Saturday, June 25, 2011
How to succeed in Canandian politics: Fuck Toronto
On this anniversary of the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, it behooves us to look back over the past year and consider that the event was not the fiasco it seemed to be at the time, but rather a key component of what has turned out to be a stunningly effective political strategy, which is to Fuck Toronto. Prime Minister Harper sends in his GRC goons (that's the Royal Canadian Mother Porkers to the rest of you) to publicly ass-rape downtown Toronto in front of the world, and his party wins a landslide in the following election. Premier McGuinty creates secret laws allowing his Ontario Pig Patrol to grab whoever they want while the local Metrocops try out new human herding techniques, and his popularity soars throughout the province. Hell, even the new mayor of Hogtown (and man, does he look the part) got elected on the Fuck Toronto ticket! So to all those who still feel sore about the whole debacle, I offer this small sop of consolation: you are the beating heart of Canadian democracy and the shining star that defines the rest of a nation where the only sense of shared identity comes from not living in downtown Toronto (and yes, this applies to Quebec ever since you all bent over for Jack in the last election).
To celebrate the annivesary, the hard-working staff at Balzac Enterprises has put together a little photo package in honour of the officers across Canada who gave up their vacation time to travel all the way to Toronto (at quadruple time and a half) to make those who live here feel so much like they were not at home. So modest were they that many were too shy to wear nametags, but I'm sure our readers across the land will join in to make sure that credit is given.
So without further ado, we present: "Who is that armed goof?"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59463054@N00/sets/72157626888030139/http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Extra bonus: a page of videos celebrating the invasion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzXD1DcR5fY
To celebrate the annivesary, the hard-working staff at Balzac Enterprises has put together a little photo package in honour of the officers across Canada who gave up their vacation time to travel all the way to Toronto (at quadruple time and a half) to make those who live here feel so much like they were not at home. So modest were they that many were too shy to wear nametags, but I'm sure our readers across the land will join in to make sure that credit is given.
So without further ado, we present: "Who is that armed goof?"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59463054@N00/sets/72157626888030139/http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Extra bonus: a page of videos celebrating the invasion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzXD1DcR5fY
Monday, July 24, 2006
RefWrite - holding onto truth: Ho Hum
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Genentech = Greedintech?
Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure
Company will only seek licence for medicine that costs 100 times more
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Saturday June 17, 2006
Guardian
A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market.
Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients.
But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe.
Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it. In spite of the growing drugs bill of the NHS, it will appraise, and probably approve, Lucentis next year.
Although Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness, it says it cannot appraise a drug and pass it for use in the NHS unless the drug is referred to it by the Department of Health. The department says its hands are tied.
"The drug company hasn't applied for it to be licensed for this use. It wouldn't be referred to Nice until they have made the first move," said a Department of Health spokeswoman. "They need to step up and get a licence. If they are not getting it licensed, why aren't they?"
New drugs for the condition are badly needed: those we have now only slow the progression to blindness. With Avastin, many patients get their sight back with just one or two injections.
Avastin was first used on human eyes by Philip Rosenfeld, an ophthalmologist in the US, who was aware of animal studies carried out by Genentech that showed potential in eye conditions. This unlicensed use of Avastin has spread across continents entirely by word of mouth from one doctor to another. It has now been injected into 7,000 eyes, with considerable success.
Professor Rosenfeld has published his results and a website has been launched in the US to collate the experiences of doctors from around the world. But although the evidence is good, regulators require randomised controlled trials before they grant licences, which generally only the drug companies can afford to carry out.
Prof Rosenfeld said the real issue was drug company profits. "This truly is a wonder drug," he said. "This shows both how good they [the drug companies] are and on the flip side, how greedy they are." He would like to see governments fund clinical trials of drugs such as Avastin in the public interest.
Rising drug bills are a big problem on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, said David Wong, chairman of the scientific committee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, doctors are fighting battles to persuade primary care trusts to pay for drugs to stop their patients going blind while they wait for Nice to decide on Lucentis and another expensive drug called Macugen. That decision is not expected before the end of next year.
About 20,000 people are diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration in the UK each year. "From the patient's point of view, if they have an eye condition that deteriorates very quickly, there is no question of waiting," said Professor Wong. "We're talking about days and weeks, rather than months. The question is should we do nothing and say there is no randomised controlled trial to prove Avastin is of value?" He called for primary care trusts to agree to pay for the planned phasing-in of new drugs for the condition.
