Politics and religion.

[Karen]

Tragic story, the whole ebola situation is sad, and yes the hospital initially screwed up, but experimental drugs are, indeed experimental, and have nothing to do with the color of the individual's skin.

The media having a field day is the saddest thing of all. I refuse to watch any of the talking heads on this case!

[Catty1]

Canadian politics nosing in here.

Our Prime Minister has a habit of offering "omnibus" bills to be passed. As you might guess, there is a lot of stuff in them, and there is often not enough time for opposition members to review everything before the vote. (If I recall correctly, these bills are not even debated!).

Because the Conservative Party has a majority in the House, the bill passes even if all the other parties vote against it.

In this latest omnibus bill is a change in copyright law. This means that any political party can take material out of context from Canadian broadcasters - TV, radio, etc - WITHOUT their permission to use in attack ads against other parties.

Can you tell we have a Federal election coming next year? Harper has to GO!

[phesina]

That's awful, doing away with copyright protection like that. Is this widely known to the Canadian public yet? Would there be any kind of public outcry against this happening? Would that be effective?

How do Harper and the gang justify that, or do they even bother to?

[Lady's Human]

Tragic story, the whole ebola situation is sad, and yes the hospital initially screwed up, but experimental drugs are, indeed experimental, and have nothing to do with the color of the individual's skin.

The media having a field day is the saddest thing of all. I refuse to watch any of the talking heads on this case!

Ebola entering the US isn't sad, it's criminal dereliction of duty and failure to uphold the oath of office on the part of all Constitutional officers in D.C.

[Lady's Human]

Canadian politics nosing in here.

Our Prime Minister has a habit of offering "omnibus" bills to be passed. As you might guess, there is a lot of stuff in them, and there is often not enough time for opposition members to review everything before the vote. (If I recall correctly, these bills are not even debated!).

Because the Conservative Party has a majority in the House, the bill passes even if all the other parties vote against it.

In this latest omnibus bill is a change in copyright law. This means that any political party can take material out of context from Canadian broadcasters - TV, radio, etc - WITHOUT their permission to use in attack ads against other parties.

Can you tell we have a Federal election coming next year? Harper has to GO!

So if I want to use a statement made on a news show by my opponent in the election, on a station which might be owned/operated by someone aligned with that opponent which might be run by my political opposition I have to essentially seek the approval of the opposition to use their statement?

This isn't a change in copyright law, it's common sense. You shouldn't need the approval of your opponent to quote them in a political campaign, as long as the quote is an actual quote.

[Catty1]

LH, here's an article that explains it a bit better:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conse...-ads-1.2046197

Conservatives to change copyright law, allowing free use of news content in political ads






CTV News: Unprecedented copyright law in Canada

The Conservative government plans to change Canada's copyright laws when it comes to political ads. Laurie Graham explains.



Power Play: Copyright law changes coming?



University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist says there are problems with the federal government's proposal to change copyright laws.


CTV News Channel: Path was paved in 1988



Copyright lawyer Howard Knopf says the pathway for the government’s proposed copyright law changes 'was paved by the Liberals back in 1988.'



123


Text:

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Wednesday, October 8, 2014 10:00PM EDT

The Conservative government is planning to change Canada’s copyright law to allow political parties to use content published and broadcast by news organizations for free in their own political ads.
An internal Conservative cabinet document obtained by CTV News details an amendment to the Copyright Act which would allow “free use of ‘news’ content in political advertisement intended to promote or oppose a politician or political party.”
The amendment would also remove “the need for broadcasters to authorize the use of their news content.” And it would force media outlets to run political ads even if their own footage and content was used in a negative message to voters.
Related Stories

• Trudeau calls byelection attack ad 'misleading and, quite frankly, disgusting'
  
• More Conservative MPs say 'no' to anti-Trudeau attack ads
  
• Tory attack ads take aim at Trudeau hours after win

Photos



Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird speaks to media in the foyer of the House of Commons in Ottawa, Tuesday, Sept.16, 2014. (Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS)


The government is planning to change Canada's copyright rules so that political parties can use content from media organizations, for free, in their political ads.



