search results matching tag: ontario

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (129)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (7)     Comments (230)   

Truth About Transitional Species Fossils

shinyblurry says...

So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source. I've got hundreds of these..it's not exactly a secret among palentologists that the evolutionary theory has more holes than swiss cheese. Another issue is just the dating itself..take these quotes out of context:

Curt Teichert of the Geological Society of America, "No coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings".

Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... " (Waterhouse).

richard mauger phd associate professor of geology east carolina university In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained

... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age." (Armstrong and Besancon)

professor brew: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it iscompletely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method.

In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9

Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209

A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon." In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years old, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such `confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man." (“Secular Catastrophism”, Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21)

“The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53) (emphasis mine)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)

It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"Material bodies are finite, and no rock unit is global in extent, yet stratigraphy aims at a global classification. The particulars have to be stretched into universals somehow. Here ordinary materialism leaves off building up a system of units recognized by physical properties, to follow dialectical materialism, which starts with time units and regards the material bodies as their incomplete representatives. This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1979, p. 49.

"The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity."—*B. Schaeffer, *M.K. Hecht and *N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," in *Dobzhansky, *Hecht and *Steere (Ed.), Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (1972), p. 39

"The paleontologist's wheel of authority turned full circle when he put this process into reverse and used his fossils to determine tops and bottoms for himself. In the course of time he came to rule upon stratigraphic order, and gaps within it, on a worldwide basis."—*F.K. North, "the Geological Time Scale," in Royal Society of Canada Special Publication, 8:5 (1964). [The order of fossils is determined by the rock strata they are in, and the strata they are in are decided by their tops and bottoms—which are deduced by the fossils in them.]"The geologic ages are identified and dated by the fossils contained in the sedimentary rocks. The fossil record also provides the chief evidence for the theory of evolution, which in turn is the basic philosophy upon which the sequence of geologic ages has been erected. The evolution-fossil-geologic age system is thus a closed circle which comprises one interlocking package. Each goes with the other."—Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972), pp. 76-77

"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organism as has been determined by a study of theory remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain."—*R.H. Rastall, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10 (14th ed.; 1956), p. 168.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Let us begin with this definition of "quote mining" from Wikipedia: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Thank you, shinyblurry, for your cut&paste, thought-free, research-absent, quote mining wall of nonsense. The only part you got right is that you should google each and every one of these quotes to find out the context, something you actually didn't do.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology..."

This Steven J. Gould quote is discussed in talk.origin's Quote Mine Project. Gould was a proponent of Punctuated Equilibria, which proposes a "jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change" in evolution. The quotes that are taken out of context are arguing that the fossil record does not indicate a gradual change over time as Darwin suggested. The specifc quote above is discussed in section #3.2 of Part 3. Far from an argument against evolution, Gould was arguing for a specific refinement of the theory.
More to the point, your own quote says "extreme rarity", contradicting your primary claim that transitional fossils do not exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal... ...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book... ...there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

Dr. Patterson is discussed on a page dedicated to this quote in the Quote Mine Project. This page touches on the nature of scientific skepticism. As Dr. Patterson goes on to say, "... Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." This is the nature of pure science. We can say that a piece of evidence "indicates" or "suggests" something, but there is nothing that may be held up as "proof" unless it is testable. As a man of principle, Dr. Patterson would not indicate one species evolving into another simply because there is no way to be absolutely sure that one fossil is the direct descendant of another. We can describe the similarities and differences, showing how one might have traits of an earlier fossil and different traits similar to a later fossil, but that is not absolute proof.
Incidentally, this is probably where the main thrust of the creationist argument eventually lands. At this level of specificity, there is no known way of proving one fossil's relation to another. DNA does not survive the fossilization process, so we can only make generalizations about how fossils are related through physical appearance. This will be where the creationist claims "faith" is required. Of course, you might also say that if I had a picture of a potted plant on a shelf, and another picture of the potted plant broken on the floor, it would require "faith" to claim that the plant fell off the shelf, because I did not have video proof. The creationist argument would be that the plant broken on the ground was created that way by God.
>> ^shinyblurry:
David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) ... Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...

This quote is from 1974. Think maybe some of those gaps might have gotten smaller since then? Doesn't really matter, because the scientist in question goes on to explicitly state that this does not disprove evolution. He then discusses hypotheses which might explain his perceived gaps, such as Punctuated Equilibrium. A brief mention of this quote is found in the Quote Mine Project at Quote #54.
>> ^shinyblurry:
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.

First of all, Nilsson is only famous to creationists. To scientists, he's a bit of a wack-job. But that neither proves nor disproves his findings, it only goes to show that creationsists will frequently embellish a scientist's reputation if it will increase the size of the straw man argument. His writings would naturally include his opinions on the weaknesses of what was evolutionary theory at the time (1953!) in order to make his own hypothesis more appealing. He came up with Emication, which is panned as fantasy by the scientific critics. Perfect fodder for the creationists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.

