OTTAWA - A federal judge has ordered Canada's prison service to disclose the personal files of a teen inmate who killed herself.
Federal Court Justice Michael Kelen says the Correctional Service of Canada broke the law by failing to release Ashley's Smith's records while she was still alive.
Smith was 19 when she choked herself to death with a strip of cloth at the Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener, Ont., in October 2007.
Earlier that year she had requested access to her personal prison records and authorized their release to the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.
Smith had alleged poor treatment by the Correctional Service, including assault, lack of psychiatric care and frequent transfers between prisons and treatment facilities across Canada.
Prison ombudsman Howard Sapers, the correctional investigator, found she was moved 17 times in just 11 months. He harshly criticized the prison service for failing to give Smith proper care and protection.
In a ruling released Thursday, Kelen said the prison service breached the Privacy Act in not giving Smith her records, and that neither her death nor an RCMP investigation into the conduct of prison staff were valid reasons to withhold them from the Elizabeth Fry group.
In December, Sapers asked the Correctional Service to clearly spell out what it’s doing to help the mentally ill behind bars.
He said the number of inmate deaths by causes such as suicide, accident, homicide or overdose actually increased to 17 in 2008-09 from 10 the previous year.
Sapers said last year there was an "immediate and troubling" shortfall in mental health-care services for offenders — a problem that will only grow as more people are locked away.
Ten to 12 per cent of offenders entering the federal prison system have a significant mental problem.
Picture
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Popular Posts
-
The God Business: Church -Tax Exemption
-
Many world cities could face financial collapse in 2011
-
USA Oregon -doctors legally prescribe a life-ending drug
-
Design with No Designer?
-
How has information control evolved under Harper?
-
10 Best IT Practices for Smartphone Security
-
Nova Scotia Labour Standards
-
A case study on first nations poverty
-
Canada is the world’s most expensive country ..
-
Will we ever learn?
Canadian Censorship Defeated
OTTAWA - The Harper government deservedly lost an epic battle that pitted its (his) right to keep national-security secrets against Parliament's right to know. How dare he even try to take this fundamental right away from Canadians
The Speaker of the Commons ruled Tuesday that the government's refusal to hand over uncensored documents on Afghan detainees violates the privilege of the House.
Peter Milliken upheld the absolute right of Parliament to hold the government to account, saying: "The chair must conclude that it is within the powers of the House of Commons to ask for the documents ..."
He said the matter involves the "very foundations" of the parliamentary system.
Milliken has given the House and the government two weeks to find a compromise that would allow MPs to see the documents while protecting sensitive information.
If there's no agreement, he said, he will rule on a motion to deal with the matter. That could result in a vote to find the government, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, or others in contempt of Parliament.He is one brave man . will he keep his position I ask?
Nicholson, speaking for the government, said: "We welcome the possibility of a compromise while respecting our legal obligations."
Milliken noted that in other countries, they get around the national security issue by swearing in MPs who see sensitive material.
The documents at issue are believed to contain information related to the alleged torture of prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities by Canadian soldiers.
The three opposition parties banded together in December to demand the release of the uncensored documents. The government subsequently released several heavily censored collections of material, but they were greeted with scorn.
The justice minister has argued that Parliament has no authority to demand unfettered access to the documents.
Milliken has been a student of parliamentary procedure for years. He scoured rule books from Britain, Australia and other Westminster-style parliaments as he drafted his decision.
The Speaker of the Commons ruled Tuesday that the government's refusal to hand over uncensored documents on Afghan detainees violates the privilege of the House.
Peter Milliken upheld the absolute right of Parliament to hold the government to account, saying: "The chair must conclude that it is within the powers of the House of Commons to ask for the documents ..."
He said the matter involves the "very foundations" of the parliamentary system.
Milliken has given the House and the government two weeks to find a compromise that would allow MPs to see the documents while protecting sensitive information.
If there's no agreement, he said, he will rule on a motion to deal with the matter. That could result in a vote to find the government, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, or others in contempt of Parliament.He is one brave man . will he keep his position I ask?
Nicholson, speaking for the government, said: "We welcome the possibility of a compromise while respecting our legal obligations."
Milliken noted that in other countries, they get around the national security issue by swearing in MPs who see sensitive material.
The documents at issue are believed to contain information related to the alleged torture of prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities by Canadian soldiers.
The three opposition parties banded together in December to demand the release of the uncensored documents. The government subsequently released several heavily censored collections of material, but they were greeted with scorn.
The justice minister has argued that Parliament has no authority to demand unfettered access to the documents.
Milliken has been a student of parliamentary procedure for years. He scoured rule books from Britain, Australia and other Westminster-style parliaments as he drafted his decision.
Canadian Censorship
Last December, the House of Commons, where the Conservatives have a minority of members, ordered the government to turn over uncensored files on people detained by the military in Afghanistan. The government refused, citing national security. Is Harper Power mad?
What happens next depends on House of Commons speaker Peter Milliken, who is due to rule shortly on who has the right to control the documents. If he backs Parliament as he probably will and stick to the Motto "who want to make waves" and the government refuses to obey, the House could vote no-confidence in the government, and that would trigger an election that is if the liberals have the guts.
The government could also refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking it to judge who has priority, or it could set up a special commission.
Opposition legislators insist Parliament is supreme and say the government's behavior shows too much power is concentrated in the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who they portray as being obsessed with secrecy.
"It is one of the fundamental roles of the House of Commons to hold the government to account ... it is a basic tenet of our democracy," said Jack Harris, a member of the left-leaning New Democrats.
Government officials say Canada's relations with major allies could be seriously harmed if sensitive details leaked out from the documents.
"I would remind the House that our parliamentary privileges are not indefinite nor unlimited," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told legislators last month, saying governments in other nations with similar political systems had withheld documents on security grounds.
Polls show an election now would most likely produce another minority Conservative government, albeit with fewer seats than the party gained in the October 2008 vote.
This could temper the willingness of main opposition Liberal Party to push the matter too far. If the Liberals back down, however, they could find themselves under attack from critics for being weak.
Constitutional experts say Milliken's ruling could radically change the way Canada is ruled.
"The fundamental foundation of our parliamentary democracy is that the executive has to be accountable to the House of Commons. It cannot be accountable only to itself," University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp on Monday.
Milliken also could send the matter to a parliamentary committee and urge legislators from all sides to work it out themselves.
The opposition wants to see the documents because it suspects Ottawa knew that prisoners handed over by Canadian troops to Afghan authorities could be abused.
The government, which has released thousands of pages of often heavily censored material, last month asked retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to look at the documents and decide what can be released.
What happens next depends on House of Commons speaker Peter Milliken, who is due to rule shortly on who has the right to control the documents. If he backs Parliament as he probably will and stick to the Motto "who want to make waves" and the government refuses to obey, the House could vote no-confidence in the government, and that would trigger an election that is if the liberals have the guts.
The government could also refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking it to judge who has priority, or it could set up a special commission.
Opposition legislators insist Parliament is supreme and say the government's behavior shows too much power is concentrated in the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who they portray as being obsessed with secrecy.
"It is one of the fundamental roles of the House of Commons to hold the government to account ... it is a basic tenet of our democracy," said Jack Harris, a member of the left-leaning New Democrats.
Government officials say Canada's relations with major allies could be seriously harmed if sensitive details leaked out from the documents.
"I would remind the House that our parliamentary privileges are not indefinite nor unlimited," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told legislators last month, saying governments in other nations with similar political systems had withheld documents on security grounds.
Polls show an election now would most likely produce another minority Conservative government, albeit with fewer seats than the party gained in the October 2008 vote.