Last night Genentech said its main concern over the use of Avastin to treat eye conditions was patient safety. "While there are some small, single-centre, uncontrolled studies of Avastin being performed, safety data on patients who are treated with Avastin off-label is not being collected in a standard or organised fashion," said a spokeswoman for the company.
Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.
Guardian Unlimited
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Company will only seek licence for medicine that costs 100 times more
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Saturday June 17, 2006
Guardian
A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market.
Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients.
But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe.
Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it. In spite of the growing drugs bill of the NHS, it will appraise, and probably approve, Lucentis next year.
Although Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness, it says it cannot appraise a drug and pass it for use in the NHS unless the drug is referred to it by the Department of Health. The department says its hands are tied.
"The drug company hasn't applied for it to be licensed for this use. It wouldn't be referred to Nice until they have made the first move," said a Department of Health spokeswoman. "They need to step up and get a licence. If they are not getting it licensed, why aren't they?"
New drugs for the condition are badly needed: those we have now only slow the progression to blindness. With Avastin, many patients get their sight back with just one or two injections.
Avastin was first used on human eyes by Philip Rosenfeld, an ophthalmologist in the US, who was aware of animal studies carried out by Genentech that showed potential in eye conditions. This unlicensed use of Avastin has spread across continents entirely by word of mouth from one doctor to another. It has now been injected into 7,000 eyes, with considerable success.
Professor Rosenfeld has published his results and a website has been launched in the US to collate the experiences of doctors from around the world. But although the evidence is good, regulators require randomised controlled trials before they grant licences, which generally only the drug companies can afford to carry out.
Prof Rosenfeld said the real issue was drug company profits. "This truly is a wonder drug," he said. "This shows both how good they [the drug companies] are and on the flip side, how greedy they are." He would like to see governments fund clinical trials of drugs such as Avastin in the public interest.
Rising drug bills are a big problem on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, said David Wong, chairman of the scientific committee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, doctors are fighting battles to persuade primary care trusts to pay for drugs to stop their patients going blind while they wait for Nice to decide on Lucentis and another expensive drug called Macugen. That decision is not expected before the end of next year.
About 20,000 people are diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration in the UK each year. "From the patient's point of view, if they have an eye condition that deteriorates very quickly, there is no question of waiting," said Professor Wong. "We're talking about days and weeks, rather than months. The question is should we do nothing and say there is no randomised controlled trial to prove Avastin is of value?" He called for primary care trusts to agree to pay for the planned phasing-in of new drugs for the condition.
Last night Genentech said its main concern over the use of Avastin to treat eye conditions was patient safety. "While there are some small, single-centre, uncontrolled studies of Avastin being performed, safety data on patients who are treated with Avastin off-label is not being collected in a standard or organised fashion," said a spokeswoman for the company.
Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.
Guardian Unlimited
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
More Republican "Science"
Sex, Science, and Static: Pro-abstinence politics meddles with a CDC conference.
By Amanda Schaffer
Originally posted Friday, May 5, 2006, at 5:28 PM ET - Slate
The upcoming National STD Prevention Conference, sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among other groups, has just been given an unhealthy shot of ideology. The conference was supposed to include a symposium designed to explore how abstinence-only sex education may undermine other efforts to reduce STDs. The papers and panelists had gone through the customary vetting of peer review. But now the symposium has been abruptly retooled to include two proponents of abstinence programs—and to exclude a well-respected detractor. This is bad news, not only because abstinence-only work is scientifically unfounded but also because the switch represents a new level of government intrusion into the peer-review process of a major scientific meeting.
The biannual STD conference, which takes place next week, is one of the premier professional forums in the country for discussing sexually transmitted diseases. It is expected to draw at least 1,200 academic scientists, STD clinicians, and public-health practitioners. The symposium that's been meddled with was originally titled, "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?" Its convener, Bruce Trigg of the New Mexico Department of Public Health, proposed a skeptical look at abstinence education, which the Bush administration is funding to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. As moderator, Trigg promised to ground the critique in scientific evidence. His panelists were to be John Santelli of Columbia's School of Public Health and William Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a well-regarded sexual-health organization. Santelli recently wrote a position paper on abstinence-only education for the Society for Adolescent Medicine in which he argued that abstinence programs are medically unethical because they misrepresent and withhold basic health information.
