or the boring opinions on fiscal budgets, the question must then be asked, "Why would their leaders allow them in to run in the first place?"
The answer is easy. These parties are both relatively new in terms of finding experienced former MP's to represent our public.
I, too, am self admittedly an individual who puts out opinions before proof or offering credibility. (like 40 billion dollar deficits, we've never had on this high.)
Fiscal Balance in Canada: The facts (updated in 2004) at http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts/fbcfacts9_e.html
tell it all in terms of what the PC's did in the 80's and the Liberals did in the 90's and post 2000. Fiscally, charts and their timelines tell it all.
But what is being missed here, is that we spend huge sums of money in healthcare that are entirely preventable and its not just Canadians... its Americans and if they go broke and can't pay the bill...
The last monthly U.S. deficit was 68.9 billion dollars, an all time monthly high just announced today. Canada's trade surplus, on the other hand, was a quarterly 7 billion plus. All in all, what is saving Canada's butt has been the liberal’s own fiscal policies, regardless of how corrupt they've been, coupled by the rise in commodities (particularly energy and metals of which the TSX is heavy weighed with) and economic GDP growth.
Currently, it is as transparent as glass to anyone who follows currencies that U.S. currency is in trouble due to trade deficits. It has been customary, when we look at Fed rate charts, that rises in these rates correlate with former drops or further fears of drops in currency due to high debt, or getting more bang for your buck when on international shopping spree's. The problem with the states is... their interest rate hikes aren't caused by an election year. It's caused by deficits that are spinning out their control due to interests on massive debt, corporate outsourcing of American manufacturing capabilities, and an inability to stop spending as much as they make. If they practiced health care prevention, they might stand a chance to get away with this. I won't hold my breath. What I will breath your way, is that we can practice health care prevention because we have candidates that haven't been bought out by corporate agendas. We have them, but we have to look at who's running for who on an individual basis and look at the individuals running against them. In other words, it will take a representation of all 4 party nominee's to get the job done most effectively, that's just how it is and its ironically, probably, I say probably because its just my own opinion, but probably what most Canadians want... a minority government.

I have yet to see any current Canadian political party leaders (including Jim Harris) speak to Canadians about developing East West trade within this country and internationally, to distance ourselves from the fallout of an 85% international trade with a country that is on the verge of a major recession. It's like what our provincial politicians like to do... take all the credit for good times, without having any policies to ward off the bad ones.
One such way is theoretical... in good times, privatize. In bad times, return to crowns not just because private corporations go dirt cheap, but because people have to work to earn a living. We aren't here yet, but... when it comes to commodity value, values are sometimes exaggerated. But the value of national debts are not... unless we want to get into WTO debates on why the debts of African nations or others, rich or poor, were ever allowed to ballon to unsustainable rates to begin with. We so love to point fingers at individual blunders, but banks do it all the time and of course, these whales out there, love to pass on their horrid mistakes to the rest of us fish (the corporations)and minnows (individual taxpayers) trying to stay below surface in the sea of economics.
As the old saying goes, "that finger that you point is pointing right back at you." We can point fingers all we like, but if we don't get politically active and at the very least, familiarize ourselves with our candidates and vote, well, lets just say that I've got a good individual in my riding, I like minority governments in this kind of climate, and on January 23rd, I'm voting Green.

Dr. Brain, I believe that only your left hemisphere is currently functioning; your geologic history of time and climate change based on proven fossil record and radiometric age dating is completely false. Your probably aware that earth science has advanced significantly since 1800's era physicist theorized about the history of the earth. There are currently no reliable explanations for ice ages and global/warming cooling cycles. One current theory is that global warming resulting in the melting of arctic pack ice actually predated continental glaciation during the ice ages; increased evaporation and resultant precipiation in the northern hemisphere resulted in increased snowfall in northern climates, which wouldn't melt off completely during subsequent summers, resulting in accumulation of ice.

Your nuclear power comment with regard to Europe is interesting. Toshiba has a design for a nuclear reactor the size of a refrigerator that would not meltdown, and after 30 years would result in less than one gallon of nuclear waste. Not perfect, but beats burning millions of gallons of diesel or tons of coal.

I will not vote for the Green Party, but due appreciate their refreshing ideas.

To Hyderized: Geological false history according to who? You? And what, chemists and physicists past or present inputs don't count? And there are no current explanations or theories for iceages or global warming? Where have you been? And your own explanation is fine but... where's the all of the rest of it?
And that nuclear waste thing... tell it to the boys in Chernobal or the U.S. East and West coasts. Tell that to the boys smoking cigars without an ounce's thought in the past of where its saftest to build them. Or maybe you trust all other nations and their individuals that build and run them to do the right thing... continually...
With a drab failure rate in the past that can only make anyone think that until nuclear plants are proven technologies in terms of the safety of the political ideology of the nations that own and run them, plant location, plant construction, plant safety, plant maintentence, plant retirement, and last but not least, plant waste storage...
Unless you want to get into a debate of how safe the former and post Soviet Union did it. Or maybe you think your dumb enough to declare that noone will ever, ever drop the ball again (a mere gallon). Maybe the world will a way to do just that, but hopefully not at the cost of learning it the hard way because we all happen to, in case you haven't noticed, share the same common overall physical environments.
And just for the record, with all of the unwarranted nuclear testing by other nations, including a major nuclear warhead stockpile still at hand, and a nation south of us that has publicly declared that they will use it in warfare in "unfavorable circumstances"... to not recognize the dangers of nuclear energy regardless of unproven technological claims of 100% safety with complete disregard for the nations that own and run them, can ony mean one thing. Go back to everclear and let "the brain" do the thinking.

Madame Brain; you could use a shot of 180 proof or two to get those synapses firing again, though I think it'll take more than that.

For the record, I'm a geologist so if you want to get into particular details of earth science, I'd be pleased to enlighten you. On global warming/cooling cycles there are plenty of theories...however let me enlighten you on how science no matter what discipline; a THEORY becomes an EXPLANATION (THESIS)once proof has been established. I'm sure you covered this during your graduate level studies. Current theories include variation in ocean currents, solar activity, increased volcanic activity, and (sigh), yes variation of the axis of planetary spin.

You're absolutely correct on your concerns for nuclear safety--Toshiba's technology is unproven, however China is considering 40 to 60 reactors of a similar design. All power generation options have negative environmental consequences, with the exception maybe of solar power. Put that big brain of yours to work and finish your thesis on cold fusion!

cheers!

What the hey, I might as well put a political spin on what I've just said (plus its nice to be able to type a fluent 65 - 70 words a minute, allows me to have a life). I know that these words aren't wasted on Rafe Mair, or Steve Burgess, or Donald Gutstein, Murray Robin, Barbara, Will or Dorthy or any other up and coming journalist who works for the fast growing TYEE.
The only party that should be worth voting for to begin with on a federal level, is a party that has a platform that will do what is best economically, environmentally, socially for the world. Not just as a nation, but for the world! I don't see the block having one. They just want whats best for Quebec.
I don't see the PC's having a platform of whats best for the world, or even Canada. Or the NDP... and to a much lesser degree, I don't see the liberals adopting this (some of them do so love to fill their pockets... you know, some). And I certainly don't see the current U.S. administration having a platform that does what's best for the world environmentally, economically or socially. But what I do see is that the Green party has a platform that does have this.
It has this in its platform because "what looks after the whole, looks after all of its parts". Put that in your shot glass and chase it.

Brain, your right-on in terms of the strength of the Green Party is that it is a global movement. But as you know, all politics is local. Most of the electorate is more concerned about photo radar or beer and popcorn money. It would actually be pretty cool if the UN or some new international body was actually democratically elected to better address global issues. Yippee, another layer of government (as Hyderized takes another shot).

To Hyderized: The origins and timelines of life or this planet are not decided by geologists, but by the physicists and chemists that give geologists the "proof" they are looking for to determine the age of everything including the rocks you like to play with. In other words, science is done properly through asking the right questions and using the best formula's to answer itself, that leads to our best "educated guess" or theory, instead of what we often have with jumping to conclusions and trying to prove them instead with research pre-moulded to fit our own pre-concieved conclusions.
To get the right answers, we have to ask the right questions. Instead of using meteorite radiation levels from early 1900's theories to claim that our earth in our solar system is 3 to 4 billion years old, (a hundred year old theory, by the way, one that geologists so love to cling onto and what's a billion years or so, right?) without even beginning to factor in meteorite re-entry to their equations, or anything else that science has revealed to us from other areas within the last 100 years, is just plain stupid.
Every other area of education within institutions that are credible, recognize the need to refresh their cirriculms... but that's not often how the current cirriculms we have are presented to students. Your own teachers as well as most of mine, didn't tell the classes we sat at, that the cirriculums we are currently teaching now, will someday be dated.
And they didn't tell us that in the centuries to come, these very same teaching methods will be looked upon as being in their infancy, still in diapers, because this kind of paradigm (reality) is one that encourages teachers to discourage their students to question the accuracy of what they are being taught! Don't question, conform! In other words, don't think... memorize!
When was the last time you had a teacher take you or a fellow classmate or peer aside and say, (that is if you are a geologist) "look at the references at the back of the book and follow the paper trail".?
Or this one, "You can question authority. You have every right. Just don't challenge it, unless that authority you challenge will neither allow to question its authority (we like to do this with elections up here every four years or so), is knowingly incorrect and unwilling to change the use of unproven knowledge, or is unwilling to accept more valid theories as our most "educated guess". In other words, our pride still comes before the fall and if you aren't willing to put your own name, or identity to what you write, don't write it down to begin with. In the name of golden verses and teachers like Phythagreas, "think before you act".
Or maybe I should go straight to the top and quote God. "Buy from me gold tried by fire." Translated in your language it would be, "pursue my (Gods) knowledge (gold) and teachings by testing it to make sure its real. (light it on fire to see if it burns and if it doesn't it speaks for itself) And what? I shouldn't bring Christianized religion into it? The Conservatives sure do now with that tarnished harp Steven plays. And how about Stockwell Day, our esteemed one time house minority leader who thought a whole lot younger than my Earth would go... 6 to 7,000 years.

To Hyderized: I had better slow down on the attack. You actually had something nice to say... and it made good sense! Ah, your alright. I think its time to wash the brain with a night cap as well and introduce a few free radicals to help clear my own thinking. Your onto something...

Hmmm... Thinking... two representatives from each country, one rep elected from its own country, one elected from the other countries... it just might work... Not exactly what Hitler would want. It just might work...

Hey, Rafe!

Trying to repeat the B.C. election results?

Layton has done what a minority govt. suppoter is supposed to have done so give him due credit.

Voting Green will only give the same bizarre result as B.C. experienced where the NDP COULD have won! And the Greens ended up with a big fat zero!

It is way past time for the Greens and the NDP to talk and form some sort of coalition because all they will be doing in this federal election is SHUTTING EACH OTHER OUT!

Brain, your reply was an armful and for a moment or two I actually thought there was more than enough wisdom hidden behind all that verbage.

Perhaps you could clarify your comments re: the sealers.

I got the impression you were trying to brush them off as an issue, a somewhat puzzling development given your ability to churn out 65-70wpm and delve into other issues to a depth that would induce snores.

Perhaps the Newfoundland candidates and party officials thought they too were getting a quick brush off.

I know you can do much better than that.

Brain, conventional science puts the asteroid at 65 million years ago, the solar system at 3 or four billion and the universe at 12-14 billion. What is your estimation of EACH of these numbers. For instance, without editorializing, how old do you think the solar system is, how old do you think the universe is? How long ago did the asteroid hit?

And one more, if you don't mind. Is ozone one of the most important greenhouse gases?

There is a small town in Alaska that is presently considering one of Toshiba’s small reactors. Remember reading about it in the Whitehorse Star

To Allen: As far as I know (and I haven't actually followed seal hunts for some time, because I've simply assumed we haven't had any for some time telling us how much of an issue it really is) concerning seal hunts, the only viable reason to knock a bunch of seals over the head is to preserve fish stocks. You want to prey on fish, take out its natural predators. This makes sense, until we own up too facts that its isn't some exploding populations of seals that are responsible for dwindled fish stocks . There just aren't many fish left in the world due to international overfishing, and polluted coastlines.
And you know, it's funny. Man is the only animal predator (reptiles are a cold lot) that will take trophies and healthy animals down. By all indications with our actions, we are the only species that isn't willing to ensure the survival of our food supply. Seals are around for a reason and that reason is balance. Too many seals? Welcome to polar bears, the whole thing is balanced, except for the actions and "inactions" of man.
In case we haven't noticed it, sea populations aren't exactly exploding with Walrus's, the big guys, their populations have dropped off the charts. Low Walrus stocks could have one of several reasons, the first two being the most obvious. A lack of food (fish)for them to eat, A polluted fish stock to snack on, or less known contingencies, such as parasites or virus's known only to Walrus's. All indications so far is that it is low fish stocks, but polluted stocks are a ten fold concern. When the top of the food chain populations spiral, warning bells and whistles should be sounding off loud and clear.
80% of the human population lives on coastlines. Many coastline cities worldwide rifle their waste straight into the ocean. If we combine pollution with a complete disregard for the preservation of Marine life and overfish the way we have on a world wide scale, lets just say that there are reasons why Atlantic fishing boats are rusting in the harbour. There are reasons why Atlantic canneries have closed. There are reasons why Walrus and (seal populations to a lesser extent) are down to begin with.
There are also reasons why a wannabee Green MP would run off her mouth and quit, claiming an unaddressed issue, but never coming out and saying what the issue really is. International pollution and overfishing. She, (I won't name her, she might still choose to have a life) is running against a Liberal encumbant with virtually no chance of getting elected and bowed out with one of the dumbest ways she knew how and this makes the Green Party look bad, does it not? And Jim Harris too? In fairness, with the time constraints they've had in looking for the best individals to run in these ridings we can expect this (and they still have time to get someone else in there, but it likely won't do much good)
But look around. The Green Party isn't the only one in this boat. The Green party does concern me in a few ways because they are rookies. The most experience they have politically is in running for elections. But they also have some good individuals with true life experience out there, a sustainable platform and a leader who knows his stuff, and that's why I'm voting Green.

To Allen: (cont.) I happen to have a good individual in my riding, and the platform and leader is one that I can rest easy with. What keeps me uneasy and scares me way beyond political MP inexperience or candidates without life experience for that matter, is the P.C.'s. They not only have questionable leadership and platforms, they have true blue wingnuts running in these ridings. The only way some of them could have a hope in hell of getting elected, is if we stopped putting microphones in their mouths. As for the rest, you've read it. Fish stocks, the secrets out. Just another reason why environmentally sustained platforms work in my view, and one last thought.
Fish farms are fine if they are run properly and especially so, if there is no way for these genetically altered fish to get back out to sea. If that happens, it spells trouble due to their higher triggered growth rates. Farm fish aren't bred to live a long life. They are bred to gain weight and personally, after knowing what they are fed, (high concentrations of soy and to a lesser extent, peanut meal proteins) and knowing that their omega 3 contents are very low (because they aren't eating seaweed an algaes that have the simplest life forms of Omega 3 fatties, they have fats replaced by dietary oils from bean sources that are at much higher risks to Free radical breakdown as it is ingested in the human body and as a result, I would advise anyone to stay away from fish farmed meals until the fish farmers get their act together. You can taste the difference.
Essentially, we are what we eat, and that includes the fish we catch around polluted costlines, or beef that ends up on the plate filled with estrogen growth hormones from some feed lot, or Monsanto milk, for that matter. It's survival of the fittest, alright, but I didn't mean physically.

To Truman Green: I would first like to point out that I'm not a physicist, chemist, or geologist, but the answers we seek concerning the origins and timelines of life and the Earth are answers worth searching for, and can only be anwered with the integration of accurate knowledge coming from these three areas of science. Oh, I suppose we could ask our pre Conservative minority leader Stockwell Day. Apparently he has some pipeline to God science or something, and for that matter, we could just ask God personally, but our answer would likely be one of silence. You know, exhaust all possibilities, exercise the brain for a change, and then ask God to get out the Red pen. And as long as we call our answers and conclusions "theories", unless God would tell us otherwise (almost always through third hand at best angelical means which should tell you something) we shouldn't be telling ourselves too many tall tales.
From here, I'll keep it short and sweet. Theory's from the brain.
Earth's crust formation: 40 to 125 million years.
Solar system: 300 - 500 million years, with planet or moon possibilities coming from other solar system orgins. (its like a cell stealing an electron, except on a much larger scale)
Home galaxy formation, just rough guess, none too educated, 2.5 billion years or more, and keep in mind that to say this planet is 3 to 4 billion years old, is to say that galaxy star formations begin all at once, and don't provide much in the way of internal collisions or collisions with whatever else is out there, a factor that in itself, indicates the conventional aging of this planet to be way too high. If I was to think it through with all I know (and have yet to learn), the age of the galaxy and star formations in general, I might even start counting down, not up, but that would take a full understanding of the full spectrum of the kind of stars we have in our galaxy and universe in general and that means we need to integrate the knowledge of Astrologists as well, to date galaxies more thoroughly.
Age of the universe: (or the one that we know of) from its gas pockets to big bang theories... lets go conventional with 10 - 15 billion years.
The one thing that can throw all of these numbers out of wack (other than the age of this solar system and its planets, and by the way, we do not yet know the extent of the crust thickness of most of the most other planets, like the moon which we consider to be a dead or cold from the inside out, this missing data would give us a much more definitive answer as to how old this solar system really is) is star formation timelines. Star formation doesn't follow rigid initial startup formation timelines due to their variations in the elemental makeup of gases that most of them form from.
The bottom line is this. We know through observation what the chain reaction events are to star formations through their life cycle. What we don't know even now, definitively, is how long these chain reactions take at their own orgins. We can theorize, and I believe most of the star formation theory is sound, but star formations within galaxies, don't happen all at the same time, meaning that solar systems aren't as old as the galaxies that they came from and as such, galaxies aren't as old as the universe itself.

To Truman: Finally, the Chixulub asteroid is the most likely event that could have created the wobble in the Earths orbit (Milankovich theory) we have today. In fact, we don't have another event to go by other than this one anywhere else in the world. With the knowledge we have accumulated with iceage timelines, We need only go back to the iceages that are the most extreme as a result of the major changes to Earths orbit and its catalyst, the Chixulub asteroid. To this end, there are 6 major iceages and a flattened timeline of non iceage events preceding it, indicating that before the Chixulub asteroid hit, the Earths orbit was much more balanced, having a likely primitive surface similar to the moon Europa, with the possibility of a semi unfrozen equatorial ring that could provide early green life (wherever it may have existed, the axis has shifted many times since then).
Considering the eccentricity of Earths orbit alone, without putting separate numbers on the duration of each iceage or its transitions along with where we are at now, a rough guess would be close to 700,000 years. I might be inclined to count up, however, not down, because of other factors that trigger iceages and global warming.
In theory!!!
But note this very important fact. Dinosaurs haven't been found in deep, deep places of the Earths crust. They have been found in rather shallow discoveries. Couple that with the dirt that blew in the 1930's or the fallout of sands from the Sahara world wide, and, well, you get my point. Right?
And why, Truman, would you consider ozone to be a greenhouse gas? Sorry about the windbag explanations... its just that to fire theories out there without explaining how they have been derived, is to be later even more thoroughly mocked and laughed at, regardless of the post humility that is waiting.

And to Collin: There is no market for power in Alaska, with much cheaper alternatives in terms of all that natural gas in their back yard... does that answer your question?

After reading all of the comments from these got to hand it to you all, participants of democracy and free speech, its refreshing to know that the majority of you have found something worthy to complain about. It's important to tell you all, however, that some of you didn't find something worthy to complain about, and most of us haven't offered any real solutions to the problems we've gone through in past and present. There's an old saying that goes, "If you're going to bring up a problem, give it its due justice and come up with a working solution."

Redrivergirl, you are informative with full marks in terms of your WTO comments. But what, we should all have a government like Vietnam? Dig deeper.

Burner... you rock, but take this son of God's word for it. There's no diety whispering in PC ears.

Dangrice, your views concerning religion, especially the needed divorce of church and state, are dead on.