The internal document warns that media outlets will vehemently claim their work is being unfairly targeted for the benefit of political parties. The document provides instructions to Conservatives to come up with a strong communication plan to manage the reaction.
The proposed legislation is buried in the latest instalment of the omnibus bill, which is sure to pass in the House of Commons, given the Conservative majority. The bill will be introduced in the coming weeks.


Opposition parties say sneaking in a change to the Copyright Act in the massive bill is “deceitful” and designed to give the Conservative campaign an edge ahead of next year’s federal election.
“Changing copyright law … to improve their odds of winning over the Canadian public as opposed to improving copyright law to improve the economy, let’s say, is disrespectful,” NDP finance critic Nathan Cullen told CTV News.
“And to bury it in the middle of an omnibus bill suggests that they knew this wouldn’t be popular.”
Cullen said using material gathered by journalists for attack-ad purposes without having to ask for news outlets’ permission is “disrespectful” and “shameful.”
“If I say something unflattering or if I do something that looks a little embarrassing, suddenly it’s a Conservative ad,” he said.
“They just don’t seem to have any ethical boundary at all. Anything goes, as long as it plays to their advantage.”


Deputy Liberal Leader Ralph Goodale accused the Conservatives of “choosing a very devious process” to bypass copyright rules that currently prevent them from using media outlets’ material.

“This is an attempt to take something that is clearly illegal at the moment…and to change the law so that the rules will now suit Conservative practices,” he said.


Goodale said the move would disadvantage news organizations and, “most seriously, it will blur the line between news and propaganda.”

Although the copyright amendment would allow all political parties to use news content, Cullen said the NDP is “guided by a different ethic” and does not want to produce attack ads or “smear campaigns.”
The Conservative Party has already been accused of lifting content from media organizations without permission, for use in attack ads against Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.
Some media outlets teamed up and sent a letter to all political parties in May, warning them that use of their content without express authorization will not be tolerated.
Pollster Nik Nanos said the proposed copyright change will make it “very easy to quickly produce attack ads in order to turn things around.
“I think the Conservatives think they’re going to need to be very agile in the next election and quite negative in order to tear down the Liberal and the Trudeau brand. And what this does is provide them the opportunity to have that flexibility,” he said.
Nanos said it appears that Trudeau is “a much more elusive figure to run attack ads against,” so the Conservatives are trying to deploy “every resource they can.”
With a report from CTV’s Ottawa Deputy Bureau Chief Laurie Graham

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Ebola entering the US isn't sad, it's criminal dereliction of duty and failure to uphold the oath of office on the part of all Constitutional officers in D.C.

I heard our government is now sending 5000 troops to Africa to help with the Ebola situation. It bothers me that we are sending all those healthy people over there to get exposed to that and bring more of it here!!

[Lady's Human]

Again, when fighting an infectious disease, step one of the field hygiene manual calls for the elimination of vectors.

We're bringing new vectors into the situation.

Those soldiers, sailors and marines are going to have to be quarantined for 21 days after exposure. Hopefully none of them come down with Ebola, but hope in one hand...

We're killing people on the altar of political correctness and feeling good. Quarantine, limit (preferably eliminate) travel in the affected areas, and for goodness sake, no more damned commercial flights out of the hot zone. (It's too late for all that, however, the horse has left the barn)

[Karen]

Again, when fighting an infectious disease, step one of the field hygiene manual calls for the elimination of vectors.

We're bringing new vectors into the situation.

Those soldiers, sailors and marines are going to have to be quarantined for 21 days after exposure.

Maybe put them all on a slow boat back to the States?

Hopefully none of them come down with Ebola, but hope in one hand...
We're killing people on the altar of political correctness and feeling good. Quarantine, limit (preferably eliminate) travel in the affected areas, and for goodness sake, no more damned commercial flights out of the hot zone. (It's too late for all that, however, the horse has left the barn)

Yeah, it is unconscionable that there have been no limits to flight out of the three most affected nations, and if you think you are going to get sick, well, then you probably want to get "somewhere better" and then end up spreading the disease.

I still think, though, it was plain ignorance that led the Spanish officials to kill that nurse's dog. That that woman got trend away and sent home from three different hospitals, makes Eric Duncan's case look like it was expertly handled!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Maybe put them all on a slow boat back to the States?



Yeah, it is unconscionable that there have been no limits to flight out of the three most affected nations, and if you think you are going to get sick, well, then you probably want to get "somewhere better" and then end up spreading the disease.

I still think, though, it was plain ignorance that led the Spanish officials to kill that nurse's dog. That that woman got trend away and sent home from three different hospitals, makes Eric Duncan's case look like it was expertly handled!

Did that woman for sure have that virus? If not they killed for nothing ! If she did, that does not mean the dog would get it. They missed an opportunity to see if the virus could be transmitted by animals by not quarantining the dog and seeing if it got sick if the owner did in fact have it. What now, will all animals by owners thay MAY have the virus be slaughtered?

[lizbud]

Did that woman for sure have that virus? If not they killed for nothing ! If she did, that does not mean the dog would get it. They missed an opportunity to see if the virus could be transmitted by animals by not quarantining the dog and seeing if it got sick if the owner did in fact have it. What now, will all animals by owners thay MAY have the virus be slaughtered?

Good questions moff. We may never learn the answers because of the many different people & organizations involved. Seems everyone has their own way
of dealing with this outbreak. Here (USA) we have the CDC and local State Health Departments, but it seems to be no one person speaking for the whole country.

Saw this article today and thought it asks one big question we all need to have answered.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-general.html

[Karen]

Did that woman for sure have that virus? If not they killed for nothing ! If she did, that does not mean the dog would get it. They missed an opportunity to see if the virus could be transmitted by animals by not quarantining the dog and seeing if it got sick if the owner did in fact have it. What now, will all animals by owners thay MAY have the virus be slaughtered?

Yes, she for sure had the virus. Many people were arguing that studying the dog would be a valuable research tool, exactly as you mentioned. But the politicians intervened and just plain killed the poor thing.

"Ramos’ husband, Javier Limon, appealed for public help, telling reporters by telephone that the dog’s death was unnecessary."

And so now he has to deal with not only the loss of his wife, and the tragedy of her death, but does not have their dog to comfort him, or even to help learn about the disease, knowledge that could help others!

It could have been very important, as the transmission of Ebola to humans this time was apparently cause by a little girl getting bitten by a fruit bat with the disease when she was playing in a tree where they were roosting, so that fact that it can cross from animal to human is already know, but we have no idea if it can cross back the other way!

[Lady's Human]

Good questions moff. We may never learn the answers because of the many different people & organizations involved. Seems everyone has their own way
of dealing with this outbreak. Here (USA) we have the CDC and local State Health Departments, but it seems to be no one person speaking for the whole country.

Saw this article today and thought it asks one big question we all need to have answered.

How about not nominating an idealogue?

The Surgeon General is supposed to be the top health official in the country. To nominate someone who you KNOW isn't going to pass the Senate nomination system is foolish from the outset.

Children, the lot of them.

[RICHARD]

One thing lost in all the 'translation' regarding ebola is the general 'facts' of how an illness/virus, like ebola, is spread.

Back in the day we were all wondering about HIV/AIDS and the way it is transmitted.

Ebola is a more aggresive illness, but in order to transmit it, you really have to be in contact with a person.

You really have to come in contact with bodily fluids - and even then, just being in the same room as a person doesn't mean you are going to contract the disease.

---------

One thing that makes me laugh -I know that it's not a laughing matter - is the chuckleheads in the media who refuse to report on a basic fact about most viruses?

A virus need to have a warm, wet media ( a human body ) to grow and thrive in. Once a virus hits any surface outside the host it has a definite life span.

Ebola can be killed with disinectants on hard surfaces - Altho they haven't determined how long ebola lasts outside the body, washing your hands and keeping away from people's bodily fluids will reduce your chances of getting the disease.

As more time goes on, I am amazed, irritated and amused about how the media has gone on and on about it.

They have no standards and no responsibility when it comes to reporting the facts about ebola - They make it sound like the first coming of some kind of zombie apocalypse and everyone is doomed.

The stupidity of the reporting - along with the appointment of an 'organizer' or ebola czar who has no medical training, other than reading the label on an aspirin bottle - makes this even more entertaining....

[Catty1]

Well, well...Mr. Harper is presenting the omnibus bill WITHOUT the copyright stuff in it. His office switchboard must have melted. not to mention his inbox crashing!