Trigg's symposium proposal went through all the steps of peer review, including an expert panel, and was accepted. This week, however, a different title and lineup were announced on the conference's Web site. Now called "Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth," the program will no longer be moderated by Trigg, though he and Santelli will still present. Smith, by contrast, has been bumped from the program.
Taking his place are two staunch proponents of abstinence-only education, Eric Walsh and Patricia Sulak. Walsh is a family physician affiliated with Loma Linda University, a Seventh-day Adventist institution in California. His approach to public health is explicitly ideological. "Dr. Walsh seeks to serve the Lord through medical missions and the preaching of the Gospel in all the world," an online bio explains. Sulak, meanwhile, is an obstetrician-gynecologist at Scott & White Memorial Hospital in Texas and the founder of "Worth the Wait," an abstinence program noteworthy for its negative messages about condoms and stereotypical statements about girls and boys.
So, who's responsible for the switcheroo? Two senior scientists connected to the conference said they were told that Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., had intervened. Souder is a longtime antagonist of comprehensive sexual education who helped to spearhead congressional hearings on the human papillomavirus in 2004 that were a thinly veiled excuse to poke holes in condom use. According to the two senior scientists, Souder reportedly reviewed materials for next week's conference and contacted an official at the Department of Health and Human Services who then leaned on the CDC to add more "balance" to the abstinence discussion. If Smith had not been removed from the panel, the scientists say, the symposium would have been canceled. The CDC confirmed that questions had been raised about the "balance of opinions" on the original symposium. Souder's office did not return repeated phone calls requesting comment.
The new cast of speakers was hastily assembled. Sulak said she first heard of the conference earlier this week. "I don't even know who these people are," she told me, referring to the other members of the symposium.
Sulak is a good candidate for promoting a pro-abstinence message. "Since when is abstinence until marriage a threat to public health?" she asks. Of course, most experts believe that abstinence is a healthy choice for teenagers. They simply don't believe, based on the evidence, that abstinence-only programs do much good. And they worry that these curricula—which often include medically inaccurate material and disparaging information about condoms—will leave kids ill-equipped to protect themselves, if and when they do choose to have sex. According to Trigg, public-health physicians in New Mexico reviewed Sulak's "Worth the Wait" program and rejected it because of gender bias and medical errors.
The most vexing thing about this episode is not that STD researchers will apparently have to duke it out with two pro-abstinence ideologues. It's that the event's peer-review process has been undermined. "This conference has always been run as a scientific meeting," said Jonathan Zenilman, chief of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and president of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association, one of the groups organizing the conference along with the CDC.
Politicians now appear to be setting different standards. "My sense is that the leadership in Washington just thinks this is business as usual and doesn't even realize that these kinds of things didn't happen before," Santelli said. These things didn't happen. And they shouldn't start to.
Haven't these guys heard that abstinence is a major cause of global warming (but not evolution)?
By Amanda Schaffer
Originally posted Friday, May 5, 2006, at 5:28 PM ET - Slate
The upcoming National STD Prevention Conference, sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among other groups, has just been given an unhealthy shot of ideology. The conference was supposed to include a symposium designed to explore how abstinence-only sex education may undermine other efforts to reduce STDs. The papers and panelists had gone through the customary vetting of peer review. But now the symposium has been abruptly retooled to include two proponents of abstinence programs—and to exclude a well-respected detractor. This is bad news, not only because abstinence-only work is scientifically unfounded but also because the switch represents a new level of government intrusion into the peer-review process of a major scientific meeting.
The biannual STD conference, which takes place next week, is one of the premier professional forums in the country for discussing sexually transmitted diseases. It is expected to draw at least 1,200 academic scientists, STD clinicians, and public-health practitioners. The symposium that's been meddled with was originally titled, "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?" Its convener, Bruce Trigg of the New Mexico Department of Public Health, proposed a skeptical look at abstinence education, which the Bush administration is funding to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. As moderator, Trigg promised to ground the critique in scientific evidence. His panelists were to be John Santelli of Columbia's School of Public Health and William Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a well-regarded sexual-health organization. Santelli recently wrote a position paper on abstinence-only education for the Society for Adolescent Medicine in which he argued that abstinence programs are medically unethical because they misrepresent and withhold basic health information.