This could temper the willingness of main opposition Liberal Party to push the matter too far. If the Liberals back down, however, they could find themselves under attack from critics for being weak.
Constitutional experts say Milliken's ruling could radically change the way Canada is ruled.
"The fundamental foundation of our parliamentary democracy is that the executive has to be accountable to the House of Commons. It cannot be accountable only to itself," University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp on Monday.
Milliken also could send the matter to a parliamentary committee and urge legislators from all sides to work it out themselves.
The opposition wants to see the documents because it suspects Ottawa knew that prisoners handed over by Canadian troops to Afghan authorities could be abused.
The government, which has released thousands of pages of often heavily censored material, last month asked retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to look at the documents and decide what can be released.
Health - MSG
MSG (some call it a slow poison - article views are not those of the blogger)
The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) has been likened to a slow poison. MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavoring." MSG is even in your favorite coffee from Tim Horton's and Starbucks coffee shops!
I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research
assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada , and spent years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow Poisoning of America .
In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so scientists have to create them. They make these creatures morbidly obese by injecting them with MSG when they are first born.
The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing
rats(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the "MSG-Treated Rats."
When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked
the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the "healthy low-fat" ones..
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had something called "Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein," which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many different names in order to fool those who read the ingredient list, so that they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG are "Accent, "Aginomoto," "Natural Meat Tenderizer," etc.)
But it didn't stop there.
When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants
what menu items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.
Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even
the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili's, Applebee's, and Denny's -- use MSG
in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!
So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat?
Is it a preservative, or a vitamin?
Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning
of America , he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.
A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods
that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating more is a benefit to the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?
"Betcha can't eat [just] one," takes on a whole new meaning where MSG
is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!
MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes
people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an
addictive substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago,MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals,soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.
The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it's safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like
these:
"The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of
exercise in obesity." Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res
Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.
"Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats." Guimaraes RB,
Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull. 2002 AUG
'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously
hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors."
Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima.
Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.
"Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in
suckling period and subsequent development of obesity." Tanaka K, Shimada
M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.
No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the "medical research community" and "food manufacturers" have known about the side effects of MSG for decades.
Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer's.
So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this
fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity
epidemic we now see?
Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of
the highest government health officials in Canada . While he was sitting in the government office, the official told him, "Sure, I know how bad MSG is. I wouldn't touch the stuff."
But this top-level government official refuses to tell the public what he knows.
The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing issues
with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin.
The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it. Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.
But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice!
What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments
are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?
This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you
the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won't tell you.
The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this
drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone. With any
luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation
protecting those who are poisoning us.
The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on nicotine?
If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com. Type in the words "MSG/Obese" and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.
We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese,lethargic, addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line while waiting for the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation, blindness, or other obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.
With your help we can put an end to this poison.
Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by
distribution of this printout to your friends all over the world and stop
this "Slow Poisoning of Mankind" by the packaged food industry.
Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.
The blogger does not endorse this article in any way.
The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) has been likened to a slow poison. MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavoring." MSG is even in your favorite coffee from Tim Horton's and Starbucks coffee shops!
I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research
assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada , and spent years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow Poisoning of America .
In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so scientists have to create them. They make these creatures morbidly obese by injecting them with MSG when they are first born.
The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing
rats(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the "MSG-Treated Rats."
When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked
the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the "healthy low-fat" ones..
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had something called "Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein," which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many different names in order to fool those who read the ingredient list, so that they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG are "Accent, "Aginomoto," "Natural Meat Tenderizer," etc.)
But it didn't stop there.
When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants
what menu items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.
Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even
the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili's, Applebee's, and Denny's -- use MSG
in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!
So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat?
Is it a preservative, or a vitamin?
Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning
of America , he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.
A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods
that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating more is a benefit to the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?
"Betcha can't eat [just] one," takes on a whole new meaning where MSG
is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!
MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes
people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an
addictive substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago,MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals,soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.
The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it's safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like
these:
"The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of
exercise in obesity." Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res
Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.
"Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats." Guimaraes RB,
Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull. 2002 AUG
'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously
hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors."
Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima.
Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.
"Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in
suckling period and subsequent development of obesity." Tanaka K, Shimada
M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.
No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the "medical research community" and "food manufacturers" have known about the side effects of MSG for decades.
Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer's.
So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this
fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity
epidemic we now see?
Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of
the highest government health officials in Canada . While he was sitting in the government office, the official told him, "Sure, I know how bad MSG is. I wouldn't touch the stuff."
But this top-level government official refuses to tell the public what he knows.
The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing issues
with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin.
The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it. Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.
But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice!
What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments
are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?
This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you
the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won't tell you.
The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this
drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone. With any
luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation
protecting those who are poisoning us.
The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on nicotine?
If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com. Type in the words "MSG/Obese" and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.
We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese,lethargic, addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line while waiting for the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation, blindness, or other obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.
With your help we can put an end to this poison.
Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by
distribution of this printout to your friends all over the world and stop
this "Slow Poisoning of Mankind" by the packaged food industry.
Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.
The blogger does not endorse this article in any way.
Canada's Neglect
MONTREAL - The president of a major European water research institute says Canada's wasteful and polluting ways have set a bad example for the increasingly parched planet.
Riccardo Petrella says Canada's neglect of its vast freshwater resources has left the country rich in polluted water.
Petrella also fears Canada will cave to pressure from the United States and export its freshwater as a commodity.
He says all of this is happening while more than a billion people around the world still don't have safe drinking water.
Speaking in Montreal today Wednesday 21st April at the Millennium Summit on international development, Petrella said 2.6 billion don't even have access to a toilet.
But he says if world economies pooled together to invest $30 billion that would at least give those people access to public toilets.
Riccardo Petrella says Canada's neglect of its vast freshwater resources has left the country rich in polluted water.
Petrella also fears Canada will cave to pressure from the United States and export its freshwater as a commodity.
He says all of this is happening while more than a billion people around the world still don't have safe drinking water.
Speaking in Montreal today Wednesday 21st April at the Millennium Summit on international development, Petrella said 2.6 billion don't even have access to a toilet.
But he says if world economies pooled together to invest $30 billion that would at least give those people access to public toilets.
Obamas earned 5.5 million
WASHINGTON (AFP) - President Barack Obama and his wife have doubled their income since he took office, declaring a joint gross income of 5.5 million dollars for the 2009 fiscal year, the White House said Thursday.
The average annual household income in the United States was around 50,303 dollars in 2008, according to official figures.
Obama earned an annual salary as president of 374,460 dollars since his inauguration in January 2009, according to his tax filings released Thursday.
But most of his income came from his books, which have leaped to the top of the bestseller lists since he first started running for the White House.
In 2008, Obama and his wife, Michelle, declared a joint gross income of 2.65 million dollars, most of which also came from royalties on his books "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope."
According to his 2009 documents, the Obamas paid 1.79 million dollars in federal taxes and 163,303 dollars in state taxes to Illinois where the couple owns a home in Chicago.
April 15 is the date set by which all Americans and US residents must file their annual tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
Obama also received 1.4 million dollars last year when he won the Nobel Peace Prize, but he has donated his prize money among 10 charities, the White House said, and the sum is not part of the 5.5 million dollars declared income.
The couple also donated 329,100 dollars to 40 different charities in 2009, with the largest reported gifts being 50,000 dollars to CARE and the United Negro College Fund.
In 2007, the Obamas said they had earned 4.2 million dollars.
The first couple's filing contrasted strongly with the more meager tax returns of Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, who declared 333,182 dollars in joint income for 2009.
That was still an increase from 2008 when their joint income was 269,256 dollars. They also gave some 4,820 dollars to charity, or some 1.4 percent of their incomes, the White House said.
