Don't Dare Disagree with Harper and his gang

01.25.12: In the Toronto Star today.


The organization in question is ForestEthics and it operates in Canada and the USA and is funded in part by Tides Canada. 
ForestEthics is a charitable group that funds initiatives to tackle poverty, climate change and social problems.


"The prime minister's office allegedly labelled an environmental group an 'enemy' of Canada for opposing a proposed west coast oil pipeline and threatened retribution if its funding was not cut off, according to the affidavit of a former employee."
The article further states the government officials gave Ross McMillan (president of Tides Canada) a set time period to 'cut loose' ForestEthics or the government would 'take down' all Tides' charitable projects.


Harper is not finished yet.


In another article about the CRTC today, chair Konrad Von Finckenstein left today. He clashed with the federal government on a few issues. Hopefully, his replacement, Leonard Katz, has time to do some good before he is dismissed without explanation.  


Have i missed something in the last few years? Have Canadian citizens asked Harper and his team to represent us in this manner? 


Have we given him licence to dismiss (without explanation) any person or group (having a responsibility to the federal government) who he disagrees with?


At least Harper is consistent about his distaste for the environmental safety of Canada.


His original premise to always support shale oil development - regardless of environmental impact - means he must continue to discredit environmental groups whenever they might impact his oil development.


I think it is about time he began to think of his legacy...

Mountain Gorillas

01.24.12: Time to see the mountain gorillas


I have been following Dr Al Sears for quite a while (weekly e-letter), as he shares some good/interesting ideas on health.


Last month, he went to Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in Uganda and put this video on Youtube.


Now, I am even more interested in this excellent adventure.


Did you know there are only approx 800 mountain gorillas remaining (none in captivity).


Probably none within 50 years...

SOPS and PIPA - freedom of the Web is being challenged ... again

01.26.12: What are SOPA and PIPA?


Simply put, is is a law to enable copyright and Intellectual Property owners to prosecute violators anywhere in the world. In this simple approach, there is nothing wrong.
However, it attempt to give USA companies a broad range of controls over the whole Internet ... something that really bothers almost all technology companies around the world.




A graphical representation - easier to grasp -

01.19.12: SOPA and PIPA


You haven't heard these terms yet ... but you will ... 


What would SOPA and PIPA do? (Reuters, Jan 18,2012)


 - The legislation, known as SOPA in the U.S. House of Representatives and PIPA in the Senate, would use court orders to curb access to foreign websites "dedicated to theft" through techniques such as disabling links to those sites.


 - They also cut off USA-based payments processing for those overseas websites that traffic in stolen content or counterfeit goods.


Why do copyright holders say the law is needed?


 - Entertainment companies and other copyright holders say many legal copyright remedies aren't effective against big foreign sites such as PirateBay. They say the bills will help curb online piracy that they claim costs them billions of dollars a year. 
Technology companies say they too oppose such piracy but argue that the proposed laws go too far.


What is the current status of the bills?


 - The White House weighed in on January 14 with objections to the legislation, particularly a provision that would have required Internet service providers such as a Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp to cut off access to infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking.
In the days before the White House statement, backers of both bills had said they planned to move away from those provisions. The Senate bill is scheduled for a vote on January 24, although some supporters of the bill have asked to postpone that vote. The House bill is still before the Judiciary Committee.


Why do technology companies oppose the bills?


 - Technology companies say the legislation would undermine an existing law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its "safe harbor" provisions for websites and others that act in good faith in their handling of third-party content on their sites. Content companies say the bills simply fill gaps in the DMCA and wouldn't affect the safe harbor provisions.


 - Technology companies express concerns that the legislation would encourage frivolous litigation. Content companies believe the difficulty of squeezing large payments out of illegal overseas sites would discourage frivolous litigation.


 - Technology companies say users would circumvent new restrictions and piracy would still occur. Content companies say the law would create important tools for fighting piracy.


 - Technology companies worry they would have to police their services for links to overseas pirated content. Content companies say the technology companies would have to act only if notified.


 - Technology companies say part of the House legislation encourages providers to act against foreign sites on their own initiative by providing immunity from liability, which could lead to overaggressive actions against foreign sites. Content companies say that sites that act against pirates in good faith and with evidence to back up their actions shouldn't have to worry about lawsuits.


 - Technology companies say there is no due process for overseas sites that are accused of piracy. Content companies say normal due process applies.





The battle continues ...

Boys and their toys - as it applies to golf

01.15.12: The new hotrod


I think I could get used to Florida year-round ... maybe ...


Us older folks can appreciate a better way to get around our community than hopping in the car and driving thru traffic.


This seems to be an appropriate method of transportation for the golfing future.


It is quite surprising ... over 50,000 vehicles (especially good for those who would have trouble acquiring a driver's licence) in a community of 16,000 golfers.

Coconut Oil - misconception?

01.12.12: Unrefined coconut oil is very good for you!
This CBN News items clearly destroys my understanding of coconut oil.


Apparently, there is growing evidence to show unrefined organic coconut oil (no trans fats) has many benefits to our health and should be included in our eating habits. 


The question is how much? 


It appears to be gaining support in the fight against dementia, schizophrenia, alzheimer's, atherosclerosis, etc.
The area I am interested in is improvements to HDL levels (heart health).


Harvard Medical School is still uncertain about overall cholesterol benefits of daily use.


From what I have read to-date:


Coconut oil is very high in saturated fats (much higher than butter, beef fat or lard). 


The problem with saturated fat is it raises LDL levels ... high HDL is good, low LDL is good ... probably contributing to cardiovascular disease.


However, not all saturated fats are bad for you.


Unrefined coconut oil's saturated fat has the highest amount of lauric acid (excellent job of raising HDL levels) of any oil. 


But, does that justify its daily use to lower cholesterol levels?


Until more results are in, it appears best to stick to olive and soybean oils (unsaturated fats ... lower LDL and raise HDL) for good health.


However, I may just begin including some virgin coconut oil (2-4 tbsp)  in my diet ... but will continue to not order Thai dishes with coconut oil.