Trigg's symposium proposal went through all the steps of peer review, including an expert panel, and was accepted. This week, however, a different title and lineup were announced on the conference's Web site. Now called "Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth," the program will no longer be moderated by Trigg, though he and Santelli will still present. Smith, by contrast, has been bumped from the program.
Taking his place are two staunch proponents of abstinence-only education, Eric Walsh and Patricia Sulak. Walsh is a family physician affiliated with Loma Linda University, a Seventh-day Adventist institution in California. His approach to public health is explicitly ideological. "Dr. Walsh seeks to serve the Lord through medical missions and the preaching of the Gospel in all the world," an online bio explains. Sulak, meanwhile, is an obstetrician-gynecologist at Scott & White Memorial Hospital in Texas and the founder of "Worth the Wait," an abstinence program noteworthy for its negative messages about condoms and stereotypical statements about girls and boys.
So, who's responsible for the switcheroo? Two senior scientists connected to the conference said they were told that Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., had intervened. Souder is a longtime antagonist of comprehensive sexual education who helped to spearhead congressional hearings on the human papillomavirus in 2004 that were a thinly veiled excuse to poke holes in condom use. According to the two senior scientists, Souder reportedly reviewed materials for next week's conference and contacted an official at the Department of Health and Human Services who then leaned on the CDC to add more "balance" to the abstinence discussion. If Smith had not been removed from the panel, the scientists say, the symposium would have been canceled. The CDC confirmed that questions had been raised about the "balance of opinions" on the original symposium. Souder's office did not return repeated phone calls requesting comment.
The new cast of speakers was hastily assembled. Sulak said she first heard of the conference earlier this week. "I don't even know who these people are," she told me, referring to the other members of the symposium.
Sulak is a good candidate for promoting a pro-abstinence message. "Since when is abstinence until marriage a threat to public health?" she asks. Of course, most experts believe that abstinence is a healthy choice for teenagers. They simply don't believe, based on the evidence, that abstinence-only programs do much good. And they worry that these curricula—which often include medically inaccurate material and disparaging information about condoms—will leave kids ill-equipped to protect themselves, if and when they do choose to have sex. According to Trigg, public-health physicians in New Mexico reviewed Sulak's "Worth the Wait" program and rejected it because of gender bias and medical errors.
The most vexing thing about this episode is not that STD researchers will apparently have to duke it out with two pro-abstinence ideologues. It's that the event's peer-review process has been undermined. "This conference has always been run as a scientific meeting," said Jonathan Zenilman, chief of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and president of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association, one of the groups organizing the conference along with the CDC.
Politicians now appear to be setting different standards. "My sense is that the leadership in Washington just thinks this is business as usual and doesn't even realize that these kinds of things didn't happen before," Santelli said. These things didn't happen. And they shouldn't start to.
Haven't these guys heard that abstinence is a major cause of global warming (but not evolution)?
Friday, April 28, 2006
The Stupid School
Some Stories Need No Comment
Mary-Ann ringleaders must spend 27 years in jail
Guardian Unlimited
Six men who tortured, raped and murdered the teenager Mary-Ann Leneghan were today jailed for life with minimum tariffs of between 23 years and 27 years.
The gang's ringleader, Adrian Thomas, as well as Michael Johnson, Jamaile Morally and his brother Joshua were told they must serve at least 27 years for abducting and killing the 16-year-old in Reading in May last year.
The other two gang members, Llewellyn Adams and Indrit Krasniqi, were sentenced to at least 23 years before they can seek parole.
The gang, four of whom were convicted offenders serving community punishment orders, took Mary-Ann and her friend to a hotel, where they raped and tortured them, and repeatedly told them they would die.
Passing sentence at Reading crown court, Mr Justice Penry-Davey dismissed the motive for the attacks, which was revenge for an earlier drugs robbery on Thomas.
The judge said the gang, all from south London, had committed "gratuitous torture", acts of "gross sexual abuse" and a brutal execution.
He added: "Drugs breed violence. Those who deal drugs show a readiness to use weapons including guns.
"Your gang of six was armed from the outset with guns, knives and some form of blunt instrument. You were equipped and prepared for serious violence and you set out and kidnapped as bait those two young women."
The prosecution also asked for Krasniqi, originally from Kosovo, to be deported after he is released.
Mary-Ann's family welcomed the high minimum tariffs.
