Clear Full Forecast

Injured Bear Seen in Starlane Area

By 250 News

Friday, September 22, 2006 01:25 PM

A resident of Starlane Drive has seen a bear in her back yard that appeared to be injured, and RCMP are advising nearby residents to be very cautious.

The animal was seen last evening and is reported to have been dragging both back legs, but had wandered off before RCMP arrived. Game Wardens have been advised the bear is in the neighbourhood.

RCMP warn that if the animal is actually injured, it will be bedding down close to where it was seen. It will probably also be feeding from nearby garbage and compost bins.


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Getting Closer To Uncle Sam
By Maude Barlow
9-21-6


While the media were busy obsessing over rumours of a budding romance between Condoleezza Rice and Peter MacKay last week, a more significant relationship was developing behind closed doors.

Away from the spotlight, from Sept. 12 to 14, in Banff Springs, Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor met with U.S. and Mexican government officials and business leaders to discuss North American integration at the second North American Forum.

According to leaked documents, the guest list included such prominent figures as U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mexican Secretary of Public Security Eduardo Medina Mora and Canadian Forces chief General Rick Hillier, although we have no final confirmation of attendees.

The event was chaired by former U.S. secretary of state George Schultz, former Alberta premier, Peter Lougheed and former Mexican finance minister Pedro Aspe.

Despite the involvement of senior North American politicians, organizers did not alert the media about the event. To make it worse, our government will not be issuing a public statement and refuses to release any information about the content of the discussions or the actors involved.

Day's office has been telling journalists that it cannot comment on the minister's private meeting and that journalists should understand this. So much for accountability.

The event was organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives - the elite club of Canada's richest CEOs - and the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta think-tank that promotes, among other things, closer economic integration with the United States.

The focus of the event was on North American security and prosperity. Not surprisingly, this included topics such as "A North American Energy Strategy," "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration" and "Opportunities for Security Co-operation" - all topics where the public interest is at odds with that of big business elites.

Unfortunately meetings like this are now commonplace.

Since Paul Martin, Vicente Fox and George W. Bush signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership in March 2005, discussions on continental integration have gone underground.

The media have paid little attention to this far-reaching agreement, so Canadians are unaware that a dozen working groups are currently "harmonizing" Canadian and U.S. regulations on everything from food to drugs to the environment and even more contentious issues like foreign policy.

Make no mistake, this process of harmonization is not about improving food, environmental and other norms; it is about priming North America for better business by weakening the impacts of such perceived obstacles as environmental standards and labour rights.

This is why the public has been kept in the dark while the business elite has played a leading role in designing the blueprint for this more integrated North America. In fact, they have been the driving force.

In June this year, their power was formalized when our governments created the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), an advisory committee comprised of representatives from the largest corporations in North America including Wal-Mart, Chevron, General Motors, Lockheed Martin, Suncor and others.

Their goal is to make North America more competitive globally, which means weakening our government's ability to regulate industry, protect the environment or our social safety net.

Lockheed Martin's Ron Covais's statement to Maclean's magazine earlier this month about the role of the NACC was quite revealing:

"The guidance from the ministers was, tell us what we need to do and we'll make it happen."

Sadly, we the public are not informed of what big businesses are telling our ministers to do.

The NACC met in Washington on Aug. 15 to discuss its priorities, but we have very little information about what was said as it was not reported anywhere in the press.

For Canadians, developments on energy will be crucial.

The U.S. administration, anxious to keep up with its country's high energy demands, has shown great interest in this "secure" energy source located just north of its border. With corporations like Suncor involved, energy was an important item of discussion at the Banff meeting last week.

Given the detrimental impacts of oil sand extraction on our environment and given that Canada currently exports 66 per cent of its oil (primarily to the U.S.) while importing 55 per cent of what we use domestically from countries like Algeria, Venezuela and Norway, it is alarming that Ottawa would discuss a "North American Energy Strategy" with the U.S. and Mexico before establishing a Canadian strategy that would ensure our ability to protect the environment and ensure a secure energy supply for Canadians.

Though not as glamourous as the date between Peter and Condi, the media should pay better attention to this marriage between our governments and big corporations.

The Conservatives came to power on the promise to make government more accountable. They need to be reminded that our government should be accountable to the people of Canada - not just its business elite.

Maude Barlow is chairperson of the Council of Canadians and author of 15 books including Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future within Fortress North America.
Chadermando...Just a question, What has does you post got to due with a Bear that might be wounded
Maude Barlow? Akin to a wounded bear? Nope. Fail to see the connection. Wounded bear? Hey! How about that wallpaper sale at Home Depot? That sounds more relevant to a wounded bear.Plus I get to go to the donut shop after the sale. Duh! Look up the word "relevant"in the dictionary please. Thanks.
LOL sorry guys but if we aren't informed by the media about our politicians negotiating a North American Union with business leaders and no input from citizens nor any transparancy than I resort to gorrilla tactics.

Obviously this is a thread that would attract readers attention and yet not much interest to post, so therefor a good place to post an informative article for others to ponder.

Don't blame me, blame mainstream media for not doing their job. Blame your politicians for making deals surrendering our sovereignty in secret.
The US is like an injured bear.

The US is bedding done near Canada and feeding on our resources.

Canada seems to be caring about the bear as well as carefull of the bear since we know it can be very agressive if injured and hungry.

So, the question is, feed it or capture it and redirect it to seek its nourishment elsewhere, or even shoot it and put it out of its misery.

I find Chadermando's post very relevant.

If we could only use the shoot it to put it out of its misery option.

;-)
I think you are all on crack,
...and it's guerilla, not gorilla, you monkey !

:-)
Hey, did anyone pay attention to what the publisher stated a couple days ago?
Clearly, you are invited to state an opinion-but you are NOT entitled to respond to another's opinion in an open "discussion."
I cannot really understand the big "NO NO" to an open discussion-sort of removes any inclination to read others postings-thereby reading only your own response!!!! Is this stupid, or is there another explanation??
I am not one who gets an orgasm at seeing my "nom de plume" in print, nor do I have any desire to keep re reading my opinions.
If there are over 1000 registered, we appear to have a mealy ONE PERCENT as regular posters. Is it possible a poster can register with different identities?
I did have to agree the point had been reached whereby some posters had to be taken to task and reprimanded for their outright ridiculous postings, making no sense, and thoughtless. She was apparently successful in this area.
Now, is what is placed on site as being newsworthy remain open for "discussion," or does an opinion serve to "close" the topic at this time for a poster?
I would like this defined, so I know when I
must "move on" or "off."
There are times when one must "beg to differ."
Do we have that right-or does the publisher have the right to tell us to "SHUT UP?"
I do not agree with the foolishness demonstrated by some posters, but I disagree with her seeming right to be so dictatorial in the "open for discussion" area she so deftly ignored.
Did anyone else take not??
note
I think it is reasonable to call somebody when they are way off in right field, otherwise how are they ever going to know they are out in right field. That is how people become introspective and examine their thoughts and their way of thinking, and critique it against what other people feel and think. This is how we grow as people and as thinkers. I come from a family of scholars and I constantly examine my thoughts and views and ask myself, "Am I wrong to think this way or feel this way ?", "Am I seeing this clearly, or am I on the wrong track ?"
The key to being a great thinker is thinking.
The key to being a contributory thinker is self-examination, with an underlying theme of "I may be wrong about this".
Did I not say I agreed with her reprimanding some of the foolish posters?
I, unfortunately, am rather busy, and to constantly re examine my thoughts would call upon me to re examine my thoughts to bring to my attention I should re examine my thoughts, and, and, and!
Therefore, should I state I do not qualify as a "great thinker?"
Of course I am not the norm, as I do not utilize your underlying theme-as I prefer to say, "I feel I am right about this."
Does this mean I am not a contributory thinker?
Oh, heaven forbid!
I was giving benefit of experience, not orders.
Call yourself what you want, think what you want, that's called free will. If you don't want to grow your brain, that's your choice. Look around, if you aren't too absorbed in yourself, you might notice we're all busy, it's not just you running this world. What is your definition of a foolish poster ? Anybody but you ? Or anybody you disagree with ? Without re-thinking your thoughts, and without self-examination, you leave yourself susceptible to becoming the foolish poster that you speak of.

And clearly, I did not say anybody needed to be reprimanded for their thoughts, simply challenged on them. (I.E. This is your thesis, back it up, defend it. Make me believe it, make me see it your way, convince me. Otherwise, I'm going to disregard your opinion as unsubstantiated belief.)
Get it ?
Right on!
Some people need to keep growing their brains!
They need all the help they can get.
Of course I retain the right to ignore the scholarly opinion as perhaps being as unsubstantiated as my own.
I have never attempted to, as you put it, "run the world."
Foolish posters are ones who make absolutely idiotic remarks, such as the one who proclaimed he did so in an attempt to "make people laugh."
I appreciate others comments, as I feel many add to and increase my knowledge on numerous topics.
By the way-the expression is "off in left field." Sorry, not right!
Oh well, so much for being so learned!
At least you are still right, that's what counts.
BTW, did you forget to take your meds again today ?
I did not see where BTW posted today!!
I personally do not know who takes meds, and who does not! Seems a stupid question!
And I really do not care!
Did I miss something?
How scholarly does one have to be before it counts?