Let me give you a tidbit of what this Ontarian thinks of our people and our Premier. Before we consider giving them any more of our natural wealth consider this:
Attention Canadians. Two jerk-offs are after your money. No, they are not thieves, although you might think so at first glance.
They are Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Lorne Calvert, the Premier of Saskatchewan. They love to operate on the basis that there’s “free” money - yours and mine - available to eternally support their provinces under the so-called equalization principle. Except there’s no “equality” in this scheme at all — just a blood-sucking scheme to have the rest of Canada pay money to their coffers.
That's just one sample of the anti-Newfoundland and Labrador rubbish floating in Canada's landfill. When I countered that statement the fellow said:
As for mismanaging fish stocks, I seem to recall that fishermen profited from the fisheries, and pogey in off-season, along with the regular 42-week crowd. My goodness, some people are even saying that it wasn’t the Ottawa folks dipping jigs in the water, but I’m sure that’s just a rumour.
There’s even lots of work and money in Alberta for those who want to get off their duff, oh, sorry, “abandon their NL lifestyle” and seek it. (See 42-week pogey above).
By all means visit this guy and read some of the commentary on our province by him and others like him. Not one KW of Lower Churchill power should be exported to this region - as they will sit back - suck it in - and tell us we are welfare bums - because we will have no industry.
33 comments:
Yes, do moan and wail to each other. Everyone must be down a quart or two of self-commiseration.
Needless to say, I welcome your moaning. Do try to be original, eh?
Sue that gentleman blogger doesn't know what he wants for Newfoundland and Labrador. For one thing he wants us to ship off all our resources to some place else in Canada, he doesn't want us to receive either EI or Equilization. So what is it this person wants.
We are saying on your blog that No More Giveaways. Keep our wonderful Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Power in Labrador for Labrador's development and they don't want us to do that. They have our Grand Banks fish quotas to conduct bi-lateral trade for Canada, they have our minerals of all sorts, working for some place else in Canada. How do they want us 500,000 souls do conduct our lives without our resources working for us. This man is speaking from both sides of his mouth, and one statement cancels out the other.
Make up your mind Mr. Sorenson, what is it you and your Canadian colleagues want from us. We know what we want, we want our resources to remain in this province and work for us.
Mr. Sorenson, please stop your double negative blogging, it doesn't make any sense at all. I hope the rest of Canadians will be able to see through it. But then how can they, when most Canadians are not aware of the wonderful resources that Newfoundland and Labrador have been so well endowed with by nature. After all, we, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and for sure not Ottawa, (since Ottawa doesn't want the truth to be known as to what Newfoundland and Labrador contribute to Canada), have not been touting it to the rest of Canada. We have to start a campaign across Canada itemizing what resources we have contributed to Canada and under what duress it did happen.
We also have to stick to our guns and do NOT export the Queen of all Resources the Lower Churchill Hydroelectricity for the general health of some other part of Canada. We need to retain that Queen of all resources Hydroelectricity for the health of Labrador and Newfoundland.
That resource will be able to attract all kinds of industry to Labrador. You can be sure that there are many companies out there with their eyes on that resource, but first they want to make sure that either Quebec or Ontario or some place else will not be dispensing it. You can be sure that protocol is involved in how business acts. Big Business
doesn't want to step on the toes of either Quebec or Ontario. Let us get both of those provinces out of the way immediately by serving notice to them that it will be used for Labrador's benefit only when it comes to attracting industry.
Anon: To be perfectly clear ... I don't want "anything" for NL&L. If you folks can't decide and act out your own destiny, then don't expect anyone else to do it for you. Or don't accuse everybody else of doing so. Talk about persecution complexes!
Again to be perfectly clear: please listen. If you want to keep your resources for yourselves, please do so. Just don't accuse anyone else of stealing them from you.
Remember, YOU are responsible for YOUR destiny. And if Danny isn't hacking it for you, then for God's sake get off your duffs and do something about it! Stop blaming everyone else in the world for your problems, of your making.
Is that clear enough? And, while you are at it, will SOMEONE there please take a business course? So that you will understand that contracts and agreements are between WILLING buyers and WILLING sellers. If you don't want to sell, then for Pete's sake don't negotiate or sign! Clear?
Failing that, princesses, suck it up.
Erik,
The issue here is clearly that some of us do not want to export these resources - and yes it is our choice.
It's when your Premier and other Ontario gurus determine that the Lower Churchill is economically viable with you but not without. It's when you use our power in an argument to get the feds to pay for an east-west grid to make it easier to suck resources - all for the good of Canada of course.
We will deal with our Premier - try to get yours to stop salivating over our resources. I don't think that's possible because you rely on us too much.
Further you did not drop a jigger in the Atlantic but it's just as well you did. How did you get some of those auto plants? In part because we provided quotas to the countries involved. You making any Japanese cars? They love the fish Erik.
Well said Sue.
Erik says he doesn't want our resources. Try telling us something else Erik. That is the issue that has your dander up here, the fact that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are saying vociferiously that there will be no more give aways or letting our resources to be exported when we are thirsty for economic development here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
You made the following statement in your last thread Erik "So that you will understand that contracts and agreements are between WILLING buyers and WILLING sellers".
Well I will say to you Erik that it doesn't seem the Upper Churchill or even the Voisey's Bay Contracts were between willing buyers and sellers. I can't remember the Upper Churchill Contract, but I am aware of some of the chatter since where we were told that Ottawa would not intervene with Quebec to give this province a corridor to conduct the Upper Churchill Hydroelectric power to points westward, the same rights that every other province had in Canada to conduct their energy, oil and gas to market. Why the double standard Erik? That double standard ERIK resulted in Quebec getting $1 billion plus from that contract and Newfoundland and Labrador getting $30 million, barely enough to run the project.
The Voisey's Bay Contract, we were told that not one teaspoon was to be exported. We were bombarded daily with columns in the Globe and Mail lambasting us for not wanting to export that ore. We, the ordinary people, don't know what happened, but it sure wasn't because the ordinary person didn't stand up and have his/her voice heard. That reaction from our people doesn't appear to me to be "Willing Sellers". When it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador's resources, it has all to do with the way things are structured economically in Canada. Newfoundlnd and Labrador's resources, for the most part, have been caught up in the one sided contract that got presented to us when we joined Canada. According to everyone who has ever read the Terms of Union with Canada, the reports are that they are very one sided, with Canada being the benefactor. It is now time the Terms were changed to reflect more positively for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Sue:
Doi you have any proof of this: "It's when your Premier and other Ontario gurus determine that the Lower Churchill is economically viable with you but not without. It's when you use our power in an argument to get the feds to pay for an east-west grid to make it easier to suck resources - all for the good of Canada of course."
Somehow I doubt it.
The Premier of Ontario doesn't make those sorts of decisions. Your comment sounds like some sort of paranoid delusion.
Do you have any proof of this: "How did you get some of those auto plants? In part because we provided quotas to the countries involved. You making any Japanese cars? They love the fish Erik."
Name one example, concrete that we can check out.
So far, there isn't anything on this except everyone saying it. That's the same as all those people who think Elvis is still alive.
Try showing some proof rather than just ranting the same old stuff over and over again.
Sue There was an article in The Telegram last week by Jamie Baker in interview with the Department of Fisheries and Ocean describing how fish quotas were used and are used for bi-lateral trade. I am sure Robert Hockney could obtain a transcrip of that article.
Hi Erik. I know Ontario like the back of my hand. I was schooled there, worked in the big smoke for a long time, lived in Cottage country etc. In fact, I know this about Ontario: Ontario listens a great deal to the United States Of America. Not one other place in Canada is so Americanized as the province containing Toronto hell, not even B.C., Canada's California, is as obsessed with American culture and MONEY.
I'm not a Newfoundlander by the way, but I live here. It's not important why I live here; however, lets just say that I've got more reason to dislike this place than most. In spite of this, one needs to acknowledge a fact when it exists whether it dovetails with our personal opinions or not. Here is the truth: Ontario has become a bastard American child and as such consumes every damn thing it can,pretty much continuously. The population is growing, you have no place to put your garbage, you have a health care system in crisis mode, SARS, Zebra muscles, West Nile Virus, gang violence, drinking water contaminations, and a power grid with the U.S. that obviously you can't rely on as they just happen to go tits up at the hottest time of year. Ontarians complain about everyone including their own. Endless complaints can be heard from Ontarians about lazy First Nations people, or immigrants living the good life on Welfare, or how about the bitching about Quebec getting more than the spoiled Ontario brat gets come dole out time from Ottawa.