Outside court, flanked by about 30 members of her family and friends, her uncle Charlie Harris described the sentences as "brilliant".
He said: "We just want to try to rebuild our lives. Now we can go over to the grave, the memorial, and see Mary-Ann and say hello to her. I am just glad justice has been done."
Asked about the fact that four of the six men were under probation supervision at the time of the murder, Mr Harris replied: "Like I said earlier on in the case, they should have all been tagged and they should all have been on a curfew - that's it."
Mary-Ann's mother, Sue, left the court a few moments later, making no comment to the media.
Thomas, 20, Krasniqi, 18, Johnson, 19, Adams, 24, Jamaile Morally, 22, and Joshua Morally, 23, abducted Mary-Ann and her friend from a car park in the centre of Reading and took them to a hotel room.
The court heard that Mary-Ann was taken into the hotel bathroom by five men, raped and sexually humiliated. Her friend was made to strip and perform sexual acts. They were forced to smoke crack cocaine and heroin.
The pair was then taken to Prospect Park, where Mary-Ann was stabbed 40 times. Her friend was shot in the head at close range but survived because the bullet did not pierce her skull.
A jury at Reading crown court last month found all six men guilty of Mary-Ann's murder and the attempted killing of her friend, as well as a string of other charges including kidnap and assault. Some were convicted of rape.
Thomas received a further sentence of 13 years and 13 days for the attempted murder of Mary-Ann's friend, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Thomas, Johnson, Jamaile Morally and Krasniqi were all under supervision when they committed the crimes and the case has raised concerns about the state of the probation service.
During the trial, the court heard that Johnson had been sentenced to three and a half years in prison in 2001 for abducting a 13-year-old boy with learning difficulties and subjecting him to an ordeal in which he was hung upside down and beaten.
Guardian Unlimited
Six men who tortured, raped and murdered the teenager Mary-Ann Leneghan were today jailed for life with minimum tariffs of between 23 years and 27 years.
The gang's ringleader, Adrian Thomas, as well as Michael Johnson, Jamaile Morally and his brother Joshua were told they must serve at least 27 years for abducting and killing the 16-year-old in Reading in May last year.
The other two gang members, Llewellyn Adams and Indrit Krasniqi, were sentenced to at least 23 years before they can seek parole.
The gang, four of whom were convicted offenders serving community punishment orders, took Mary-Ann and her friend to a hotel, where they raped and tortured them, and repeatedly told them they would die.
Passing sentence at Reading crown court, Mr Justice Penry-Davey dismissed the motive for the attacks, which was revenge for an earlier drugs robbery on Thomas.
The judge said the gang, all from south London, had committed "gratuitous torture", acts of "gross sexual abuse" and a brutal execution.
He added: "Drugs breed violence. Those who deal drugs show a readiness to use weapons including guns.
"Your gang of six was armed from the outset with guns, knives and some form of blunt instrument. You were equipped and prepared for serious violence and you set out and kidnapped as bait those two young women."
The prosecution also asked for Krasniqi, originally from Kosovo, to be deported after he is released.
Mary-Ann's family welcomed the high minimum tariffs.
Outside court, flanked by about 30 members of her family and friends, her uncle Charlie Harris described the sentences as "brilliant".
He said: "We just want to try to rebuild our lives. Now we can go over to the grave, the memorial, and see Mary-Ann and say hello to her. I am just glad justice has been done."
Asked about the fact that four of the six men were under probation supervision at the time of the murder, Mr Harris replied: "Like I said earlier on in the case, they should have all been tagged and they should all have been on a curfew - that's it."
Mary-Ann's mother, Sue, left the court a few moments later, making no comment to the media.
Thomas, 20, Krasniqi, 18, Johnson, 19, Adams, 24, Jamaile Morally, 22, and Joshua Morally, 23, abducted Mary-Ann and her friend from a car park in the centre of Reading and took them to a hotel room.
The court heard that Mary-Ann was taken into the hotel bathroom by five men, raped and sexually humiliated. Her friend was made to strip and perform sexual acts. They were forced to smoke crack cocaine and heroin.
The pair was then taken to Prospect Park, where Mary-Ann was stabbed 40 times. Her friend was shot in the head at close range but survived because the bullet did not pierce her skull.
A jury at Reading crown court last month found all six men guilty of Mary-Ann's murder and the attempted killing of her friend, as well as a string of other charges including kidnap and assault. Some were convicted of rape.
Thomas received a further sentence of 13 years and 13 days for the attempted murder of Mary-Ann's friend, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Thomas, Johnson, Jamaile Morally and Krasniqi were all under supervision when they committed the crimes and the case has raised concerns about the state of the probation service.
During the trial, the court heard that Johnson had been sentenced to three and a half years in prison in 2001 for abducting a 13-year-old boy with learning difficulties and subjecting him to an ordeal in which he was hung upside down and beaten.
That's Our Stevie
Harper Takes It Up the Ass from Yanks, Says "Please Sir, May I Have Another?"
Softwood deal a triumph for Harper, former U.S. envoy says
Last Updated Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:37:18 EDT
CBC News
Canada's softwood lumber agreement with the United States is "far from perfect," but it is a political achievement for the Harper government, a former envoy to Washington said Friday.
'It's far from perfect but it reflects the world' - former U.S. ambassador Allan Gotlieb
"The critics have to ask themselves, 'What is the alternative?'" Allan Gotlieb, who served as Canada's ambassador to the U.S. between 1981 and 1989, told CBC.ca.
Gotlieb noted the deal, which was announced Thursday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, ends a 25-year court battle.
"It's far from perfect but it reflects the world," he said.
Initial mixed reviews
Harper made the announcement of a revised agreement after an initial deal drew mixed industry reviews on both sides of the border, and criticism from the Ontario government.
Harper said the deal provides Canadian producers unrestricted access to American markets under current conditions, meaning there is no overall cap on the Canadian share of the U.S. market.
With current prices, this means no quotas or tariffs, Harper added.
But, if the price drops, certain export restrictions will kick in. Producers would have to pay an export tax of five per cent if there's a small drop in price. If it falls more, they would have to pay as much as 15 per cent.
Opposition slams deal
However, NDP Leader Jack Layton also criticized the U.S. for keeping $1 billion in duties.
Opposition Leader Bill Graham blasted the agreement, calling it a great deal for the Americans but a "disaster for Canada."
Gotlieb disagreed, however.
"The vast majority of trade with the United States is free and unencumbered," he said, adding that the deal puts an end to a "major irritant" and creates a fixed set of rules.
"This frees us up to go back to the table to deepen NAFTA and amend it to strengthen the dispute resolution mechanism," Gotlieb said.
He also said the deal is a "political triumph" for both Harper and Michael Wilson, Canada's new envoy to the U.S.
"I believe the prime minister's relations with President [George W. Bush] must have been helpful," he said.
Long story short: the Yanks stole $5 billion of our money, and offered to pay back $4 billion - maybe, if they feel like it. Oh yeah, and they'll buy some of our wood, too.
Way to go, Stevie - we'll be kings of the third world yet!
Softwood deal a triumph for Harper, former U.S. envoy says
Last Updated Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:37:18 EDT
CBC News
Canada's softwood lumber agreement with the United States is "far from perfect," but it is a political achievement for the Harper government, a former envoy to Washington said Friday.
'It's far from perfect but it reflects the world' - former U.S. ambassador Allan Gotlieb
"The critics have to ask themselves, 'What is the alternative?'" Allan Gotlieb, who served as Canada's ambassador to the U.S. between 1981 and 1989, told CBC.ca.
Gotlieb noted the deal, which was announced Thursday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, ends a 25-year court battle.
"It's far from perfect but it reflects the world," he said.
Initial mixed reviews
Harper made the announcement of a revised agreement after an initial deal drew mixed industry reviews on both sides of the border, and criticism from the Ontario government.
Harper said the deal provides Canadian producers unrestricted access to American markets under current conditions, meaning there is no overall cap on the Canadian share of the U.S. market.
With current prices, this means no quotas or tariffs, Harper added.
But, if the price drops, certain export restrictions will kick in. Producers would have to pay an export tax of five per cent if there's a small drop in price. If it falls more, they would have to pay as much as 15 per cent.
Opposition slams deal
However, NDP Leader Jack Layton also criticized the U.S. for keeping $1 billion in duties.
Opposition Leader Bill Graham blasted the agreement, calling it a great deal for the Americans but a "disaster for Canada."
Gotlieb disagreed, however.
"The vast majority of trade with the United States is free and unencumbered," he said, adding that the deal puts an end to a "major irritant" and creates a fixed set of rules.
"This frees us up to go back to the table to deepen NAFTA and amend it to strengthen the dispute resolution mechanism," Gotlieb said.
He also said the deal is a "political triumph" for both Harper and Michael Wilson, Canada's new envoy to the U.S.
"I believe the prime minister's relations with President [George W. Bush] must have been helpful," he said.
Long story short: the Yanks stole $5 billion of our money, and offered to pay back $4 billion - maybe, if they feel like it. Oh yeah, and they'll buy some of our wood, too.
Way to go, Stevie - we'll be kings of the third world yet!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
RefWrite - holding onto truth
Monday, April 24, 2006
Hey, But Thanks for Dying, Anyway
4 Canadian Soldiers Dead in Afghanistan - Cons Can't Be Arsed To Notice
Corporal Matthew Dinning, Bombardier Myles Mansell and Lieutenant William Turner all died at the scene of the attack, a dried up riverbed.
The fourth soldier – Cpl. Randy Payne – died of his wounds in hospital.
On Monday, the Canadian flag outside the coalition headquarters flew at half-mast. In Ottawa, however, the flag above the Peace Tower on the Parliament Buildings was not lowered.
The Conservatives have said the government will no longer lower the flag each time a Canadian soldier is killed.
The practice had been established by the previous Liberal government. Instead, the Conservatives have said they will return to the previous tradition of lowering the Peace Tower flag only once a year, on Remembrance Day.
“The previous Liberal government broke with this long-standing tradition that confidently brought Canada through its wartime history and instead decided on an ad-hoc basis to lowering the flag of the Peace Tower,” Mr. O'Connor said in a letter to The Globe and Mail.
“As Minister of National Defence, I can tell you that this adhockery unfairly distinguished some of those who died in Afghanistan from those who have died in current and previous operations. Lowering the Peace Tower's flag on Nov. 11 ensures that all of Canada's fallen heroes are justly honoured.” he wrote in the letter.
Canadian flags outside post offices in Edmonton were lowered to half-mast on Monday in honour of the four, one of whom was a part-time reservist worked in the city as a letter carrier. The flag above Toronto City Hall was also lowered. One of the men who died in the weekend attack was from the Toronto area.
Friends and comrades in arms remembered all of them fondly.
In Ottawa, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham called on the federal government to reconsider the recent change in policy.
“I think there is a concern that it will be perceived by the troops themselves and by Canadians as a lack of respect for the sacrifice they're making,” Mr. Graham told reporters outside the House of Commons on Monday.
“I think this is something the government should rethink.”
Corporal Matthew Dinning, Bombardier Myles Mansell and Lieutenant William Turner all died at the scene of the attack, a dried up riverbed.
The fourth soldier – Cpl. Randy Payne – died of his wounds in hospital.
On Monday, the Canadian flag outside the coalition headquarters flew at half-mast. In Ottawa, however, the flag above the Peace Tower on the Parliament Buildings was not lowered.
The Conservatives have said the government will no longer lower the flag each time a Canadian soldier is killed.
The practice had been established by the previous Liberal government. Instead, the Conservatives have said they will return to the previous tradition of lowering the Peace Tower flag only once a year, on Remembrance Day.
“The previous Liberal government broke with this long-standing tradition that confidently brought Canada through its wartime history and instead decided on an ad-hoc basis to lowering the flag of the Peace Tower,” Mr. O'Connor said in a letter to The Globe and Mail.
“As Minister of National Defence, I can tell you that this adhockery unfairly distinguished some of those who died in Afghanistan from those who have died in current and previous operations. Lowering the Peace Tower's flag on Nov. 11 ensures that all of Canada's fallen heroes are justly honoured.” he wrote in the letter.
Canadian flags outside post offices in Edmonton were lowered to half-mast on Monday in honour of the four, one of whom was a part-time reservist worked in the city as a letter carrier. The flag above Toronto City Hall was also lowered. One of the men who died in the weekend attack was from the Toronto area.
Friends and comrades in arms remembered all of them fondly.
In Ottawa, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham called on the federal government to reconsider the recent change in policy.
“I think there is a concern that it will be perceived by the troops themselves and by Canadians as a lack of respect for the sacrifice they're making,” Mr. Graham told reporters outside the House of Commons on Monday.
“I think this is something the government should rethink.”