Hyderized, Im beginning to like you, but the states isn't all that democratic. Last I checked, there were over 30 million eligible voters who weren't registered to vote. They were homeless. Take the 80 million who did, roughly a quarter of the population. 30 million are rich, voting for tax cuts for themselves (and its true, the rich vote and the poor don't). 30 million are informed, know whats going on and vote accordingly. The other 20 million who vote are at the mercy of media's brainwash. If you can call that a democracy... And how about B.C? The province that just went through a political election with greens running for every available seat? A paltry 12.5% of the B.C. population turned out to vote for that one. With these odds, VOTES count, and for a whole lot more than a $1.75, if you vote wisely.

We do have some major challenges to our environment, but they can all be met. Power can be generated geothermically in many places, especially island and coastal, along with refractive light very simply anywhere, but unfortunately, that will take a government with a hydro crown corporation that has vision. We can elect one that will do it, on January 23rd. Tides can generate major amounts of power with their gravity flows of water. The bay of Fundy is ripe for exploitation with an eastern provincial/federal government that is willing to try. Nuclear power, we've discussed, and that Chinese comment with plans to build 40 to 60 more scares me not so much so in the size or scale of their proposals, but with the political system they have. Very secretive, very authoritarian… not exactly the kind of government that would own up to their mistakes. We wouldn’t have time for radioactive detox or food safe measures to be taken, here. We’d find out the hard way with China. Cold fusion and hydrogen cells, hold promise, but nothing with hydrogen cells is in full production. (God, I love hydrogen cell tech, though). We already have the tech. We just don't have elected leaders who are willing to fast track needed change. This can change on Jan. 23rd. The big one is the challenge to healthcare. The Cancer industry was 200 billion last year, alone. We won't find much in the way of HMO's rolling over for that one, other than to have their asses kissed. You know, I have yet to see Jim Harris's lips turn brown.

And Rotten Ronnie Erwin. I saved you for last. Your special, you self professed, Brian Mulroney lovin, PC supporting voter that you are. What a class act it is, to spread a bunch of religion and PC lovin on another parties website links from the likes of you. It would be interesting to see Lyin’ Brian’s son’s expression on his face when the old man kicks and he finds out just how much money really is in that Caynan Island bank account of his. This same former board member of Bre-X (yah, you wouldn’t recognize that Bay Street swagger, would you?) and chin chiseling can opener look alike ran up a major pile of debt in 10 years over two elections, (a paltry 200 billion or so) with piss all to show for it (except him and his buddies flush overseas accounts). I can see the Canadian voters voting him in once, but twice? There’s an old saying goes “If it looks bad, sounds bad, tastes bad, feels bad and smells bad, chances are high that it is bad.” The secret was out on him the third time ‘round. Where have you been?
Church? Let me get you up to speed on what happened these last 2,000 years or so. There was this cat who was a healer, a mystic, a prophet, a holy man who performed many miracles and preached and walked the ways of freedom, peace and love, for all to see. And the Jews complained, or so the Roman Catholic Church later writes, and the Romans certainly didn’t like it very much, so they took him out back and nailed him to a tree (because that’s what they were good at, murdering and butchering and so forth). This same cat gets smothered in Aloe and Myrrh, uses another cat life and walks, and it inspires his friends to write (because they were literate with coin Greek at the time, the common language of the day). This freedom, peace and love stuff doesn’t jive well with the might of Rome, “for no one can withstand her might, and hail Caesar, and blah, blah, blah,” so they take this cat’s friends and take them out back and, lets just say that they weren’t… kind about it. They butcher them too. All in all, 52 million friends hung up to dry over a 300 year span, according to… Roman archives. 180,000 a year hung up on crosses… all to believable.
And then, Constantine comes along. This guy is a real prize (he’s beheaded his own son and boiled his own wife alive in history books that aren’t religiously rewritten). Welcome to church and state. Of course, the ass kissers who puckered up inherited Rome’s new church and we get burned out libraries, brain drains, and 14 centuries of “the dark ages”. But there was building resistance. Many nations didn’t care for Rome’s control freaky, oppressive ways, and snubbed the Italian mob to the point where we have what we have today. Partially rewritten history and scattered enlightenment.
If you are into repeating history, Ronnie, just pucker up and kiss the ass of the one who wants another church and state. And we all know the name of the one leader who’s lips are the most brown of all. Take this bride of Christ’s word for it when I say, “the cat ain’t coming back for lying control freak leaders who’ll smear something Holy just for votes, and take note, Ronnie, he's not coming back for the ones who’ll kiss his ass.” (I would’ve mentally projected a kiss to the ass that brought the holy one to town though, cause that cat is cool.) I double dare you, Ronnie, to take that paring knife of yours and cross swords with me, if you ever knew what a “sword” really is to begin with. You’ve all got 4 whole days to exercise your freedoms of speak before it all gets posted for the next 6 months.

Well Brain, you asked: "And why, Truman would you consider ozone to be a greenhouse gas....." Because, Brain, OZONE IS EITHER NUMBER THREE OR NUMBER FOUR OF THE DANGEROUS GREENHOUSE GASES, along with carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. I asked you this because I know that you don't ACTUALLY understand any of the scientific principles you are pretending to be familiar with. Anyone can confirm this by googling: "ozone greenhouse gas". As for as your timeline, well it's so convoluted as to be not worthy of mentioning again. Brain, if you don't know that ozone is a greenhouse gas--something so basic to the discussion of the global warming issue...uh... well, and this is not to flame, Mr. or Mrs or Miss site manager, you should be ashamed of yourself for all this drivel. I've never seen anything like it.

Brain, I agree with the thing you said about " If it looks bad and sounds bad...whatever !
A volcano " looks bad and sounds bad...
Let's not give any extra importance to ourselves than is real. We don't know shite.
Least of all do you.
I hope you are all tuckered out now.

To Ron Erwin: You should check out what your fearless leader had to say in text on the CBC website. As the CBC article headline at cbc.ca states:
A speech given to Americans by Steven Harper 8 years ago, resurfaced just in time for the first debate of the federal election campaign, and the Liberals are likely to claim it as evidence of the Conservative leader's true character.

The Canadian Press was alerted Wednesday evening to the 1997 speech given to the Council for National Policy, an American think tank in Montreal. The entire text of the speech can be found on the group's website – although there's no longer a link to it from the list of past speakers.

Canadian Press says it was pointed to the story by an "opponent of [Harper's] social policies" who wanted to remain anonymous.

Anyone who reads it will wonder why he still has a job... or maybe not. We elected your buddy Brian in twice.

To Truman: Why don't you give us some big windbag explanation of how much of difference O3 makes compared to CO2 with the greenhouse effect, smart guy. And while your at it, explain to us why we want friendly O3 in our upper atmospheres instead of our lower ones and how O3 gets in the lower atmospheres in the first place...