The popular press. Newsweek Magazine. 1980!!! What year are you living in, shiny???
>> ^shinyblurry:
Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.
Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2


Well, now you're just quoting some anonymous creationist. Any evidence whatsoever that the gaps between major groups are growing wider? No? Can't find anything to cut and paste in reply to that question?
>> ^shinyblurry:
You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.

I wonder, shiny, if in your "intellectually honest search for the truth" if you ever left the creationist circle jerk? Your quotes are nothing but out of context and out of date.

CN worker captures double track washout on video

Mashiki says...

>> ^sawtooth:

Looks like a perfect spot for a new bridge!


Won't happen. They'll wait for the runoff to go, then rebuild it. And I can't see them getting an easement from the county to put in a bridge--too expensive too. Simply put, here in Northern Ontario we had a lot of winter snow, and a lot of rain recently and it's built up in low-lying areas making mini lakes. Anything north of about Barrie you start running out of dirt, clay, gravel and so on. And you're getting into the shield, with no where for the water to really go.

The Cramps - Can your pussy do the dog? feat. Bettie Page

harpom says...

There was a club in Hamilton Ontario called "New York New York". On there opening night they booked the Cramps. They had no idea what type of band they were. Things started to get a little rowdy into the second or third song. A patron jumped on stage and was punched in the face by the bouncer.
Poison Ivy cracked him (the bouncer) in the back of the head with her base. The blow split his head open. The place went wild. The place was torn to shit and the show was stopped.
I loved the Cramps and they were great live. R.I.P. Lux.

Canadian Federal Leaders Debate 2011

Sagemind says...

I know the members of the sift come from all over the world and there are only a handful of Canadians here (more than ten to get this sifted) but this is a very interesting debate which plays out differently than a US debate. The spite used in their bickering is entertaining at best. Hidden agenda and lies seem to be the general theme of our politicians. Not representative of the Canadian people.

Have a look and also keep in mind that these men all represent Ontario only (with the exception of Gilles Duceppe, who represents only Quebec) and non of them represents the prairies or western Canada where our votes don't count for anything because we aren't given enough seats to influence any decisions that affect our area of the country.

I will *Promote this in order to get the word out there that Canada's government is just an messed up as the rest of them. Watching them bicker is embarrassing.

Crazy Driver Intentionally Hits Cyclists

messenger says...

@xxovercastxx
But it's not safer for us to always act like "normal" (gee, thanks) traffic. If I acted according to the laws of my province (Ontario), I would have to take up an entire lane at all times, and not let anyone pass me. Seriously. I'd get run down like the people in this video. This law was written for motorcyclists so that cars wouldn't crowd them out, and so motorcyclists wouldn't pass between cars when stopped. Then it was blindly applied to cyclists too. So yeah, cyclists try to find their own way through the laws not designed for them, and no, we don't have to just accept it.

Also, like I said before, cyclists not following laws doesn't result in anyone getting killed, except maybe themselves, like that cyclist who blew through the stop sign in front of you. OK, he's stupid. What's that got to do with cyclists who turn right without stopping in empty residential areas? Or, more to the point, with cyclists who slow down to 10 km/h to look both ways before continuing, but technically not stopping? Nothing. So stop painting cyclists in general as scoff-laws to make your point. It's disingenuous.

Something tells me you haven't put any thought into what laws might affect cyclists, so you're not in a great position to say that there are no laws or structural changes that would make a difference to cyclists' safety. There's lots that can be done, things you, as a driver, haven't thought of because it's got nothing to do with you. It may never be as safe for cyclists as for drivers, but there's so much that can be done to make it better. All I hear from you in this thread is, "You are weak. You will always be killed. Just give up. You go out of your way to break laws, so deserve no respect from anyone. Stop trying to make your life better. Accept your fate as a lower class of road user. Get out of my way." Not that you hate cyclists, you just have contempt for us.

Peace.

Kim mitchell- Patio lanterns

harpom says...

His first band was called Max Webster, they released 5 albums. They played mainly in Southern Ontario. However they did tour throughout Canada and the U.K. They played bars mainly in Toronto and Hamilton. I saw them live many times.

CBC thoroughly deconstructs homeopathy

messenger says...

Wrong. That there is no original ingredient doesn't prove anything other than the contents of the bottle, which isn't part of the homoeopathic claim. Remember, homoeopathy doesn't say that the source ingredient does any curing. The stated theory is that the water somehow "remembers" something about the original ingredient, and that the memory of this ingredient in the water cures things. To prove that claim false, you need to do experiments that give reproducible results. Proving the original ingredient is gone disproves nothing about homoeopathy.

So, to answer your question, this reporter could have shown an interest in that kind of research, could have asked why it hadn't been done yet, as measuring the medicinal effects requires no sophisticated instruments. She could have pressed the point with Mr. Ontario Government why these things are being treated like medicine when they're just water and not scientifically tested for anything. This was just a hit job. She knows the product is fake, and that many people are going to get sick and die because of reliance on this crap, so she's angry. But still. This is journalism.>> ^Matthu:

>> ^messenger:
For such an opinionated journalist, she didn't make any scientific effort to prove that they don't work. That there's no active ingredient left is very, very compelling evidence against it, and I strongly doubt that homeopathic medicines have any effect at all, but none of this report proves that they don't work.