Newfoundland is a bit different. No, a lot different. No gangs, good water, a place for our garbage, no reliance on the U.S., no West Nile or SARS and the health care here is actually pretty
good despite some problems and full of caring people. I feel that perhaps the US of A may be using Ontario to broker a back door deal for itself regarding hydro electricity. I mean, why pay top dollar directly to Newfoundland, when you can get Ontario and Ottawa to get it for you cheaper? After all, Ontario relies on that American dollar to survive, so you best be nice to Uncle Sam.
Of course, I've been wrong before. Still, you never know. Time will tell. Hi Sue.
Well said - and a Hi back...
Indeed, I do have the piece Jamie baker wrote.
It showed that the whole trade-offs business was a complete myth.
That's why I asked Sue about her views. But you notice she didn't even try and give us some information to back up her claims.
The spokesman for DFO in the Telegram article did say that bi-lateral trade was and is conducted on fish quotas. Now bi-lateral means two way trade. I do not know what was traded for fish,since there are many things traded in Canada that are manufactured or grown here. All I know is that fish is used for trade according to that article.
Robert Hockley: thank you for saying that. I usually don't bother to press the folks to give a credible reference, because I know they can't. They are just wild accusations built up from hatred. Also, there's no way to deal with folks who refuse to take personal responsibility for what happens to themselves.
Anon: If NL&L didn't want a particular contract or agreement, then they shouldn't have signed. If their premier did something against the wishes of the people, so be it. It's not my problem to fix, or to beat up their premier, it's theirs. Nevertheless, some people will still be unhappy and bitter, and will never let it go. So "they" (anyone else but the bitter ones) are the targets of convenience when spleens are to be vented. Which is all the time.
Of course there are no references to be found to foolishness like trading fish quota for Honda plants. There's free trade, Ontario made grants to Honda to (first) locate, then expand. They love CPP and vastly-reduced health costs. Their major northerm/central US markets are just down the road from Ingersoll, or a short train ride away. South US plants address more southern markets.
All these capabilities are open to NL&L to compete against Ontario for the manufacturers. But the transportation costs and times for goods after produced, to markets consuming them, would be a nightmare. Then there's all the parts that have to come in to supply the plants. The cost per unit produced would be unacceptably high in comparison to Ontario.
Just one example, but illustrative of how these folks don't seem to have the foggiest idea of Business or Economics 101. Your location and cost structures discriminate naturally against you folks. Not the "Ontario" bogeyman you so like to conjure up. That, plus a firm fixation and navel-gazing on events past, prevent you from seizing the future.
If you are distant (and expensively) removed from markets, concentrate on what you do best. I don't know what that is, but it sure isn't putting a Honda plant next to Voisey! Canada is, with few exceptions, a hewer of resources. On occasion we have been fortunate to have knowledge and manufacturing industries too. But as manufacturing goes to areas with lower labour costs, our "dear" auto plants will shift anywhere there is lower cost and they can get away with it. Provided there's a broad skilled and work-ethic population base to supply workers.
Make them an offer, if you think you can do it just as, or more competitively. I doubt it, and so do you, deep down. So let's cut the bull about putting economic zones of manufacturing, construction, assembly or whatnot beside Voisey and like places, and get on with making best use of whatever you have and do best.
And to Baggwats: Fine, you like what you like and I like what I like. And we've heard the "Ontario is the same as the US" theme for so long that we really don't care ... even if there was a shred of truth to it. Should Vancouverites be castigated for having a natural affinity/sympathy to the west coast of the US? Or Albertans to the mid-west of the US?
You are pretty parochial if you want to remain isolated, unchanging, satisfied with what you are, fearing a broader knowledge and exposure to lifestyles and beliefs everywhere. And yes, I've been on the Rock. And in Iqaluit in May, with socks over my ears in -35 windchill because I believed that SOB Peter Gzowski when he told me he had just come back from golfing there.
And NWT, and the Yukon, and climbing mountains in BC to find the highest peaks, the longest shots, for CNCP's microwave system, coast to coast when I was a co-op student. And Blue River, Avola, Vavenby, Blueberry BC. On top of a mountain overlooking Hope BC in an old construction site's outhouse, smoking a cigarette beside a case of very old, very glistening TNT. Summers at Shearwater, at Gagetown, and with my trouble-shooting father in Arvida, Bathurst, Dalhousie Jct, Fort William and Prince Arthur. Walked from Lonlac to Nakina measuring the sag in telegraph ines. Having tea with Louis St Laurent in his railway car in the Owen Sound station, as an "on his own" 9 year old, while my father was on assignment at Kennedy foundries across the river.
Yes, I've seen Canada, coast to coast to coast. Every province, every territory. Worked in Luxembourg, Nassau, and SA. Cruised alone in a 33' sailboat for three years throughout the Caribbean during my first "retirement". Even spent two weeks in MacKenzie, British Guyana watching my shirt rot off my body. There are places I've considered as "less desirable" to live. But never have I met and heard and read people so focussed on the past, so destructively negative about their prospects, so refusing to take charge of their life, so expectant of others "owing them a free living" as in NL. Folks, no one grew a nation or region with a destructive fixation on "them".
All this doesn't make me "better" or "worse" or "more evil" than a citizen of another province, or even another citizen in Ontario. Just "different". And, if you will allow, slightly more travelled than the average bear who migrated from big bad Ontario to --- tada --- the promised land, NL&L. Folks, if everyone was the same, life would be very boring.
I love my Canada. All of it. Not "excluding" NL&L. Only very stupid or religiously resentful people think that. And that's all that I have to say.
If you recheck the article by Jamie Baker in the Telegram the spokesperson for DFO stated that bi-lateral trade is conducted on fish quotas. A definition of bi-lateral trade is commerce between two countries. We know that Canada trades all sorts of goods and services, but to pin-point what was traded for fish we would have to get into the secret files of DFO and that would be like getting entry to Fort Knox.
Sue There was an article in The Telegram last week by Jamie Baker in interview with the Department of Fisheries and Ocean describing how fish quotas were used and are used for bi-lateral trade.
Did you read that article?
Really?
REALLY?
Because it was about how fish quotas WERE NOT used and ARE NOT used for bi-lateral trade.
In case you were confused, the article even starts:
Canada did not trade fish for car plants, but the federal government has often used bilateral agreements with foreign nations to address fishery-related issues, according to a report commissioned by the federal
government.
You should re-read it.
Hockney:
I keep asking some really simple questions, and have been at it for months.
WHICH COUNTRIES were these "trade deals" made with?
WHICH FISH species or quotas were involved?
WHAT did Canada get in exchange?
WHEN were these deals made?
WHERE can a body find a copy of them?
No one has yet answered ANY of these questions.
No one.
This, of course, is all due to the Canadian conspiracy against Newfoundland; all the files have been shredded and burned, blah blah blah.
WJM you were asked a very basic question not to long ago - which you answered. The answer however was let's just say .....
Sue
I wonder if Jamie Baker of the Telegram might be able to revisit the spokesperson of DFO and ask a specific question. That questin would be: What specific goods or services are and were traded bi-laterally for the fish quotas? I don't think, even, Jamie was able to get the answer at the time of the interview, since all he reported in his article was was that fish quotas were traded in bi-lateral agreements by Ottawa.
We, the ordinary citizen, have been asking DFO for an answer to that question for many years now and DFO will only answer it in a general way. We know fish is traded but for what we do not know.
Once there were only 4 nations fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador's coastal waters, now Canada and NAFO has allowed half the world to fish there, especially the nations who are involved in free global trade. Canada wouldn't allow that to happen if it weren't getting something in return. We want the reason why all of the nations that weren't fishing there in the beginning appeared over the past 30 years.
Well Erik, well travelled action man that you are, I'm sure you can understand a point of view that is not your own:
Erik said: You are pretty parochial if you want to remain isolated, unchanging, satisfied with what you are, fearing a broader knowledge and exposure to lifestyles and beliefs everywhere.
Indeed Erik, regarding your above statement, don't you think it's time Ontario started to apply your philosphy when dealing with First Nations people and land claims? While people like you are calling Newfoundlanders welfare and EI bums, you are NOT dealing with land claims in Ontario with First Nations people. Caledonia ring any bells? Yes, hard as it is to believe, people in the rest of Canada read and watch television too and are aware of how the Ontario government really works. I'm sure Dudley George's family knows only too well how business is done there.
Just in case you've forgotten:
Courtesy of Amnesty International:
The protest began in 1993 when Indigenous people from Stoney Point, Ontario occupied part of a military base that had been built on land appropriated from them in World War II.
Two years later roughly a dozen protestors, including elders and children, moved into the neighbouring Ipperwash Provincial Park which contained an unprotected burial ground.
Although there was little apparent threat to public safety, the police responded to the occupation of the park with violent force that left one man dead.
On September 6, 1995 more than 30 Ontario Provincial Police officers charged the protestors at Ipperwash Park. The riot squad was backed by snipers armed with submachine guns.
Cecil George, a band councillor, was badly beaten. Sixteen-year-old Nicholas Cottrelle and 38-year-old Dudley George were shot. Cecil George and Nicholas Cotrelle survived. Dudley George died that night.
Kenneth Deane, the sniper who fired the fatal shot, was later convicted of criminal negligence causing death for knowingly shooting an unarmed man.
Despite the trial and conviction, however, important questions remain unanswered about the events leading up to the shooting.
Why did the police attack rather than negotiate? Why were snipers deployed against unarmed protestors? Did public officials influence these decisions?
In 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee called for "a thorough public inquiry...into all aspects of this matter, including the role and responsibility of public officials."
Oh yes, Ontario has the market cornered on civilized behaviour as well as, and I quote you Erik: " Remember, YOU are responsible for YOUR destiny. And if Danny isn't hacking it for you, then for God's sake get off your duffs and do something about it! Stop blaming everyone else in the world for your problems, of your making.
Is that clear enough? And, while you are at it, will SOMEONE there please take a business course? So that you will understand that contracts and agreements are between WILLING buyers and WILLING sellers. If you don't want to sell, then for Pete's sake don't negotiate or sign! Clear?"
Gee, isn't this the same thing that has been said to First Nations People? Yup, gotta watch what you sign America...opps, I meant Ontario.
Bagwatt: Shifting the subject to something entirely unrelated and spleen-venting on it, is the hallmark of a loser who can't deal with the topic at hand and who has admitted that the arguement is lost. Along with standing in the gene pool.
We were discussing how NL&L (or the East Coast, in the larger sense), might become self-sufficient. If this isn't of interest to you, go rant about First Nation stuff in some other post ... preferebly dealing with that topic.
First Nations, Caledonia, Amnesty International, Ipperwash. You really are a number, aren't you? With a bit of thinly-disguised, "Ontario is the US" stuff thrown in. How childish, superficial, and cop-outish.
I maintain the position that if you don't have the attitude that sets self-sufficiency as a goal, rather than the "best wail and moan" movement, you won't get anywhere. I still believe that, and if you folks don't, then we really have nothing to talk about.
The fact is the federation is dysfunctional and isn't going to change any time soon. So we should really be looking at becoming Canada's Cuba with Nukes and all.
WJM - sorry I called - bit had to go - something came up. I will call again later.
What were those answers again?
I'll have to dig them up from an earlier post.
Erik Sorenson:
I extracted the quote below from your post.
Quote
We were discussing how NL&L (or the East Coast, in the larger sense), might become self-sufficient.
Unquote
Erik I would like for you to give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians your view points on this blog site of how you would have Newfoundland an Labrdor become self- sufficient with its great resources by breaking out of the choke hold that the rest of the Eastern Canadian provinces have us held under.
I will assist you with a few of Newfoundland and Labrador's assets:
1. Newfoundland and Labrador is well endowed with wonderful renewable and non-renewable resources, oil, minerals, hydroelectricy energy, fish, and potable water.
2. Newfoundland and Labrador consists of Canada's complete Eastern Flank.
3. Newfoundland and Labrador is located on the busy Atlantic Oceans shipping routes, ideal for the shipment of manufactured goods.
Erik could you please take these advantages, there are many others, and tell me how you would go about creating that economy, all the while, keeping in mind the pressures that have been applied on our resources when they come up for development by Ottawa and the other provinces. By the way Erik, have you ever read the Globe and Mail when one of our resources has been up for development? For instance now the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Energy is the one being coveted and being discussed by Globe and Mail. If you read that paper on a daily basis you will see the pressures that we have to endure.
I will await patiently your diagnosis of the subject and how you will prescribe a cure.
1. Newfoundland and Labrador is well endowed with wonderful renewable and non-renewable resources, oil, minerals, hydroelectricy energy, fish, and potable water.
And? Make economic use of them. No one is stopping anyone in the province from doing so... well, no one other than Chairman Dan.
2. Newfoundland and Labrador consists of Canada's complete Eastern Flank.
I think Nova Scotia, Quebec, PEI, New Brunswick, and Nunavut would dispute that assessment... esp. NS and NU.
If you truly beleive that, you need a better atlas.
3. Newfoundland and Labrador is located on the busy Atlantic Oceans shipping routes, ideal for the shipment of manufactured goods.
So manufacture goods and ship them. No one is stopping anyone from doing that.
What does Todd think about that?
WJM - It is not your opinion I am seeking. It is Erik's.
I am still awaiting your diagnosis and cure Erik, please do not accept WJM post as a substitute.
Sue, I think you snagged a live one, overflowing with prejudice, stereotype and ignorance. You don't have to post this but just thought I'd let you know I've replied to his writing on This Canada, and at my blog too. It's satirical but hey with him, anything goes.
It has been overdue for a central Canada "journalist" to do the Newfoundland stereotyping so brave Eric Sorenson stepped up and painted "you people", Newfoundlanders, not sure about Labradorians, as all wailers and moaners, without acknowledging for example, the 1000's each year alone, who leave the for work in all parts of Canada and the world. But I see this display as a cry for help. As a matter of fact, I think this ill individual has sabotaged the This Canada website and inadvertently gave readers a rare glimpse into the mental processes of someone afflicted by the "Stupid Gene Disease".
Perhaps because it is socially embarrassing for families, relatives are often reticent on the disorder and sadly fail to seek help for the diseased. This Canada fell victim to the trickery of an afflicted individual in yesterday’s editorial. Whether the real writer was held at gunpoint, or may have fallen asleep just before print (oops), we may never really know. But for scientists and researchers who have sought proof that the "stupid gene" exists, yesterdays posting by victim Eric Sorenson, was a goldmine of evidence.
One doctor from the University Health Network of Ontario was quoted as saying, "As rare as a picture of the giant squid, we have seen through print media, the manifestation of the ‘stupid gene’." Ten years ago The New England Journal of Medicine published the now infamous "Relationship Between Smog, Dirty Water & the Stupid Gene". In this controversial research study, it was proposed that some individuals who live near smog soaked and polluted water environments, may develop FFS, or Fetal Fecal Syndrome. Those predisposed to the disease have the stupid gene. Specifically, chromosome 21 is mutated.
In normal individuals, the liver filters out toxic fecal fluid or matter. But for people with damaged chromosome 21, the liver is dysfunctional, and thus the victims become full of fecal toxins, which causes a neuritic plaque build up on the hippocampus cells of the brain. This in turn causes cognitive impairment (stupidity), learning disorders, and severe distortions of reality (Mengele et al., NEJM, 1995). To satisfy their constant need for the security of attention, the diseased such as Mr. Sorenson, exhibit childish and impudent outbursts or rants like that seen in Monday's This Canada commentary.
It was probably just a coincidence that a couple of years ago, we were treated to another rare peek at the disease in action, when Margaret Wente wrote "her article" for the Globe. Of course, not all journalists from this region of the country have the stupid gene, this would be stereotyping, and that would be stupid. However, researchers who wrote the NEJM article say that several environmental factors are at play in the activation of the stupid gene. Likely factors are: breathing thick smog, drinking dirty lake water, and having high cholestoral. All factors block oxygen to the brain. The high cholestoral build up results from the typical Toronto diet of fries, burgers, and other entrail food products.
There is good news. We can change what we can control, environmental factors; and there is also the promise of stem cell treatments, and transplants. First of all, isn’t it about time we cleaned up the water supply from Lake Ontario and Lake "Urine"? We CAN prevent fetal fecal syndrome and the full-blown "Stupid Gene Disease", by simply cutting the corporate dirty work, i.e., smog, stop drinking the water we pee out, and stop eating killed animal sinew. Ironically, taking Omega-3 rich seal oil capsules can lower cholesterol.
No, Sorenson's parents were not brother and sister, nor man and sheep. It’s time society took the stupid gene disease seriously, brought it out of the closet, and demanded Medicare coverage for treatments. With an upcoming election, let’s use the sad case of Mr. Sorenson in a positive way, and get our elected officials to put money into treating the problem. Dr. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, is a strong advocate of harvesting stem cells from healthy umbilical cords, which can replace the stupid gene cells. As well, stem cell transplants are done at both Mount Sinai and Princess Margaret Hospitals. If you have a family member with the stupid gene disease, you may be a genetic match. However, doctors from the UHN of Ontario, advise that perfect matches are most likely when the donor is not living in the Great Lakes region. Otherwise there would be a high risk of stem cell transplant rejection, due to similar geno-codes.
So while there is hope for the Eric Sorensons of the world, let’s be patient with the diseased, while we wait for a cure. Let’s clean up our attitude about the stupid gene disease, and for Cod’s sake let’s clean up the water, and air that stimulate the stupid gene in the first place. Let’s understand Sorenson, put money into research, and maybe someday he too can become a real fire fighter, garbage collector or even web editor. For now, Eric’s only career options are being a disease study subject, or a member of the George Bush’s Kyoto Accord committee. But, good luck Eric, I pray you will go far!
TY KODAK
visit Kodak's Blog:
http://www.newfinland.blogspot.com/
Kodak
Thanks! I think you did very well in fighting prejudice, stereotyping and ignorace with a full platter of the same. It was needed to be rebutted once in our lifetime, and now that we have witnessed that sick disease being counteracted, maybe it is time that both sides put a halt to it. It is very hurtful to all involved. We all have feelings and those feelings are very fragile. I'm still not over the Margaret Wente poison pen. I hope that we never encounter that type of prejudice and hatred again.
Kodak after saying that I know the reason why you rebutted it. It was a very poisonous post against Newfoundland and Labrador for no reason, other than our people wanting to have our resources developed here in this province so as to create economies in this province. We can't seem to win no matter what we do. Fate/Ottawa and the Canadian people seem to be against us. Hopefully Kodak we will not have to rebut such prejudices ever again.
Erik, you said:
I love my Canada. All of it. Not "excluding" NL&L. Only very stupid or religiously resentful people think that. And that's all that I have to say.
February 19, 2007 10:09 PM
It is NOT all you had to say and you will keep talking on here. You can't help yourself can you? As for Ipperwash, Caledonia etc, it's definitely on topic even if it's too uncomfortable for you to acknowledge. Here is why it's on topic:
Erik said:
That, plus a firm fixation and navel-gazing on events past, prevent you from seizing the future
Pay particular attention to the part about the past. Wouldn't you say Ontario's past is now biting it in the upper Canada arse through land claims. By the way, when someone from this Island makes a statement about feeling their resources are stolen from them by the rest of Canada, specifically Ontario, even you must admit you have a history up there of stealing land with resources. Just ask anyone on the rez. Ultimately, each province has to take care of itself any way they can. By the way, just so you are aware that nothing is thinly disguised: Ontario is a clone of the U.S.A. Tell you what I haven't heard dear Erik, is your opinion of another so-called bellyaching province called Quebec. Please tell us all about that too so we can become as educated as we need to be about Ontario opinions of 'others'.
WJM - It is not your opinion I am seeking. It is Erik's.
I don't need your permission to ask questions or rebut BS, even if it's your posting that's being questioned or rebutted.
WJM: It is not BS. It is the truth. It is as plain as the nose on ones face. How our resources were dealt out is quite obvious. You don't need to be a Philadephia Lawyer to figure that one out. And the duress the politicians were under with pressures from Ottawa and the rest of the country which were lobbying for our resources is well documented. All one has to do is go back through the archives of the National Papers, one being the Globe and Mail and you will see. We do not need the archives of the non-transparent Federal Government, since enough info can be garnered from the newspapers.
And by saying our politicians were under duress I am not exonerating the politicians from blame, because I will put 100 per cent of the blame on the politicians for giving in to Ottawa and those who were coveting our resources.
WJM: It is not BS. It is the truth. It is as plain as the nose on ones face. How our resources were dealt out is quite obvious.
No, actually, it's NOT obvious.
Be explicit.
In your answer, make particular reference to the facts — and they ARE facts — that forestry, hydro, terrestrial minerals, fish procesing, and a goodly portion of submarine minerals are under the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the province; and that submarine oil and gas are only developed, in accordance with the Atlantic Accord, with provincial approval, and with the province, not the federal government, collecting ALL the royalties just as if the resource were on land.
And the duress the politicians were under with pressures from Ottawa and the rest of the country which were lobbying for our resources is well documented.
Is "lobbying" the word of the week in Newfoundland or something? I have never heard that word used so often, or so wrongly, as in the past week or ten days.
Who did the lobbying?
Who did they lobby?
All one has to do is go back through the archives of the National Papers, one being the Globe and Mail and you will see.
Been there, and done that; right back to the 1850s. What was I looking for again? Care to cite any specific articles? Please provide date and page references. Thanks!
WJM: Lobbyists have so many uses in today's world. You might be a lobbyist for some government for all that we know. Are you?
By the way a lobbyists might very well have the most common job description out there in the world today.
Post a Comment