To Trueman Green:
You know, after reading your comments twice, I couldn't help but note that you had some cruel and ignorant things to say.

Assuming you were potentially telling the site manager as well as myself that they or I should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this dribble in the first place with the way you've worded it... there's are reasons site managers all over would allow it. Number one on the list, is freedom of speech protected by our constitutional rights. The second best reason is that everything I've texted out is related one way or the other, to the environment. In case you haven't noticed, space, galaxies, solar systems, Earth issues such as orbits, icages, global warming, low fish stocks, poor human health, economics, energy consumption, political views, knowledge accurate or otherwise, and yes, atmospheric changes within and from the "ozone" and green house gases are all a part of the integrated environments we live in. In case you need to be reminded, people who vote Green are environmentalists at heart. They are for better environments everywhere.
When it comes to the environment of manners, there's a book called the "Art of War" worth a read for people who have to deal with individuals like you (and I). I didn't always agree with Trudeau, but I admired his own admiration for this book. Within it, there are a number of tactical preprogrammed responses towards oppositon in all respects, most of them being verbal. The first few responses deal with negotiation (see if you can get something for nothing with mere power of suggestion, or offer peanuts, weaken your opponent if they bite and then take the peanuts, stuff like that). The next few tactics deal with counters. Let the guy rant (Like Steven Harper did back in June of 1997 and his 8 year old views are very relevant. He hasn't changed. He's evolved) and hang themselves on their stated positions if you can, while at the same time, keeping your own positions quiet (if you have any). With this strategy, less is more.
The next few responses if this doesn't work, is deal with the phycological warfare of shaming your opponent. You know, bury him with his own shovel. And if that doesn't work for you, just jump into the gutter and slander and run down your opponent without a wiff of evidence to back it up. You know, get dirty with insults. And if that doesn't work, you just get physical for what you want. You know... go to war.
Like you say, go ape, get a club, and start clubbing dinosaurs, stuff like that. I sense that you are someone who gets off on putting others down, including the very people who are responsible for the existence of these same media forums in the first place. I doubt that you came to this website in the name of peace... Like that dated movie favorite of yours. Way ahead of you and wasted dribble? Not entertaining enough? What, a student college or otherwise couldn't use certain cut and paste issues like healthcare spending as food for thought with term papers? C'mon. You're just like any other moron who reads a book or text and turns it all to barn yard droppings because it wasn't entirely 100% true blue enough for you. So lets put this in its place shall we? There just aren't that many people reading this... dribble past the first 100 or so comments from the editorial itself. I brainstormed for 2 short days. What have you done that's so special lately? What are your own "profound" contributions to make this world a better place to live? Negativity? Shame? Or just insults... get a life.

Brain, I did get a bit mean. I admit it. I apologize, but really, eh. Here's the IPCC on ozone as a greenhouse gas: "Concentrations of ozone have risen by around 30% since the pre-industrial era, and is now considered to be the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane." Or how about: "As a direct greenhouse gas, it is thought to have caused around one third of all the direct greenhouse induced warming since the industrial revelution." Incidentally I would never go to see King Kong where they have apes and dinosaurs living on the earth at the same time. That's what I'm talking about, eh. I basically agree with your take on how important renewables and sustainability and stuff like that is, eh, but I wonder if you might be a bit more thoughtful on presenting science in the way you do. I sensed that you don't really understand the free radical-ozone link even though you brought it up. And yes, ozone is a very important gas when it reaches the troposphere. Brain, google exactly: "ozone greenhouse gas" and learn the REAL facts. I do however, believe that you are an exceptionally intelligent and capable person. But you know, many people can rattle off reams of stuff like you do if they don't care about the accuracy of their "facts."

Wow, Trueman and Brain, good to see Tyhee posters with occassionally differing views that have quasi-respect for one another. For Trueman, even though Political Policy and Law should and generally are based on facts that are black and white, Brain's emotional and philosophical rants (again left brain firing) certainly have a place in issues concerning the environment. Enormously complex issues such as global warming are 'grey' having localized black and white facts with commonly contradictory data (recall that statistically eroneous hockeystick graph of CO2 content).

Instead of the problems of Canada and the world being solved on the Tyhee bullboard, and in light of the anticipated yawner of the federal leaders debate tonight, it would be interesting to see CBC or C-Pac host a series of debates on major issues, featuring ministers and critics of all parties (including green), to give voters a better idea of the party rank and file rather than the parties clownish dictators. I'm sure C-PAC could use the ratings. Issues such as environment, taxes, health care, defence, foreign policy, legalizing 180 proof alchohol could be debated and viewed by the electorate most concerned on these particular issues.

Oh to be dictator of Canada for a day (as Hyderized heads out the door to another Christmas, oops Holiday party)

To Truman Green: Perhaps you are familiar with "The Art of Peace" as well. It begins with apologies for what is real, but no apologies for what isn't. Apologies accepted, and at the same time, given. I also appreciate your own efforts to take our collective environmental concerns to light and once again, would like to thank you for your clarity. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#oz is an easier cut and paste than Google this and look for that, but nit picking aside, you headed towards one of the right directions. Nevertheless, as we both know, "don't believe everything you read." Or at least, in the way its worded (or the way you word it).
Lets look at the question I asked you, “What does Ozone have to do with global warming?” and your first statement, "Concentrations of ozone have gone up 30% since the pre-industrial revolution and is now considered to be the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane. ." That's a nice theory presented as fact... eh? Think about what's wrong with this statement for a moment. Not only did we not have accurate measurements of ozone or understand what ozone was until the early, mid 1900's, (but we'll overlook it because these theoretical % increases are true if not higher, say 50%), where the wheels come off with this website or more appropriately your own misleading text, is that it doesn't provide any real data relating to O3 and global warming, so I'll provide it for you.

http://www.newsbatch.com/environment.htm#air
A summary of Atmospheric contributions to our Green House effect gases excluding water vapor.
Carbon dioxide (fossil fuels) 59%.
Carbon dioxide (land use natural or farmed) 18%.
Methane 14%.
Nitrous oxide 8%
Other (ozone and such) 1%.

"As a direct greenhouse gas, it is thought to have caused around one third of all the direct greenhouse induced warming since the industrial revolution."

You remember that one? You still want to sell me that one too?
The more you learn, the less you'll want to know. All of these gases absorb UV's (or alpha, beta and gamma radiation) from the sun and in the process, give off heat. Fortunately for us, O3 or ozone, reflects a good portion of these respective rays before they can enter the lower atmospheres, but as O3 or upper ozone doesn't reflect it all, especially after it becomes depleted (and in truth, we wouldn't want complete deflection of UV's), UV's continue to come down and collide into the rest of our gases listed in our atmosphere and turn into heat. The remaining UV's that don't hit gas molecules on their way down, hit the surface of the earth and it turns into heat... but some of it is reflected back into the atmosphere... where it collides with these same gases all over again, from our lower to upper atmospheres until you get the rays left over that the rest of our universe sees.
The website provided is an excellent website for anyone who wants to look at the charts (of which there are hundreds to click on) and get the skinny on our environments and scientific data that tells big business or any other skeptics that they have rocks in their heads. If you want to crunch some hard science and chemistry on what you think I don't know, check out http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-489/011-489.html and you'll find out what NASA has to say, something that George Bush and Big business just doesn't want to hear. Although its dated to begin with (15 years old), it establishes a timeline of what we knew then and what were doing about it now. Trust me when I say this, George Bush is nowhere to be found except playing golf and booking future golf appointments with Steven Harper on the days and future days when the rest of the world gets together to talk about global warming issues.

All greenhouse gases act as greenhouse gases simply because they either let radiation in and don't let it out, or block light(radiation) from coming in or out, releasing heat as UV's make contact with these gases on their way towards the Earth surface, or reflecting from the Earths surface. Since every gas atom or molecule has the potential to be hit by light radiation, it’s only natural to call ALL atmospheric gases greenhouse gases by their technical definition.
Unfortunately, what this does, is minimizes the 78% carbon dioxide related heat given off by UV’s colliding with CO2. So I’ll ask you one more time, what does ozone have to do with global warming?

Unfortunately our website sources offer levels of upper atmosphere O3, but not lower levels as they vary to greatly. Nor do they get into the explanations of what O3 molecules often bind to on their way up, when they are made by the smokestacks and tailpipes of man. (I know, I'm nit picking here, but we're birds of a feather and if you're still a stickler for detail)

The bottom line we can both agree upon, is that we are creating a ton of ozone as O3 molecules bonded with pollution that doesn't often make it to the troposphere and this magnifies O3 greenhouse effects in lower atmospheres. Upper O3 is a radiation screen, while lower O3 becomes a double mirror, primarily reflecting surface born and reflected radiation right back to the earths surface and what does O3 create in terms of actual greenhouse global warming all told?
Less than one percent and it is fourth on the list of greenhouse gases (if you can still call it one from trying to deflect any reader from the real issues of global warming... man made CO2 emissions and Earth orbital variations).
Just ask yourself... "Do I like clouds on a ultra hot sunny day?" We all do because water vapors absorb light and give off the heat that we don't have to feel, thank God. Ask yourself again, "Do current and rising percentages of CO2 create global warming?" The answer big business wants to duck is YES.
Of course, and its not a mere fraction of a percent of global warming contributions from ground level radiation being mirror reflected back at us from lower layers of O3 and radiation that we are in many ways creating... its the gobs of CO2, some 3.3 mega tons of CO2, changing ever so quickly an atmosphere that once had just slightly more than half of what we have now in terms of CO2, a mere 250 years ago, with a current half life that’s likely longer than our own. And what do we have less of in our atmosphere now? Oxygen. Not exactly a good thing, considering we are aerobic by nature.
So I'll ask it one more time Truman... considering that virtually any gas has the potential to contribute to global warming and considering that O3 is responsible for less than one percent of global warming compared to CO2's 78%, I'll ask you again. What does ozone have to do with global warming? Hold up on that one... I'll find out on my own. I got it!!! Not a hill of beans compared to what we’ve got to do with it.
If a Green out there does know of websites that aren't so technically dated and biased please feel free to join in.
It is also a well known fact that where we live makes a big difference in terms of how long we'll live. Fed stats tell us that if we want to live in smoggy O3 filled cities, we can expect to on average shave 5 years off our life expectancy. (Those long hair, so called smelly, draft dogging, mountain hermit eccentrics are smarter than we think... eh?)
One last brain teaser to heal your wounds, Truman... what is the most ideal atmospheric environment that man could ever build for himself to make himself live for hundreds of years, if he wanted to?

To Hyderized: hey, dude. You've got me listening...

Brain, here's what you asked me: "And why, Truman would you consider ozone to be a greenhouse gas?" Your rationalization for asking that question was weird and wonderful, but even a million words can't diminish the fact that you asked it--leading any respecter of empirical evidence to understand that you didn't know it. You've tried to bury your ignorance about a very obvious phenomenon amidst a massive pile of the methanistic production (including Escherichia Coli, the replication of which is largely responsible, weirdly enough) of the male herbivore. Otherwise your statement would have been, "I know Truman, but ozone's small compared to CO2, eh. You can't fool me Brain, old buddy--but oh what an effort!

Your just not getting it. I knew the answer. I knew it years ago. I just wanted to see if you did and you let me down. Its a sad disappointment, too, because I was just begining to think that you were getting it, but your not. This is the sad part, is that I knew the moment I read your request for timelines on other theories that all you wanted to do is belittle someone... anyone... to build yourself up. You reek of it! The only person I can think of who is this bad (besides some of the other bloggers I'm read) and does this on a daily basis is Steven Harper. What is it with this world? What is it with the want for people like you and Ron Erwin who to have to get negative digs in to make yourselves feel better about your day? Is it working for you? Cause its not working anymore for me. You are precisely the kind of person I don't want to become. Unimaginative and slow. Here's some last parting words of wisdom for yah. When someone, anyone asks you for something. Doesn't matter what it is... just ask the question. What's his motive? What is his true reason for doing and saying what it is that he's doing or saying? Having said this, your as transparent as glass, teaching me nothing but how to become a fool.

To Trueman: Don't know if there's anything about you that's true, man. But what's true is that I do like to rant... purposely. Environments are kind of... technical after all. After reading your last question twice, I can only say that I asked you a day ago!

[QUOTE: To Truman: Why don't you give us some big windbag explanation of how much of difference O3 makes compared to CO2 with the greenhouse effect, smart guy. And while your at it, explain to us why we want friendly O3 in our upper atmospheres instead of our lower ones and how O3 gets in the lower atmospheres in the first place... ]
Remember that one? And all you do is quote some shit facts about Escherichia Coli... and what, you think I'm going to back off on your shit facts about the environment because I'm what... supposed to be impressed by your intellectual vanity? That's ripe. Hasn't it dawned on you that when you answer a relevant question badly and leave it hanging, maybe someone should help with the cleanup? Or what, I agree with you only to here you slam me with some sucker play about how I couldn't recognize shit facts when I hear them? C'mon.

And those insincere apologies of yours. Oh, and I know what you're alreading thinking because its textbook. "He's projecting! Look at all of the Empirical evidence!" It mighta worked if I hadn't already been there years ago, vane, humbled, wise and filled with sorrow and all. Way ahead of you. Get a life.

When I read this, it only confirms what I already know. Steven Harper will belittle just about anyone including most of Canada, to build himself up. This time, it was to impress the Americans. This speech should have buried his career 8 years ago and nothings changed. He's just more evolved and coached now. If anyones got regrets for saying something nasty, this won't make you feel to bad.
(Quote:)
Text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997

Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.But in any case, my speech will make that assumption.
I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country.

Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of misimpressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country.

While it is a French-speaking city – largely – it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional.

Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking.

Last time, he ran down Canadians in general. This time, he runs down the Canadian system in general, and Quebec.
Text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997

Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario. The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States.

But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference. As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada.Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization.
The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience.
It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?" And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.
"I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven."
In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society. Second, the civics, Canada's civics.On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.
However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.
And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.
So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.
What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.
What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.

With this excerpt, he runs down the NDP. It's interesting how Stephen can't make the provincial party distinction. Notice the disconnect, and notice the inflammatory remarks he's making. He's really slamming the electorate here in a big way, getting religion into it, just like George Bush.

Text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 (cont.)

In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity. But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?" or on the budget, we know already. If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.

Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject.

We had a two-party system from the founding of our country, in 1867. That two-party system began to break up in the period from 1911 to 1935. Ever since then, five political elements have come and gone. We've always had at least three parties. But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances. Let me take a conventional look at these five parties. I'll describe them in terms that fit your own party system, the left/right kind of terms.

Let's take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.
This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.

Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology.
The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical.

There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don't belong to that particular organization.

This is more of the same. Stephen compares the liberals to the democrats, runs them down and then runs down the Catholics, mostly from Quebec. The interesting distinction here, is his comparing the PC's and later to come, the Reform, his religious right, as being REPUBLICAN.
Text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 (cont.)

The second party, the Liberal party, is by far the largest party. It won the election. It's also the only party that's competitive in all parts of the country. The Liberal party is our dominant party today, and has been for 100 years. It's governed almost all of the last hundred years, probably about 75 per cent of the time.
It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.
In the last Parliament, it enacted comprehensive gun control, well beyond, I think, anything you have. Now we'll have a national firearms registration system, including all shotguns and rifles. Many other kinds of weapons have been banned. It believes in gay rights, although it's fairly cautious. It's put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.
There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social-conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party is often quite liberal on economic issues.
Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron. But actually, its origin is not progressive in the modern sense. The origin of the term "progressive" in the name stems from the Progressive Movement in the 1920s, which was similar to that in your own country.

But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.

In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially – what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.
At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.
The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican, which I'll get to in a minute.
The Bloc Québécois, which I won't spend much time on, is a strictly Quebec party, strictly among the French-speaking people of Quebec. It is an ethnic separatist party that seeks to make Quebec an independent, sovereign nation.

By and large, the Bloc Québécois is centre-left in its approach. However, it is primarily an ethnic coalition. It's always had diverse elements. It does have an element that is more on the right of the political spectrum, but that's definitely a minority element.

I could go on, but I believe everyone gets the point. OLD NEWS. Its the same today as it was 4 years ago, as it was 8 years ago, right through the majority of Stephen Harper's life. The only thing further to add, is that the Coucil for National Policy is... if you can call it right... if thats a word for extreme or radical, or a bunch of religious pretenders who think they're better than everyone else... You know, the bible is perfect and without flaw including the way they interpret it, and "were for family values and were better than everyone else cause we've got God on our side and we're going to set the national agenda because we're better than everyone else and..." since Stephen Harper introduced the devil... isn't that someone with a superiority complex? OLD NEWS

Who's this "Brain" dude?

He's just set a new Tyee record for sheer volume of verbiage that one poster can manage to shovel onto a single Tyee thread!

I don't think anyone else has even come close before.

A breathtaking performance!

(Too bad I don't have the patience to actually wade through such a bayou of bombast).

Yeah, but Brain, why don't you just admit to inventing science, eh. Or, what's your rationalization for your timeline of the age of the earth, the solar system and the universe? Come up with a rational one and I'll donate money to your favourite charity. Really, I'd love to hear it. Honest! Otherwise I think we're just going to have to admit that you've beat everyone in the race to the THEORY OF EVERYTHING--no quarks, no strings,no spins, no colours, no cumbersome exponential notations, no special, no general relativity, radioactive decay, no strong, no weak nuclear forces, Nothing except self-peer-reviewed fake science, eh. Again, apologies in advance if you do a sensible timeline, but this time you're not allowed to be 60 million years off on the ice-age-asteroid issue a la the big apes and dinosars co-existing in the King Kong movie.

Bobb99, well I think Brain is an authentic intellectual powerhouse, I mean look at the flawless typing. But he (or she)'s funny, too, eh. Look at this, for instance, regarding his failure to recognize ozone as a greenhouse gas:
"You're just not getting it. I knew the answer. I knew it years ago. I just wanted to see if you did and you let me down." Now this seems positively Grewalian to me, eh. Thanks for the laughs, eh, Brain.

To Bobb 99: Your right, and I don't blame you for your lack of patience. Some bloggers and chatliners could do this volume... some journalists. The odd writer. Just not on the same chalkboard. If you could imagine the sea of bombast alone on chatlines, but some climates are different like elections and the ones who participate.

There are only a few people who will read it all, including myself. Possibly Rafe... 2 site managers... Jim Harris maybe over the summer. Excerpts of 4,000 words or less are moulded into editorial profiling for a reason. It's not about volume as much as it is about content and writer development. With interactive feedback (that writers often don't always get), writers grow... its just that the wordy ones are always vulnerable to people like Truman who will attack anything that has more than a soundbite. Look at what Rafe has had to endure with this editorial alone!

Imagine what high profile journalists and politicans go through. That's why sites like the Tyee will grow, because they truly are good for developing journalists (and for tracking their evoloution, all writers have a gamblers tell) who especially want to work on issues that will always be timeless... like the environment. When writers write pieces that can't be mocked, (I've got a few here, but not the ones with theories that start lopping zeros on timelines, theories too unconventional, making everyone look bad if its ever proven to be true, or even future about to be proven facts, like a dietary cure for cancer that's been buried for decades so big business can make alot of money) that's when they're ready for larger venues. All things come full circle.

To Truman: I'm glad you have built in word perfect and a sense of humor. To bad it continually has to be at someone elses expense.

Then you're saying I haven't given you your due? Jeez, man. What's "authentic intellectual powerhouse"--chopped liver? I wish you'd say something that nice about me.

To trueman: From all of that emperical evidence... I wish I could.

Ok, ok. You have feelings. You're still here. How about's we call it a draw?

to Trueman and anyone else:
Did I come up with the alphabet to the languages that we speak? Did I come up with the parents that raised me? Did I build the roads to the schools that brought me there? Did I come up with E=mc squared or the formula for peace? Did I learn love on my own? For shame that anyone would judge a stranger, even a friend (unless it be with the rewards of love), for we have not all been down these same roads...
Did I not follow the leads of others who knew the way? For surely, I would have become lost if I did not. Should I embrace war when offered peace? Hatred when offered love? Condemnation when offered redemption, sillyness when offered wisdom? For we are products of our own environment.

When is it, that a formula of peace can work for a white man, but not a black man. When is it, that peace can work for a black man, but not a native, or an lion... an eagle... an oxen... a dove... when will we be ready for the universe when we aren't ready for ourselves? For the answer to peace within the universe and the individual is one and the same.

Who isn't the product of their own environments? Who benefits from not having control of themselves and the environments we live in and share? For our stewardship to our homes and native lands are not inherited by those who know not where they came from. We are Canadians. We are creations. We know our substance when we give back from the wells that we draw from.

Here's a gamblers tell: For anyone who wishes to seek the deep, vast, mysteries of life, there are 12 general questions that need to be asked. Each one is a can of worms. Each one swims in multiplex environments.
Origins
Timelines
Purpose
Potential (and the fulfillment of these 4)
W5, who, what, where, why, when they are no less important to ask.
the last 3 deal with success and failure.
Will
Goal
Plan
It is plain as day to see that if any are off, we will fail. Even when they are on, there aren't any guarantee's. Last I checked, I didn't find a warrantee for something broken... but if you look hard, you'll find someone who knows how to fix it.

Know that its not just actions but inactions that sink us. Know that the only plan that can succeed is the one that isn't written in stone, except for the laws that we've been asked to follow...
For we can know all of the answers in the universe, but if it just stays in the brain, it's wasted. Do you not know who speaks to you? For I come with a shield on my left hand and a sword on my right and offer them to you freely. Use them wisely, and you'll be remembered... used them foolishly, and you will be forgotten.

As for charities, Amnesty International is one of my favorites. I'm partial to the Green Party these days as well and while I'm on the subject of money... I do track currencies... did anyone notice what happened to our canadian dollar within the first hour of the latest poll four days ago? It dropped 7 tenths of a cent when the Liberals dropped three points to 34 and the PC's gained two 2% to 31. I doubt that its a coincidence.

Brain your post to"Trueman and anyone else" was wonderful,I'll be printing that for my 2006 daily affirmation.
The person who tried to ridicule you as left brained, and claimed to be a geologist, demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge of the scientific method and the decorum associated with higher education,maybe he home-studied?

Go Rafe! You've got my attention here in the Maritimes,and I consider myself a busy person
the Crowley story is a keeper for me,since I also dabble at "tilting at windmills".For non readers thats a reference to Cervantes,whose bookDon Quixote I intend to read in 2006

So I intend to be busy in 2006,including running for Parliament Twice?,and becoming a better person.
Brain I'd love to hear from you seek me out at the party website enter postalcode b2n 6l5.

The NDP Candidate for Rafe's Ridng, West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast, was speaking out on environmental issues when Rafe, "Mr. Greenie cum lately", was still a Socred cabinet minister.
See "Coast News", Dec 1 1986, "Judith Wilson... expressed concerns about the environmental impact of the fish farning boom at the Gillespie Inquiry...".

To NSGreen,

Good luck on your campaign.

For the record, your general statement questioning that I am a geologist is curious. I hope that as an elected official you will remain open-minded to different ideas or theories, however impliment policies and laws based on facts rather than emotion. Fair enough that you question my philosophy of science, however please save your scoffing and insults to internet chat rooms, rather than in Public life as an elected official. One appealing aspect of the Green Party is the embrace of new ideas constantly evolving. Ignoring facts is more suited in general to the mainstream parties.

By the way, I was teasing the Brain about his/her left lobe leanings, not ridiculing as you may suggest. He gets it, I don't think you do.

To novascotia Green: Thanks for the compliment and good luck with your campaign.

to Hyderized: Check out the story, "Playing Climate catchup" on the Tyee and click onto "Balloons".
Ask yourself realistically, geology trained or no... what would it take to create that much CO2? You'll connect the dots.

To Hyderized and everyone else: There was a debate here a week or two back, placed on the accuracy of the timelines to the Chixiclub asteroid (conventionally thought of as happening 65 million years ago), plus the Milanchovich theory (earths orbital variations) as being related.

Recently, a research team called EPICA, completed 3.2 kilometres of ice drilling and samples to look into an accurate past of the Earths climate change, as well as ice age phenomenoms that have occurred over the last 900,000 years of atmospheric history within Antartica's icepack. It hasn't been until this year, that we have been able to provide conclusive proof to support the Milanchovich theory over a timeline beyond 440,000 years.

What EPICA has found so far, verifies the Milankovitch theory as being the most plausible explanation to date for the formations of past ice ages, as well as CO2 and methane emissions playing major roles as well with warming and cooling trends. What is also worthy to note, are the graph spikes of dust sediments during warming trends... google EPICA or go to:
http://www.esf.org/esf_article.php?activity=1&article=85&domain=3

The current bar for aging sediment depths that aren't suject to erosion or major soil displacements, is 1 meter of sediment for every million years. Currently, geologists use the K/T boundary (15 to 65 meters in depth, world wide) as a timeline to predict the timeline of the Chixclub event as being 65 million years old, as well as to establish timelines between the extinction of the dinosaurs to our modern day.

The orbital variations of the Earth we now have, being less than perfectly circular, has led researchers to believe that an asteroid collision or series of asteroid collisions, has effected the orbit of the Earth, affecting the Earth's environments in major ways throughout its history, including the major extinction of old lifeforms, and the triggering of iceages.

An example of this within geology is the Chixiclub asteroid as verified by K/T boundary sediment found world wide... but there are other large asteroid impacts found in Sudbury, Canada, and in South Africa... and others still that could be under ice or sea, lying as of yet undiscovered.

Summarized research is still pending from the deepest antartic icepack assays. Among theories yet to be supported or disproven within accurate atmospheric 900,000 year timelines, include:
1) The accuracy of the geological timeline of 1 metre of undisturbed sediment equaling, give or take, a million years as a benchmark.
2) A theorized possible shift of the Earths axis between 750 - 900 thousand years ago, a change that could also have been triggered as a delayed response to earlier astroidal collisions.

The one thing that transcends the importance of understanding Earths timelines in theory, is our current, atmospheric, man made CO2 and methane emmissions along with their atmospheric half lives. The dangers of global warming are very real, taking precedence over all other dangers this Earth faces today.

Hi everyone: Please consider voting for a Marxist-Leninist Party candidate, if there is one in your riding. If you do not have a MLPC candidate in your riding, do consider voting for another small party that would allow you to vote according to your conscience rather than "strategically" etc. Failing that, consider stepping forth to run yourself in the next election on the issues that you have identified as very important to Canadians (but avoided by big party politicians). To find out the stands of the Marxist-Leninist Party (which are very comprehensive and concern all aspects of the natural and social environment, as well as issues of Canadian sovereignty, international relations and more) please check out the website at mlpc.