The average annual household income in the United States was around 50,303 dollars in 2008, according to official figures.
The average annual household income in the United States was around 50,303 dollars in 2008, according to official figures.
Obama earned an annual salary as president of 374,460 dollars since his inauguration in January 2009, according to his tax filings released Thursday.
But most of his income came from his books, which have leaped to the top of the bestseller lists since he first started running for the White House.
In 2008, Obama and his wife, Michelle, declared a joint gross income of 2.65 million dollars, most of which also came from royalties on his books "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope."
According to his 2009 documents, the Obamas paid 1.79 million dollars in federal taxes and 163,303 dollars in state taxes to Illinois where the couple owns a home in Chicago.
April 15 is the date set by which all Americans and US residents must file their annual tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.
Obama also received 1.4 million dollars last year when he won the Nobel Peace Prize, but he has donated his prize money among 10 charities, the White House said, and the sum is not part of the 5.5 million dollars declared income.
The couple also donated 329,100 dollars to 40 different charities in 2009, with the largest reported gifts being 50,000 dollars to CARE and the United Negro College Fund.
In 2007, the Obamas said they had earned 4.2 million dollars.
The first couple's filing contrasted strongly with the more meager tax returns of Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, who declared 333,182 dollars in joint income for 2009.
That was still an increase from 2008 when their joint income was 269,256 dollars. They also gave some 4,820 dollars to charity, or some 1.4 percent of their incomes, the White House said.
The average annual household income in the United States was around 50,303 dollars in 2008, according to official figures.
'Gasoline retailers are malicious chisellers'
Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement says that a small portion of Canada's gasoline retailers are malicious chisellers and the government is moving to protect consumers. At last one might add.
But representatives of the industry say their operators are being maligned and the minister's comments are both unfair and unfortunate. Like he is making it up..yes?
With gas pumps in the background at a gas equipment and supply company in suburban Port Coquitlam, B.C., Thursday, Clement announced legislation aimed at cracking down on gas station operators who overcharge customers.
Clement said government studies have found that six per cent of the time, pumps are not properly calibrated for the advertised price and most of the time - four per cent - it's the operator that benefits.
His Fairness at the Pumps Act will increase checks on the industry and hike the possible fines for violations.
"We expect this will reduce the amount of inaccuracy that is hitting consumers at the pumps," Clement told reporters Thursday.
The legislation wouldn't just cover gasoline, it's also aimed at measurements of dairy products, retail food, fishing, logging, grain and field crops and mining.
Jane Savage of the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association, which represents about 22 per cent of Canada's 12,600 operators, said even the name of the Act unfairly targets gas station owners.
"There is a sort of unfairness here in the tone of... Clement's comments, that this is all about unscrupulous and nasty gasoline retailers," she said.
Both Savage and Tony Marcerollo, vice-president of policy for the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, agreed that maintaining consumer confidence is the main issue.
Currently gas pumps are randomly checked, but under the proposed legislation there will be regular checks by trained and certified inspectors.
Clement said there's been a number of cases over the last few years where gas station owners have been charged where there was "malicious intent."
"I know it's a small percentage of gas station operators but to all those chisellers who might be listening in, we're coming after you," he said.
"We're going to be fining you, we're going to be inspecting you and we just will not tolerate this in our society."
But neither Savage nor Marcerollo could recall a prosecution of a gas station operator, and an official with Industry Canada could not provide the numbers Thursday.
Marcerollo called the minister's comments about chiselling unfortunate.
"Because if there is a problem, it's going to be a function of wear and tear of equipment, not malicious intent." Really?
In fact, Savage said it's very difficult for retailers to cheat because all inspections and calibrations are done by certified inspectors, not the retailers.
"This isn't a scenario where the gasoline retailer rolls out to his pump with a pipe wrench and does something to it. It can't be done. These are sophisticated electronic devices."
The Fairness at the Pumps Act would increase the current $1,000 fine for violations to $10,000 for a first offence and up to $50,000 for repeat offenders.
It would also mean the use of non-government inspectors, which amounts to deregulation, said New Democrat industry critic Brian Masse.
"They want to create a whole new bureaucratic system of inspectors," he said.
Masse said the government could do much of what it's proposing in the bill by simply changing regulations.
The Conservatives promised legislation during the 2008 election, after a newspaper report that looked at 200,000 inspections by Measurement Canada said three-quarters of the devices were shorting drivers.
But the legislation does not address gas prices, which has been the chief complaint among the public.
In my view that area will never be covered to the satisfaction of the gas payer...like George Oswell's Animal Farm with its civic address in Nova SCotia the rules are simply changed to leave the public in a continual fog.
But representatives of the industry say their operators are being maligned and the minister's comments are both unfair and unfortunate. Like he is making it up..yes?
With gas pumps in the background at a gas equipment and supply company in suburban Port Coquitlam, B.C., Thursday, Clement announced legislation aimed at cracking down on gas station operators who overcharge customers.
Clement said government studies have found that six per cent of the time, pumps are not properly calibrated for the advertised price and most of the time - four per cent - it's the operator that benefits.
His Fairness at the Pumps Act will increase checks on the industry and hike the possible fines for violations.
"We expect this will reduce the amount of inaccuracy that is hitting consumers at the pumps," Clement told reporters Thursday.
The legislation wouldn't just cover gasoline, it's also aimed at measurements of dairy products, retail food, fishing, logging, grain and field crops and mining.
Jane Savage of the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association, which represents about 22 per cent of Canada's 12,600 operators, said even the name of the Act unfairly targets gas station owners.
"There is a sort of unfairness here in the tone of... Clement's comments, that this is all about unscrupulous and nasty gasoline retailers," she said.
Both Savage and Tony Marcerollo, vice-president of policy for the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, agreed that maintaining consumer confidence is the main issue.
Currently gas pumps are randomly checked, but under the proposed legislation there will be regular checks by trained and certified inspectors.
Clement said there's been a number of cases over the last few years where gas station owners have been charged where there was "malicious intent."
"I know it's a small percentage of gas station operators but to all those chisellers who might be listening in, we're coming after you," he said.
"We're going to be fining you, we're going to be inspecting you and we just will not tolerate this in our society."
But neither Savage nor Marcerollo could recall a prosecution of a gas station operator, and an official with Industry Canada could not provide the numbers Thursday.
Marcerollo called the minister's comments about chiselling unfortunate.
"Because if there is a problem, it's going to be a function of wear and tear of equipment, not malicious intent." Really?
In fact, Savage said it's very difficult for retailers to cheat because all inspections and calibrations are done by certified inspectors, not the retailers.
"This isn't a scenario where the gasoline retailer rolls out to his pump with a pipe wrench and does something to it. It can't be done. These are sophisticated electronic devices."
The Fairness at the Pumps Act would increase the current $1,000 fine for violations to $10,000 for a first offence and up to $50,000 for repeat offenders.
It would also mean the use of non-government inspectors, which amounts to deregulation, said New Democrat industry critic Brian Masse.
"They want to create a whole new bureaucratic system of inspectors," he said.
Masse said the government could do much of what it's proposing in the bill by simply changing regulations.
The Conservatives promised legislation during the 2008 election, after a newspaper report that looked at 200,000 inspections by Measurement Canada said three-quarters of the devices were shorting drivers.
But the legislation does not address gas prices, which has been the chief complaint among the public.
In my view that area will never be covered to the satisfaction of the gas payer...like George Oswell's Animal Farm with its civic address in Nova SCotia the rules are simply changed to leave the public in a continual fog.
Unhappy Customers
Unhappy customers in Canada
Perhaps we do not realize being a happy shareholder also means being an unhappy customer. If it becomes harder to make a dollar for many businesses, things could get worse as businesses attempt to squeeze more out of customers while giving less- all in the name of meeting shareholder expectations.