How could she as a journalist make any effort other than visiting scientists and talking with them? Should she have obtained a degree in chemistry? What else could she have done?
There being no active ingredient in the medicine doesn't need to prove they don't work, it proves flat out that they CAN'T work. Water doesn't cure cancer.

What almost being hit by a Truck head on looks like

On the business of NSFW (Sift Talk Post)

residue says...

In general, I agree with your opinion on the naturality of expressing the human body, I just don't want my colleagues at work walking up behind me when there are boobs all over the screen. Same goes with my kids.

As to the location of the discussion, this very discussion is the reason why I puit it in sift talk in the first place. I like talking about this stuff with people. Besides, I feel odd going straight to the top and leaving personal messages to people because I wouldn't presume to know what the sift needs more than they do, so I stick it in here to see what other sifters think about the issue. All communal-like, ya heard?

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^residue:
I honestly thought it might have warranted discussion and it was actually gwiz that suggested a "SFW" version of the sift without using any filters to completely remove content, so in that regard, the sift talk was a success. With only a few new sift talks a week I don't see why you're upset.
>> ^BoneRemake:
Where you posting this to get some form of support ? seems this entire thing could of been kept to a simple message to the sift gods. I think its ridiculous and laughable myself. I simply see no reason to make this a sift talk issue unless the only obvious reason to me as explained at the beginning my my paragraph.

spits in bucket


I am not upset, I voiced my thoughts on the matter, I simply do not think it warranted the avenue you took, although you are well entitled to it. I simply meant what I said without any behind the scene meaning. Ya know in ontario you can walk around with your top off if your a woman. That I'd like to see. And good for them, I cringe at how backwards we are about breasts and being "topless", people always revert at some point to "what will we tell the kids " well I think you should tell the kids exactly whats what, talk to children, tits are tits people. Fat people shouldnt be allowed to walk around without a shirt on if we are going to only hold it to females.

On the business of NSFW (Sift Talk Post)

BoneRemake says...

>> ^residue:

I honestly thought it might have warranted discussion and it was actually gwiz that suggested a "SFW" version of the sift without using any filters to completely remove content, so in that regard, the sift talk was a success. With only a few new sift talks a week I don't see why you're upset.
>> ^BoneRemake:
Where you posting this to get some form of support ? seems this entire thing could of been kept to a simple message to the sift gods. I think its ridiculous and laughable myself. I simply see no reason to make this a sift talk issue unless the only obvious reason to me as explained at the beginning my my paragraph.

spits in bucket



I am not upset, I voiced my thoughts on the matter, I simply do not think it warranted the avenue you took, although you are well entitled to it. I simply meant what I said without any behind the scene meaning. Ya know in ontario you can walk around with your top off if your a woman. That I'd like to see. And good for them, I cringe at how backwards we are about breasts and being "topless", people always revert at some point to "what will we tell the kids " well I think you should tell the kids exactly whats what, talk to children, tits are tits people. Fat people shouldnt be allowed to walk around without a shirt on if we are going to only hold it to females.

Impossible Snowed Road Cleared By Japanese Machines

Round Up Weed Killer

notarobot says...

A few years ago, when I was working in Northern Ontario, planting trees, we came to work on a clear-cut that had been left for several years without being re-planted. (In Canada, it is required by law that companies plant two saplings for every tree harvested.)

This clear-cut had been sprayed with a herbicide (which I am confident was Round-Up) that killed all broadleaf plants in the area to make it easier for re-planting, and give the conifers and advantage amongst the broad-leaf "weeds." Small stands of full grown oak and maple trees among the harvested stumps stood without a single green leaf. It was beautiful--like the middle of winter in June. But what I remember is the burning itch that started shortly we began work that day.

Impossible Snowed Road Cleared By Japanese Machines

Get Your Leak On, VideoSift! (Politics Talk Post)

dystopianfuturetoday says...

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other's countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada's well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics --
especially in the 2008 Presidential race -- and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that "you
have to put an end on these things." The Liberals -- and
many media commentators -- seized on this as a major
Conservative "flip flop," with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that "I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007" and that "the
Conservatives can't be trusted on Afghanistan; they can't be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can't be trusted
on the economy." He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that "I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas."

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
"core" Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with "other international players"
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that "voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty -- do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?" The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the "worst
performing economy in the G8," while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP's Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are "the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track," but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
"top-to-bottom" review of Canada's regulatory system -- not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his "Green Shift" plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

"both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too." PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a "carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector" and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, "greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries." NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper "has no plan" while
"Dion's plan is wrong and won't work," unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who "clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don't," which he said had also been
"proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain."

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada's role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important -- and successful -- to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a "clone of
George W. Bush." Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

How to Piss People off with Snow

nanrod says...

While I applaud the guy who walked thru the snow I would hardly call that having guts. I would love to see how these people would survive in some areas around the great lakes right now. Syracuse (39 inches). London, Ontario (56 inches/148cm)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon