Melamine: If only Journalists would read more blogs...

Today's BBC news-links include a report on "Toxic Milk Trials in China".

That News article says:

When the scandal broke in September, a chain of melamine producers and middlemen was found to have been supplying milk dealers with the product.

The dealers added melamine to boost the apparent protein content of milk, which had often been watered down to spread the raw product further.

Major dairy companies bought the milk from such dealers, failing to test the milk for purity and nutritional value.

Notice the two things I've highlighted in red.

First, the phrase "when the scandal broke in September"

A casual reader of this story might believe that only AFTER children's deaths and hospitalizations were being traced back to melamine were people aware of the use of melamine in dairy production.

The Blog, Small Dead Animals, made a post dated April 30, 2007 entitled "Melamine Spiking Longstanding Practice" The BLOG article tells us that melamine is mixed with animal feed to artificially enhance protein levels when it is mixed with low-grade wheat, soy, etc. The most chilling quote in there (remembering that it was April 2007) is:

“If you add it in small quantities, it won’t hurt the animals,” said one animal feed entrepreneur whose name is being withheld to protect him from prosecution. (emphasis mine)

This is one year and five months BEFORE the scandal "Broke" in September of 2008, as reported by the BBC.

To recap:
traditional journalism leaves us wondering how melamine found it's way into milk, how widespread the risk is, how long this risk has been present. The sense one gets is that there are a few people who somehow, and for unclear reasons, did something, or failed to do something that resulted in people dying.

A blogger told us in a surprisingly short article, WHAT melamine was doing in the food chain, HOW it got there, WHY it was put there, something about WHO was putting it there, "longstanding practice" implies a WHEN it was happening, China (including a particular region) was the WHERE...

It leaves me to ask, WHO still remembers the 'five W's plus H' of journalism, and Why?

Are there any investigative reporters still out there? (I mean besides the bloggers.)

[supplemental: the source Small Dead Animals linked from was here. They in turn cited sources that described this practice some 15 years earlier in China, as well as the banning of this practice in the US in 1975. The story then was related to the tainted animal food that affected a major US pet food company in 2007.]

Snow-mageddon, and other weather BS

Well, everybody, here it is. It's the end of the world as we know it.

It's snow-mageddon!



The next day, after we heard that big announcement from Environment Canada... oops, sorry.

You can relax now. It's not such a big deal. False alarm. It's just going to be a snowy couple of days.

Well ok. It sounds like the old joke about the kid asking his dad for $50, and his dad is appalled that he has to give $40. How is it that the kid asked for $30? and by the end, he grudgingly gives five bucks.

We pump, what, millions of dollars into a system that can tell us what the weather is going to be like. What's worse, we pump billions of dollars into policy changes to adapt to ecological alarmists. To name a few: Ozone hole, CFC's, acid rain, rain forest, global cooling, global warming, carbon emissions, and now, that catch-all: climate change.

We're given propaganda like this:



We are coerced to tow the party line, or suffer as ecological pariahs. Even questioning the science draws fire.

They have a Nobel ('peace') Prize winner, that *other* guy on the Clinton ticket fronting their alarmist views. Fifty-two UN scientists put forward a paper, and it's all you hear about in the news for weeks. (IPCC)

The skeptics also have a Nobel Prize winner (this one, a Physicist) , among other distinguished scientists. An International group of 650 scientists are disputing the propositions set out by Gore's faithful.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

They are setting out reasons they believe the study is fatally flawed.

One, they do not receive or react to criticism.

Two they are based on flawed mathematical models.

This brings me back my original point.

Two days ago, I was warned that the end was nigh, with such colourful terms as "snowmageddon" or "a big freakin' dump of snow".

Today, those reports have been conveniently dropped down the memory hole, and we look forward to a more conventional "moderate-to-heavy snowfall" e.g., a 'White Christmas'.

If Wednesday's forcast for Friday had a complete reversal by Thursday, how can anyone, with a straight face, compel me to believe their 50 year global warming models.

We might as well use this:

Stand up for Canada

On December 6, there was a Stand up for Canada rally in numerous cities across Canada.

It was my privilege to bring my family to the rally right in Ottawa.

This was, in fact, the first time in my life I had ever attended a rally.

Had two federalist parties been able to form a coalition which put them into majority territory, I would have hated it, but accepted it, as per the rules of a Parliamentary system.

But their power grab rested squarely on the Bloc's cooperation. Since they, as a party, have no scruples against holding a political gun to the head of the Canadian Taxpayer, giving them the ability to support or topple a government was intolerable. For that reason, we attended the rally.

--- ( video footage here) ---

The press did an astonishingly amateur and slanted job of covering the rallies. Given the chance to report on direct action by ordinary citizens, they instead opted to report the activities of the opposition leaders of the same day.

The mainstream media are consequently, I suspect, going the way of the blacksmith. The public's eyes are open to the tactic of using op-ed in the guise of news, and are looking elsewhere for real reporting.

The rally filled the entirety of the sidewalk on the Hill, and overflowed into the grass. It was lively, but orderly.

This was Stephen Taylor of Blogging Tories. Great speech.




This was my 7-year-old son's hero, Pierre Poilievre:



The reason I wanted to brave the -10 temp on a Saturday afternoon?
Easy. Here it is:

Overheard on the Titanic

- Captain:

You were chosen for this task with the expectation that you would safely navigate this ship across the North Atlantic.

A nearly invulnerable ship with the most modern technologies was made available to you.

It is obvious, now that we have struck an iceberg, that our trust in you abilities was misplaced. We have selected a more suitable replacement from among our own number.

You have been relieved of your command, and effective immediately, you will address me as CAPTAIN Ignatieff.

You are dismissed.

Priorities

What could have happened...

We can't really fault Dion, can we? After all, it was he who said "Do you think it is easy to make priorities?

Apparently it's easier to make priorities when you have leaders of two competing parties assigning them to you, and explaining what they are.

----

In an alternate universe here's what could have happened:

Harper proposes the elimination of the $1.95 / vote subsidy.

Liberals either accept it or don't.
- if they take it, they suffer financially for awhile, but bounce back leaner and more focussed, as the Conservatives did not so long ago.
- if they don't:

NDP sees an opportunity:
-They are already grass-roots, and will have less to lose by this plan.
-They would have a tactical advantage over the Libs in the next election (financially), and perhaps usurp the Libs as the federalist Left option
-They could wear the white hats for participating in a plan that financially chokes off the Separatists, and make them irrelevant for perhaps a full generation.

Neither Liberals nor NDP did so.

Thus, they chose the other option, of validating the Bloc, emboldening the separatists, and as a bonus, stoking separatists sentiments in the West.

Good goin' boneheads!

Regarding: co-Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe.

As my last post indicates, it is irrational to suggest that Harper's Tories are a larger threat (whatever that means) than they were before this past election.

They have a renewed, and larger mandate.
The economy in Canada is doing better than the other Industrialized nations.
Canada now has near-record-low unemployment rates.

Andrew Coyne has a great article "The Tories Made Them Do It" that summarizes many of the flaws in this objection. (Thank-you Small Dead Animals for the link).

Obviously, this arrangement has been a long time coming. The audio where Layton admits to orchestrating the alliance with the Bloc a long time ago should be a clue. "You couldn't put three people together in three hours".

Coupled with the deal May had with Dion, it gives one pause to consider just how long this has been in the works. Is this why Dion didn't want to go to the polls in October? Was this already underway, even then?

The sad truth is this:
-Parliamentary Democracy allows for coalitions to form.
-The coalition is technically legal.

BUT...
-Parliamentary Democracy presupposes that members would not want to destroy the very country they are governing.

Thus:
-If Lib / NDP together could form a simple majority, without needing to be propped up by the Bloc...
... then as much as I hate the proposition, I would cringe and accept it, in much the same way as I would have accepted either of those parties being granted an electoral majority.

However:
-The Liberals / NDP could NOT form a majority without appealing to the Bloc. Thus, the Bloc has leverage on every decision, and is put in a position of extreme power, and will demand proportionate concessions.

Never before have we had a Separatist as defacto co-Prime-Minister. This is what makes this arrangement such a deal with the Devil.

(To see an examination and assessment of the agreement, look here for Ezra Levant's Article.)

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Duceppe can hold the threat of unseating the government over the supposed alliance, as leverage to make any demand (or whim?) he might deem appropriate.

In Light of CoupGate...

Contrast these ideas.

In the last parliament, Harper's Conservatives had a smaller minority than they have presently.

Here is the breakdown of the Absent Professor's (Dion's) voting record during that term:

Yea: 40
Nay: 34
Absent / Abstained: 87

Of the 161 total votes, Dion cast a ballot yea or nay only 45.96% of the time.
So on 54% of Total votes cast, DION STOOD FOR LITERALLY NOTHING.

One may surmise that of the 74 issues he was decisive about, he supported the government 54% of the time.

40 yea / (40+34 decisive ballots cast) = 54% in favour of the Conservative agenda.

He actively opposed Harper only 21% of the time.

Therefore, Harper must not be "scary".

Therefore, Harper's policies are NOT contrary to Canada's best interests, when judging by Dion's own voting record.