What’s a poor customer to do?
1. Beware the problem industries. Gym memberships, gift cards, travel, extended warranties, gift cards and cell phone contracts all have specific sections of various consumer protection acts addressing these products or industries for a reason; there are many unscrupulous people in these industries- watch out. There are also industries which are unregulated or unlicensed that need to be licensed- home contractors comes to mind immediately. Be very cautious and detailed about dealing in these products or industries (if you are wondering about consumer protection and cell phones, the Province of Quebec’s revised Consumer Protection Act (Bill 60) prohibits punitive penalties from being charged for early termination of long term contracts. There’s a possible constitutional issue in that telecommunications are federally regulated and this provincial act may be challenged. However, if it survives a possible legal challenge- this could be a huge win for consumers if adopted by other jurisdictions).
2. Verbal Agreements mean nothing if you are dealing with big business. As Mike from Four Pillars found out, a verbal agreement with a cell phone provider is not worth very much. Run if someone says “trust me” (as I have written many times, someone who is trustworthy doesn’t say “trust me”). In the world of big business, rely on the paper which brings me to…
3. Read the fine print. If the salesperson will not let you read the fine print (a very common tactic in car dealerships), it is being done a reason. The fine print is not very favorable to you. If you don’t understand the fine print, ask. The larger the purchase, the more the salesperson should know the terms and conditions. If they try to blow you off pre-purchase, well…we know what post-purchase life will be like.
4. Do your research. Sounds simple but in an age of information over-load it is easy to gloss the details. This is the fundamental advantage of the internet. There’s always a fanatic who will review a product or service in-depth.
5. Do not allow yourself to be brow beat or bullied into a deal. The best answer a salesperson can get is “yes.” The next best answer is a “no”. The worst answer is “let me think about it.” Good salespeople understand this and will engage in a variety of tactics (create the illusion of scarcity of supply or time being a common one) to get to yes or no quickly. If you are buying something which you don’t need but want and you are feeling rushed into a decision, step back and sleep on it. Look at it this way, if the salesperson is rushing you to buy, what do you think the post purchase service will be like if they had so little time for you before you parted with your money?
I also pause twice when things are super cheap. In order to turn a profit on a super cheap product, the business has to either (i) make an inferior product which won’t last; or (ii) provide no after purchase service. This is how the cell phone business model works. They give you the phone for cheap or free and, in return, you are not supposed to bother them with problems (at least that’s how many customer service departments are built).
Finally, I am not very Obama-esque that government is the solution to consumer protection issues. Elections are not won or loss on consumer protection. The issue is that it is easy to pass laws for show but are there any resources to actually enforce them? For example, several years ago, many jurisdictions passed franchise protection laws. The problem is that there is no department of franchise protection and franchisee had to sue to enforce their rights. The practical issue is that most franchisees who have been victims of sharp business practices of franchisor’s have no money to hire a lawyer.
Thus, don’t rely on anyone to protect your rights other than yourself.
Legal disclaimer: This personal blog is for informational purposes only and nothing discussed or written on this site should be considered to be financial, legal or accounting advice of any kind whatsoever. Please speak to a qualified professional before taking any actions.
Perhaps we do not realize being a happy shareholder also means being an unhappy customer. If it becomes harder to make a dollar for many businesses, things could get worse as businesses attempt to squeeze more out of customers while giving less- all in the name of meeting shareholder expectations.
What’s a poor customer to do?
1. Beware the problem industries. Gym memberships, gift cards, travel, extended warranties, gift cards and cell phone contracts all have specific sections of various consumer protection acts addressing these products or industries for a reason; there are many unscrupulous people in these industries- watch out. There are also industries which are unregulated or unlicensed that need to be licensed- home contractors comes to mind immediately. Be very cautious and detailed about dealing in these products or industries (if you are wondering about consumer protection and cell phones, the Province of Quebec’s revised Consumer Protection Act (Bill 60) prohibits punitive penalties from being charged for early termination of long term contracts. There’s a possible constitutional issue in that telecommunications are federally regulated and this provincial act may be challenged. However, if it survives a possible legal challenge- this could be a huge win for consumers if adopted by other jurisdictions).
2. Verbal Agreements mean nothing if you are dealing with big business. As Mike from Four Pillars found out, a verbal agreement with a cell phone provider is not worth very much. Run if someone says “trust me” (as I have written many times, someone who is trustworthy doesn’t say “trust me”). In the world of big business, rely on the paper which brings me to…
3. Read the fine print. If the salesperson will not let you read the fine print (a very common tactic in car dealerships), it is being done a reason. The fine print is not very favorable to you. If you don’t understand the fine print, ask. The larger the purchase, the more the salesperson should know the terms and conditions. If they try to blow you off pre-purchase, well…we know what post-purchase life will be like.
4. Do your research. Sounds simple but in an age of information over-load it is easy to gloss the details. This is the fundamental advantage of the internet. There’s always a fanatic who will review a product or service in-depth.
5. Do not allow yourself to be brow beat or bullied into a deal. The best answer a salesperson can get is “yes.” The next best answer is a “no”. The worst answer is “let me think about it.” Good salespeople understand this and will engage in a variety of tactics (create the illusion of scarcity of supply or time being a common one) to get to yes or no quickly. If you are buying something which you don’t need but want and you are feeling rushed into a decision, step back and sleep on it. Look at it this way, if the salesperson is rushing you to buy, what do you think the post purchase service will be like if they had so little time for you before you parted with your money?
I also pause twice when things are super cheap. In order to turn a profit on a super cheap product, the business has to either (i) make an inferior product which won’t last; or (ii) provide no after purchase service. This is how the cell phone business model works. They give you the phone for cheap or free and, in return, you are not supposed to bother them with problems (at least that’s how many customer service departments are built).
Finally, I am not very Obama-esque that government is the solution to consumer protection issues. Elections are not won or loss on consumer protection. The issue is that it is easy to pass laws for show but are there any resources to actually enforce them? For example, several years ago, many jurisdictions passed franchise protection laws. The problem is that there is no department of franchise protection and franchisee had to sue to enforce their rights. The practical issue is that most franchisees who have been victims of sharp business practices of franchisor’s have no money to hire a lawyer.
Thus, don’t rely on anyone to protect your rights other than yourself.
Legal disclaimer: This personal blog is for informational purposes only and nothing discussed or written on this site should be considered to be financial, legal or accounting advice of any kind whatsoever. Please speak to a qualified professional before taking any actions.
Vitamin Truths and Lies
5 Vitamin Truths and Lies
Once upon a time, perhaps you believed in the tooth fairy. You counted on the stability of housing prices and depended on bankers to be, well, dependable. And you figured that taking vitamins was good for you. Oh, it's painful when another myth gets shattered. Recent research suggests that a daily multi is a waste of money for most people—and there's growing evidence that some other old standbys may even hurt your health. Here's what you need to know. Make you own mind - GET MORE FACTS of your own
My Personal Comments
Hurray for an article that begins to unravel the hood-winking of the public. God made our bodies to need FOOD. Vitamins came FROM fruits and Vegetables! We need MORE of them not just a PART of them! I want all the 1,000s of phyto nutrients and vitamins working IN my body in synergy...the ONLY way to get that is through whole food or a whole food supplement...juiced and dried in concentrated form! Fearfully and WONDERFULLY made...and the perfect food created for our wonderful amazing bodies!
For more information on Vitamins go here...
and here for Mineral supplements ...
and finally here for a video explanation
Myth: A multivitamin can make up for a bad diet:
An insurance policy in a pill? If only it were so.
Last year, researchers published new findings from the Women's Health Initiative, a long-term study of more than 160,000 midlife women. The data showed that multivitamin-takers are no healthier than those who don't pop the pills, at least when it comes to the big diseases—cancer, heart disease, stroke. "Even women with poor diets weren't helped by taking a multivitamin," says study author Marian Neuhouser, PhD, in the cancer prevention program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle.
Vitamin supplements came into vogue in the early 1900s, when it was difficult or impossible for most people to get a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables year-round. Back then, vitamin-deficiency diseases weren't unheard-of: the bowed legs and deformed ribs of rickets (caused by a severe shortage of vitamin D) or the skin problems and mental confusion of pellagra (caused by a lack of the B vitamin niacin). But these days, you're extremely unlikely to be seriously deficient if you eat an average American diet, if only because many packaged foods are vitamin-enriched. Sure, most of us could do with a couple more daily servings of produce, but a multi doesn't do a good job at substituting for those. "Multivitamins have maybe two dozen ingredients—but plants have hundreds of other useful compounds," Neuhouser says. "If you just take a multivitamin, you're missing lots of compounds that may be providing benefits."
That said, there is one group that probably ought to keep taking a multi-vitamin: women of reproductive age. The supplement is insurance in case of pregnancy. A woman who gets adequate amounts of the B vitamin folate is much less likely to have a baby with a birth defect affecting the spinal cord. Since the spinal cord starts to develop extremely early—before a woman may know she's pregnant—the safest course is for her to take 400 micrograms of folic acid (the synthetic form of folate) daily. And a multi is an easy way to get it.
Myth: Vitamin C is a cold fighter
In the 1970s, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling popularized the idea that vitamin C could prevent colds. Today, drugstores are full of vitamin C–based remedies.
Studies say: Buyer, beware.
In 2007, researchers analyzed a raft of studies going back several decades and involving more than 11,000 subjects to arrive at a disappointing conclusion: Vitamin C didn't ward off colds, except among marathoners, skiers, and soldiers on subarctic exercises.
Of course, prevention isn't the only game in town. Can the vitamin cut the length of colds? Yes and no. Taking the vitamin daily does seem to reduce the time you'll spend sniffling—but not enough to notice. Adults typically have cold symptoms for 12 days a year; a daily pill could cut that to 11 days. Kids might go from 28 days of runny noses to 24 per year. The researchers conclude that minor reductions like these don't justify the expense and bother of year-round pill-popping (taking C only after symptoms crop up doesn't help).
Myth: Vitamin pills can prevent heart disease
Talk about exciting ideas—the notion that vitamin supplements might help lower the toll of some of our most damaging chronic diseases turned a sleepy area of research into a sizzling-hot one. These high hopes came in part from the observation that vitamin-takers were less likely to develop heart disease. Even at the time, researchers knew the finding might just reflect what's called the healthy user effect—meaning that vitamin devotees are more likely to exercise, eat right, and resist the temptations of tobacco and other bad habits. But it was also possible that antioxidant vitamins like C, E, and beta-carotene could prevent heart disease by reducing the buildup of artery-clogging plaque. B vitamins were promising, too, because folate, B6, and B12 help break down the amino acid homocysteine—and high levels of homocysteine have been linked to heart disease.
Unfortunately, none of those hopes have panned out.
An analysis of seven vitamin E trials concluded that it didn't cut the risk of stroke or of death from heart disease. The study also scrutinized eight beta-carotene studies and determined that, rather than prevent heart disease, those supplements produced a slight increase in the risk of death. Other big studies have shown vitamin C failing to deliver. As for B vitamins, research shows that yes, these do cut homocysteine levels …but no, that doesn't make a dent in heart danger.
Don't take these pills, the American Heart Association says. Instead, the AHA offers some familiar advice: Eat a varied diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
Myth: Taking vitamins can protect against cancer
Researchers know that unstable molecules called free radicals can damage your cells' DNA, upping the risk of cancer. They also know that antioxidants can stabilize free radicals, theoretically making them much less dangerous. So why not take some extra antioxidants to protect yourself against cancer? Because research so far has shown no good comes from popping such pills.
A number of studies have tried and failed to find a benefit, like a recent one that randomly assigned 5,442 women to take either a placebo or a B-vitamin combo. Over the course of more than seven years, all the women experienced similar rates of cancers and cancer deaths. In Neuhouser's enormous multivitamin study, that pill didn't offer any protection against cancer either. Nor did C, E, or beta-carotene in research done at Harvard Medical School.
Myth: Hey, it can't hurt
The old thinking went something like this—sure, vitamin pills might not help you, but they can't hurt either. However, a series of large-scale studies has turned this thinking on its head, says Demetrius Albanes, MD, a nutritional epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute.
The shift started with a big study of beta-carotene pills. It was meant to test whether the antioxidant could prevent lung cancer, but researchers instead detected surprising increases in lung cancer and deaths among male smokers who took the supplement. No one knew what to make of the result at first, but further studies have shown it wasn't a fluke—there's a real possibility that in some circumstances, antioxidant pills could actually promote cancer (in women as well as in men). Other studies have raised concerns that taking high doses of folic acid could raise the risk of colon cancer. Still others suggest a connection between high doses of some vitamins and heart disease.
Vitamins are safe when you get them in food, but in pill form, they can act more like a drug, Albanes says—with the potential for unexpected and sometimes dangerous effects.
Truth: A pill that's worth taking
As studies have eroded the hopes placed in most vitamin supplements, one pill is looking better and better. Research suggests that vitamin D protects against a long list of ills: Men with adequate levels of D have about half the risk of heart attack as men who are deficient. And getting enough D appears to lower the risk of at least half a dozen cancers; indeed, epidemiologist Cedric Garland, MD, at the University of California, San Diego, believes that if Americans got sufficient amounts of vitamin D, 50,000 cases of colorectal cancer could be prevented each year.
But many—perhaps fall short, according to research by epidemiologist Adit Ginde, MD, at the University of Colorado, Denver. Vitamin D is the sunshine vitamin: You make it when sunlight hits your skin. Yet thanks to sunscreen and workaholic (or TV-aholic) habits, most people don't make enough.
How much do you need? The Institute of Medicine is reassessing that right now; most experts expect a big boost from the current levels (200 to 600 IU daily). It's safe to take 1,000 IU per day, says Ginde. "We think most people need at least that much."
So here's the Reader's Digest Version of the truth about vitamins: Eat right, and supplement with vitamin D. That's a no-brainer coupled with a great bet—and that's no lie.
From April 2010 Readers Digest
Once upon a time, perhaps you believed in the tooth fairy. You counted on the stability of housing prices and depended on bankers to be, well, dependable. And you figured that taking vitamins was good for you. Oh, it's painful when another myth gets shattered. Recent research suggests that a daily multi is a waste of money for most people—and there's growing evidence that some other old standbys may even hurt your health. Here's what you need to know. Make you own mind - GET MORE FACTS of your own
My Personal Comments
Hurray for an article that begins to unravel the hood-winking of the public. God made our bodies to need FOOD. Vitamins came FROM fruits and Vegetables! We need MORE of them not just a PART of them! I want all the 1,000s of phyto nutrients and vitamins working IN my body in synergy...the ONLY way to get that is through whole food or a whole food supplement...juiced and dried in concentrated form! Fearfully and WONDERFULLY made...and the perfect food created for our wonderful amazing bodies!
For more information on Vitamins go here...
and here for Mineral supplements ...
and finally here for a video explanation
Myth: A multivitamin can make up for a bad diet:
An insurance policy in a pill? If only it were so.
Last year, researchers published new findings from the Women's Health Initiative, a long-term study of more than 160,000 midlife women. The data showed that multivitamin-takers are no healthier than those who don't pop the pills, at least when it comes to the big diseases—cancer, heart disease, stroke. "Even women with poor diets weren't helped by taking a multivitamin," says study author Marian Neuhouser, PhD, in the cancer prevention program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle.
Vitamin supplements came into vogue in the early 1900s, when it was difficult or impossible for most people to get a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables year-round. Back then, vitamin-deficiency diseases weren't unheard-of: the bowed legs and deformed ribs of rickets (caused by a severe shortage of vitamin D) or the skin problems and mental confusion of pellagra (caused by a lack of the B vitamin niacin). But these days, you're extremely unlikely to be seriously deficient if you eat an average American diet, if only because many packaged foods are vitamin-enriched. Sure, most of us could do with a couple more daily servings of produce, but a multi doesn't do a good job at substituting for those. "Multivitamins have maybe two dozen ingredients—but plants have hundreds of other useful compounds," Neuhouser says. "If you just take a multivitamin, you're missing lots of compounds that may be providing benefits."
That said, there is one group that probably ought to keep taking a multi-vitamin: women of reproductive age. The supplement is insurance in case of pregnancy. A woman who gets adequate amounts of the B vitamin folate is much less likely to have a baby with a birth defect affecting the spinal cord. Since the spinal cord starts to develop extremely early—before a woman may know she's pregnant—the safest course is for her to take 400 micrograms of folic acid (the synthetic form of folate) daily. And a multi is an easy way to get it.
Myth: Vitamin C is a cold fighter
In the 1970s, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling popularized the idea that vitamin C could prevent colds. Today, drugstores are full of vitamin C–based remedies.
Studies say: Buyer, beware.
In 2007, researchers analyzed a raft of studies going back several decades and involving more than 11,000 subjects to arrive at a disappointing conclusion: Vitamin C didn't ward off colds, except among marathoners, skiers, and soldiers on subarctic exercises.
Of course, prevention isn't the only game in town. Can the vitamin cut the length of colds? Yes and no. Taking the vitamin daily does seem to reduce the time you'll spend sniffling—but not enough to notice. Adults typically have cold symptoms for 12 days a year; a daily pill could cut that to 11 days. Kids might go from 28 days of runny noses to 24 per year. The researchers conclude that minor reductions like these don't justify the expense and bother of year-round pill-popping (taking C only after symptoms crop up doesn't help).
Myth: Vitamin pills can prevent heart disease
Talk about exciting ideas—the notion that vitamin supplements might help lower the toll of some of our most damaging chronic diseases turned a sleepy area of research into a sizzling-hot one. These high hopes came in part from the observation that vitamin-takers were less likely to develop heart disease. Even at the time, researchers knew the finding might just reflect what's called the healthy user effect—meaning that vitamin devotees are more likely to exercise, eat right, and resist the temptations of tobacco and other bad habits. But it was also possible that antioxidant vitamins like C, E, and beta-carotene could prevent heart disease by reducing the buildup of artery-clogging plaque. B vitamins were promising, too, because folate, B6, and B12 help break down the amino acid homocysteine—and high levels of homocysteine have been linked to heart disease.
Unfortunately, none of those hopes have panned out.
An analysis of seven vitamin E trials concluded that it didn't cut the risk of stroke or of death from heart disease. The study also scrutinized eight beta-carotene studies and determined that, rather than prevent heart disease, those supplements produced a slight increase in the risk of death. Other big studies have shown vitamin C failing to deliver. As for B vitamins, research shows that yes, these do cut homocysteine levels …but no, that doesn't make a dent in heart danger.
Don't take these pills, the American Heart Association says. Instead, the AHA offers some familiar advice: Eat a varied diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
Myth: Taking vitamins can protect against cancer
Researchers know that unstable molecules called free radicals can damage your cells' DNA, upping the risk of cancer. They also know that antioxidants can stabilize free radicals, theoretically making them much less dangerous. So why not take some extra antioxidants to protect yourself against cancer? Because research so far has shown no good comes from popping such pills.
A number of studies have tried and failed to find a benefit, like a recent one that randomly assigned 5,442 women to take either a placebo or a B-vitamin combo. Over the course of more than seven years, all the women experienced similar rates of cancers and cancer deaths. In Neuhouser's enormous multivitamin study, that pill didn't offer any protection against cancer either. Nor did C, E, or beta-carotene in research done at Harvard Medical School.
Myth: Hey, it can't hurt
The old thinking went something like this—sure, vitamin pills might not help you, but they can't hurt either. However, a series of large-scale studies has turned this thinking on its head, says Demetrius Albanes, MD, a nutritional epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute.
The shift started with a big study of beta-carotene pills. It was meant to test whether the antioxidant could prevent lung cancer, but researchers instead detected surprising increases in lung cancer and deaths among male smokers who took the supplement. No one knew what to make of the result at first, but further studies have shown it wasn't a fluke—there's a real possibility that in some circumstances, antioxidant pills could actually promote cancer (in women as well as in men). Other studies have raised concerns that taking high doses of folic acid could raise the risk of colon cancer. Still others suggest a connection between high doses of some vitamins and heart disease.
Vitamins are safe when you get them in food, but in pill form, they can act more like a drug, Albanes says—with the potential for unexpected and sometimes dangerous effects.
Truth: A pill that's worth taking
As studies have eroded the hopes placed in most vitamin supplements, one pill is looking better and better. Research suggests that vitamin D protects against a long list of ills: Men with adequate levels of D have about half the risk of heart attack as men who are deficient. And getting enough D appears to lower the risk of at least half a dozen cancers; indeed, epidemiologist Cedric Garland, MD, at the University of California, San Diego, believes that if Americans got sufficient amounts of vitamin D, 50,000 cases of colorectal cancer could be prevented each year.
But many—perhaps fall short, according to research by epidemiologist Adit Ginde, MD, at the University of Colorado, Denver. Vitamin D is the sunshine vitamin: You make it when sunlight hits your skin. Yet thanks to sunscreen and workaholic (or TV-aholic) habits, most people don't make enough.
How much do you need? The Institute of Medicine is reassessing that right now; most experts expect a big boost from the current levels (200 to 600 IU daily). It's safe to take 1,000 IU per day, says Ginde. "We think most people need at least that much."
So here's the Reader's Digest Version of the truth about vitamins: Eat right, and supplement with vitamin D. That's a no-brainer coupled with a great bet—and that's no lie.
From April 2010 Readers Digest
Canada Real Estate Association
'Threatening to ban brokers"
TORONTO - The federal competition watchdog accused Canada's real estate industry Friday of threatening to ban brokers who attempt to offer a range of services from using its popular Multiple Listing Service.
The Competition Bureau's allegations came in its latest reply as part of its ongoing case against the Canadian Real Estate Association, the group that represents some 98,000 Canadian real estate brokers.
"In cases where small-scale entry by alternative business models has occurred, CREA and its members have disciplined such entrants, exploiting the barriers CREA has erected through its rule-making and rule-enforcing powers," it said.
Unless CREA and its members are restrained by an order from the Competition Tribunal, the bureau says they "will continue to have the incentive, the opportunity and the ability to enact and enforce MLS restrictions that prevent or will likely prevent competition substantially."
The bureau has said that loosening restrictions on the MLS, where 90 per cent of Canadian homes are sold, could allow homesellers to use a realtor to post their home for a flat fee and then conduct the rest of the sale themselves.
The Competition Bureau filed an application with the Competition Tribunal in February seeking to strike down CREA's rules governing its MLS because they deter realtors from offering flexible services that would make it cheaper for Canadians to sell their homes.
CREA has repeatedly denied the bureau's accusations that consumers must purchase a bundle of services from realtors in order to sell their house on the MLS.
The bureau says CREA has maintained unfair market dominance in requiring its 100 member boards and associations to comply with their rules and by disciplining members seeking to provide an alternative.
"CREA and its members deny choice to consumers in one of the most significant transactions they will undertake in their lifetime. Consumers cannot pursue an alternative because one is not generally available."
A CREA spokesman said Friday they had just received the reply and had not yet had time to review it.
In an earlier response to the accusations, the association said the allegations levelled against it by the Competition Bureau were "fundamentally misconceived."
The association said realtors already offer a wide range of business models, including discounted services, fee-for-service, and flat-fee arrangements that cost as little as $109 or less.
The Competition Bureau rejected changes made by CREA last month to clarify its rules, saying the changes don't guarantee more choice for consumers.
The bureau said in its reply Friday that those amendments to the MLS rules extend CREA's control over realtors and the rules are intended to maintain command over real estate services offered in Canada.
TORONTO - The federal competition watchdog accused Canada's real estate industry Friday of threatening to ban brokers who attempt to offer a range of services from using its popular Multiple Listing Service.
The Competition Bureau's allegations came in its latest reply as part of its ongoing case against the Canadian Real Estate Association, the group that represents some 98,000 Canadian real estate brokers.
"In cases where small-scale entry by alternative business models has occurred, CREA and its members have disciplined such entrants, exploiting the barriers CREA has erected through its rule-making and rule-enforcing powers," it said.
Unless CREA and its members are restrained by an order from the Competition Tribunal, the bureau says they "will continue to have the incentive, the opportunity and the ability to enact and enforce MLS restrictions that prevent or will likely prevent competition substantially."
The bureau has said that loosening restrictions on the MLS, where 90 per cent of Canadian homes are sold, could allow homesellers to use a realtor to post their home for a flat fee and then conduct the rest of the sale themselves.
The Competition Bureau filed an application with the Competition Tribunal in February seeking to strike down CREA's rules governing its MLS because they deter realtors from offering flexible services that would make it cheaper for Canadians to sell their homes.
CREA has repeatedly denied the bureau's accusations that consumers must purchase a bundle of services from realtors in order to sell their house on the MLS.
The bureau says CREA has maintained unfair market dominance in requiring its 100 member boards and associations to comply with their rules and by disciplining members seeking to provide an alternative.
"CREA and its members deny choice to consumers in one of the most significant transactions they will undertake in their lifetime. Consumers cannot pursue an alternative because one is not generally available."
A CREA spokesman said Friday they had just received the reply and had not yet had time to review it.
In an earlier response to the accusations, the association said the allegations levelled against it by the Competition Bureau were "fundamentally misconceived."
The association said realtors already offer a wide range of business models, including discounted services, fee-for-service, and flat-fee arrangements that cost as little as $109 or less.
The Competition Bureau rejected changes made by CREA last month to clarify its rules, saying the changes don't guarantee more choice for consumers.
The bureau said in its reply Friday that those amendments to the MLS rules extend CREA's control over realtors and the rules are intended to maintain command over real estate services offered in Canada.
More -Income disparity
Income disparity between aboriginal people and other Canadians is decreasing but remains "significant and troubling" and will continue for decades without government support, a new study suggests.
ADVERTISEMENT
Without government support, it will take 63 years for the income gap between First Nations, Métis and Inuit and their non-aboriginal counterparts to disappear, says the non-partisan research institute Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which did the study.
The findings are based on the median incomes of aboriginal people found in census data going back to 1996.
In 1996, the median income of aboriginal Canadians was $12,003 $9,428 lower than the median income of other Canadians. Five years later, the median aboriginal income had grown to $16,036, but was still $9,045 behind that of other Canadians.
By 2006, the gap had narrowed to $8,135, when the median income of aboriginal Canadians was $18,962.
Aboriginal people tend to make less regardless of sex, location or education level with one major exception, the study found: the 14 per cent of aboriginal women with at least an undergraduate degree tend to earn $2,471 more than non-aboriginal women with the same education level.
The report calls this discrepancy "a phenomenon," but one that gives "reason for hope," said Dan Wilson, who co-wrote the report.
The report acknowledges "that educational attainment among aboriginal people lags well behind averages for the Canadian population as a whole" and that non-aboriginal Canadians "are still far more likely to complete high school and to get a university degree" than aboriginal Canadians.
In 2006, eight per cent of aboriginal men and 14 per cent of aboriginal women had earned a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 25 per cent of non-aboriginal men and 28 per cent of non-aboriginal women.
"But you shouldn't need to simply be a BA holder or a master's holder before you can get comparable income," Wilson said.
"While education is a driver for income levels in all groups, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, no community is made up entirely of university degree-holders, nor should they be expected to be."
Instead, "there must be jobs available across sectors, pay levels must be roughly equivalent and workforce entrants must be greeted without bias and suspicion," the report said.
The Conservatives are "already engaging in a new approach to providing support for First Nations and Inuit post-secondary experience," according to Margot Geduld, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs.
In 2008-2009, the government spent $300 million on post-secondary education for an estimated 22,000 First Nations students, Geduld said, with further funding set aside in the 2010 budget.
But the report suggests that's not enough.
To erase the gap, the government should abandon its "traditional colonial style" of imposing "ideas that worked for the dominant culture," the report said, in favour of allowing communities to develop their own educational and training strategies.
It will also require a major shift away from what the report calls "the colonial administration of aboriginal communities" by the Canadian government.
Geduld said the ministry is reviewing the report.
ADVERTISEMENT
Without government support, it will take 63 years for the income gap between First Nations, Métis and Inuit and their non-aboriginal counterparts to disappear, says the non-partisan research institute Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which did the study.
The findings are based on the median incomes of aboriginal people found in census data going back to 1996.
In 1996, the median income of aboriginal Canadians was $12,003 $9,428 lower than the median income of other Canadians. Five years later, the median aboriginal income had grown to $16,036, but was still $9,045 behind that of other Canadians.
By 2006, the gap had narrowed to $8,135, when the median income of aboriginal Canadians was $18,962.
Aboriginal people tend to make less regardless of sex, location or education level with one major exception, the study found: the 14 per cent of aboriginal women with at least an undergraduate degree tend to earn $2,471 more than non-aboriginal women with the same education level.
The report calls this discrepancy "a phenomenon," but one that gives "reason for hope," said Dan Wilson, who co-wrote the report.
The report acknowledges "that educational attainment among aboriginal people lags well behind averages for the Canadian population as a whole" and that non-aboriginal Canadians "are still far more likely to complete high school and to get a university degree" than aboriginal Canadians.
In 2006, eight per cent of aboriginal men and 14 per cent of aboriginal women had earned a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 25 per cent of non-aboriginal men and 28 per cent of non-aboriginal women.
"But you shouldn't need to simply be a BA holder or a master's holder before you can get comparable income," Wilson said.
"While education is a driver for income levels in all groups, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, no community is made up entirely of university degree-holders, nor should they be expected to be."
Instead, "there must be jobs available across sectors, pay levels must be roughly equivalent and workforce entrants must be greeted without bias and suspicion," the report said.
The Conservatives are "already engaging in a new approach to providing support for First Nations and Inuit post-secondary experience," according to Margot Geduld, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs.
In 2008-2009, the government spent $300 million on post-secondary education for an estimated 22,000 First Nations students, Geduld said, with further funding set aside in the 2010 budget.
But the report suggests that's not enough.
To erase the gap, the government should abandon its "traditional colonial style" of imposing "ideas that worked for the dominant culture," the report said, in favour of allowing communities to develop their own educational and training strategies.
It will also require a major shift away from what the report calls "the colonial administration of aboriginal communities" by the Canadian government.
Geduld said the ministry is reviewing the report.
Wow that's the good life - Mr. Harper
OTTAWA - The gold-plated pension fund for members of Parliament rose by 10 per cent during the global recession - thanks to Canadian taxpayers, whose own pension funds and retirement savings nosedived.
A new report shows the half-billion-dollar pension fund for MPs and senators jumped in value by $53.8 million in 2008-09.
Over the same period, private pension plans in Canada lost an average of 21 per cent of their value, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Even the Canada Pension Plan reported a 14 per cent hit, losing $17.2 billion.
Yet the parliamentary plan was immune to the market meltdown that decimated millions of Canadians' retirement nest eggs. That's because its interest rate is set by regulation and backed by ordinary taxpayers.
The fund is not invested in the markets. Indeed, there is no actual money in the fund. It's strictly a paper account, for which taxpayers are on the hook when the bill eventually comes due.
"It's all got to be backed by the taxpayers," says Bill Robson, president of the C.D. Howe Institute.
"Not a dollar of real cash has gone into these plans so when the time comes to pay the pensions, all of this money is going to have to be raised either by real borrowing - like actually floating bonds that people pay cash to invest in - or through taxes."
The annual fund report to Parliament for 2008-09, tabled recently, underscores just how "mind-bogglingly generous" the parliamentary pension plan is, Robson adds.
He points out that ordinary taxpayers are limited by law to contributing up to 18 per cent of their annual income to registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) or private pension plans.
Federal public servants enjoy pension benefits that amount to about a third of their income, through a so-called defined-benefit plan that Robson has criticized for being too generous and unaffordable.
But MPs and senators do considerably better than that, with pension benefits worth about half their income - and indexed to inflation.
"The rulers have a very generous pension compared to what they allow the ruled to have," Robson says.
"That's monumentally unfair. I can't think of any justification for it."
Kevin Gaudet, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says there's a "Niagara Falls of a chasm" between the private and parliamentary pension plans.
The parliamentary pension report comes as Canadians are being warned of a looming pension crisis, in which they're going to have to work longer and save more to retire with even a modest income.
Gaudet doubts many Canadians are aware that "not only do they not have enough of their own money saved but they're also paying through the nose in their taxes so that they can feather the retirement beds of public sector employees and politicians.
"I think they ought to be mad. It's a huge discrepancy."
The taxpayers' federation calculates that after serving only six years, an MP is entitled to an annual pension of $27,000. Long-serving MPs can collect more than $100,000 a year.
Having just completed his fourth year as prime minister, Stephen Harper is now eligible to collect a special retirement allowance once he turns 65 - on top of his MP's pension, which he can begin collecting at 55.
By Gaudet's calculation, that means Harper will eventually collect an annual pension and allowance worth at least $178,000.
"Wow, that's the good life."
A new report shows the half-billion-dollar pension fund for MPs and senators jumped in value by $53.8 million in 2008-09.
Over the same period, private pension plans in Canada lost an average of 21 per cent of their value, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Even the Canada Pension Plan reported a 14 per cent hit, losing $17.2 billion.
Yet the parliamentary plan was immune to the market meltdown that decimated millions of Canadians' retirement nest eggs. That's because its interest rate is set by regulation and backed by ordinary taxpayers.
The fund is not invested in the markets. Indeed, there is no actual money in the fund. It's strictly a paper account, for which taxpayers are on the hook when the bill eventually comes due.
"It's all got to be backed by the taxpayers," says Bill Robson, president of the C.D. Howe Institute.
"Not a dollar of real cash has gone into these plans so when the time comes to pay the pensions, all of this money is going to have to be raised either by real borrowing - like actually floating bonds that people pay cash to invest in - or through taxes."
The annual fund report to Parliament for 2008-09, tabled recently, underscores just how "mind-bogglingly generous" the parliamentary pension plan is, Robson adds.
He points out that ordinary taxpayers are limited by law to contributing up to 18 per cent of their annual income to registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) or private pension plans.
Federal public servants enjoy pension benefits that amount to about a third of their income, through a so-called defined-benefit plan that Robson has criticized for being too generous and unaffordable.
But MPs and senators do considerably better than that, with pension benefits worth about half their income - and indexed to inflation.
"The rulers have a very generous pension compared to what they allow the ruled to have," Robson says.
"That's monumentally unfair. I can't think of any justification for it."
Kevin Gaudet, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says there's a "Niagara Falls of a chasm" between the private and parliamentary pension plans.
The parliamentary pension report comes as Canadians are being warned of a looming pension crisis, in which they're going to have to work longer and save more to retire with even a modest income.
Gaudet doubts many Canadians are aware that "not only do they not have enough of their own money saved but they're also paying through the nose in their taxes so that they can feather the retirement beds of public sector employees and politicians.
"I think they ought to be mad. It's a huge discrepancy."
The taxpayers' federation calculates that after serving only six years, an MP is entitled to an annual pension of $27,000. Long-serving MPs can collect more than $100,000 a year.
Having just completed his fourth year as prime minister, Stephen Harper is now eligible to collect a special retirement allowance once he turns 65 - on top of his MP's pension, which he can begin collecting at 55.
By Gaudet's calculation, that means Harper will eventually collect an annual pension and allowance worth at least $178,000.
"Wow, that's the good life."
MLA 'Bandits'
UPDATE - NO FRAUD SQUAD ..MLA all go go free
UPDATE April 7th 2010 - Few pay back .. Just what is going on? ..
1-800-222-8477 - CRIME STOPPERS - Have you got information to help them?
We have all heard the current MLA's silly, but alas all to common defensive excuses, for spending without proper responsibility for the care of tax payers money. In my view, letting them off by just paying back the money seems to be stopping short. What an example for young would be voters. They should receive much harsher treatment than the ordinary citizen who in real life in a similar job would possibly be criminally charged for these blatant actions. These MLA's are in a position of "trust". Or they were..?
Can we ever trust them again .. What has gone on before this current 'outing' of cheating by senior trusted officials? Its a disgrace.
Don't we pay them enough already .. GREED
I for one demand an audit and an investigation by police.
I would also suggest they drop the "Honourable" in the title of these people. Rather than calling them the "Honourable member from Yarmouth" just call them the "member from Yarmouth". The saying "there is no honour among thieves" comes to mind in this instance. If they were indeed "honourable" they wouldn't have stolen from the citizens in the first place. Sadly we may never know the 'true amounts' as there is no audit facility in place and I doubt something like this will not be deemed serious enough for one to be installed. Apathy reigns still for sure
I would do such an audit for free.
UPDATE April 7th 2010 - Few pay back .. Just what is going on? ..
1-800-222-8477 - CRIME STOPPERS - Have you got information to help them?
We have all heard the current MLA's silly, but alas all to common defensive excuses, for spending without proper responsibility for the care of tax payers money. In my view, letting them off by just paying back the money seems to be stopping short. What an example for young would be voters. They should receive much harsher treatment than the ordinary citizen who in real life in a similar job would possibly be criminally charged for these blatant actions. These MLA's are in a position of "trust". Or they were..?
Can we ever trust them again .. What has gone on before this current 'outing' of cheating by senior trusted officials? Its a disgrace.
Don't we pay them enough already .. GREED
I for one demand an audit and an investigation by police.
I would also suggest they drop the "Honourable" in the title of these people. Rather than calling them the "Honourable member from Yarmouth" just call them the "member from Yarmouth". The saying "there is no honour among thieves" comes to mind in this instance. If they were indeed "honourable" they wouldn't have stolen from the citizens in the first place. Sadly we may never know the 'true amounts' as there is no audit facility in place and I doubt something like this will not be deemed serious enough for one to be installed. Apathy reigns still for sure
I would do such an audit for free.