Stats Canada is reporting some progress in the right direction in teenage smoking in a review from February to December 2006. Still a long way to go but these numbers and the trend lines are encouraging. Here is a summary of the findings.
Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey
February to December 2006
Smoking rates among teenagers aged 15 to 19 have declined, according to the latest results from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) conducted from February to December 2006.
An estimated 15% of teenagers in this age group were either daily smokers or smoked occasionally in 2006, down from 18% in 2005, the survey found. The rates for this age group were unchanged between 2003 and 2005 at 18%, after falling from 28% in 1999.
The proportion of teenagers who were daily smokers declined from 11% in 2005 to 9% in 2006.
Young women apparently accounted for most of the decline. The smoking rate for girls aged 15 to 19 fell from 18% in 2005 to 14% in 2006. Smoking prevalence among their male equivalents was 16% compared to 18% in 2005.
In the provinces as a whole, overall smoking prevalence remained constant. Estimates show that slightly fewer than 5 million people, or 19% of the population aged 15 and older, reported smoking daily or occasionally in 2006, roughly the same as in 2005.
Provincial differences in smoking prevalence also remained stable, with all provinces within 5 percentage points of the national average of 19%. The lowest rate was in British Columbia, where only 16% of the population smoked.
As well, 37% of respondents in the CTUMS reported being exposed to second-hand smoke at least once a week. Another 12% said they were exposed to second-hand smoke every day.
Respondents were asked about the most common place in which they had been exposed to second-hand smoke in the 30 days prior to the interview, excluding their own home. Just over one-half (51%) said it was at an entrance to a building, 31% cited outdoor patios of a restaurant or bar, 29% cited inside other people's homes, 25% cited inside a car or other vehicle, and 23% cited in the workplace.
THE PENDING ALBERTA TOBACCO CONTROL legislation scheduled for 3rd reading later this year will address many of these second-hand smoke concerns around entrances to buildings, outdoor restaurant and bar patios and workplaces.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Sunday, July 08, 2007
VP Cheney Does "Oaf Broadway!"
Rusty Idols – who should be one of your regular read Bloggers, has done us a great favour with some links to political cartoons today. But he led me to some even higher concept satire. Thanks to his guidance I have discovered Walt Handelsman’s political animations. This is the Internet at its best and Handelsman is a PULITZER PRIZE WINNER. Not too shabby…not to shabby at all…he is, and has, a gift!
Here is “a must go to link” that shows Handelsman’s handiwork and reinforces some of my recent blog postings on “may he rot in Haliburton” – Vice (and I do mean vice) President Dick Cheney.
Here is “a must go to link” that shows Handelsman’s handiwork and reinforces some of my recent blog postings on “may he rot in Haliburton” – Vice (and I do mean vice) President Dick Cheney.
Rusty Idols posting give you a recent link to an Economist piece on the trials and tribulations of Fort McMurray reality too. This is a problem the Stelmach government inherited but must stay focused and fixated on a fix - otherwise all of Alberta will end up like Fort Mc.
Bush Pardons Libby! Who Will Pardon Bush?
I don't like to republish MSM piece verbatim in this Blog however the latest Frank Rich column from NYT is a worthy exception (again!). His perspective is always interesting because he is a Pulitzer Prize-winning theatre critic whom NYT switched to political commentary. His commentary shows us just how much politics is like theatre - so much of the time.
I am OK if God wishes to Bless America.
I just hope America appreciates the Blessings of a Free Press and writers like Frank Rich!
July 8, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
A Profile in Cowardice
By FRANK RICH
THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby’s silence. Now we have the answers, and they’re at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.
The timing of the president’s Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage: his father’s pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clinton’s pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.
But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senators against his strategy in Iraq.
That Mr. Bush, already suffering historically low approval ratings, would invite another hit has been attributed in Washington to his desire to placate what remains of his base. By this logic, he had nothing left to lose. He didn’t care if he looked like an utter hypocrite, giving his crony a freer ride than Paris Hilton and violating the white-collar sentencing guidelines set by his own administration. He had to throw a bone to the last grumpy old white guys watching Bill O’Reilly in a bunker.
But if those die-hards haven’t deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libby’s incarceration be the final straw? They certainly weren’t whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. Mr. Libby, faceless and voiceless to most Americans, is no Ollie North, and he provoked no right-wing firestorm akin to the uproars over Terri Schiavo, Harriet Miers or “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.
The only people clamoring for Mr. Libby’s freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.
What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bush’s highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney’s use of prewar intelligence.
Valerie Wilson still has a civil suit pending. The Democratic inquisitor in the House, Henry Waxman, still has the uranium hoax underlying this case at the top of his agenda as an active investigation. A commutation puts up more roadblocks by keeping Mr. Libby’s appeal of his conviction alive and his Fifth Amendment rights intact. He can’t testify without risking self-incrimination. Meanwhile, we are asked to believe that he has paid his remaining $250,000 debt to society independently of his private $5 million “legal defense fund.”
The president’s presentation of the commutation is more revealing still. Had Mr. Bush really believed he was doing the right and honorable thing, he would not have commuted Mr. Libby’s jail sentence by press release just before the July Fourth holiday without consulting Justice Department lawyers. That’s the behavior of an accountant cooking the books in the dead of night, not the proud act of a patriot standing on principle.
When the furor followed Mr. Bush from Kennebunkport to Washington despite his efforts to duck it, he further underlined his embarrassment by taking his only few questions on the subject during a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. You know this president is up to no good whenever he hides behind the troops. This instance was particularly shameful, since Mr. Bush also used the occasion to trivialize the scandalous maltreatment of Walter Reed patients on his watch as merely “some bureaucratic red-tape issues.”
Asked last week to explain the president’s poll numbers, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center told NBC News that “when we ask people to summon up one word that comes to mind” to describe Mr. Bush, it’s “incompetence.” But cowardice, the character trait so evident in his furtive handling of the Libby commutation, is as important to understanding Mr. Bush’s cratered presidency as incompetence, cronyism and hubris.
Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, a consistent Bush and Libby defender, had to take notice. Furious that the president had not given Mr. Libby a full pardon (at least not yet), The Journal called the Bush commutation statement a “profile in non-courage.”
What it did not recognize, or chose not to recognize, is that this non-courage, to use The Journal’s euphemism, has been this president’s stock in trade, far exceeding the “wimp factor” that Newsweek once attributed to his father. The younger Mr. Bush’s cowardice is arguably more responsible for the calamities of his leadership than anything else.
People don’t change. Mr. Bush’s failure to have the courage of his own convictions was apparent early in his history, when he professed support for the Vietnam War yet kept himself out of harm’s way when he had the chance to serve in it. In the White House, he has often repeated the feckless pattern that he set back then and reaffirmed last week in his hide-and-seek bestowing of the Libby commutation.
The first fight he conspicuously ran away from as president was in August 2001. Aspiring to halt federal underwriting of embryonic stem-cell research, he didn’t stand up and say so but instead unveiled a bogus “compromise” that promised continued federal research on 60 existing stem-cell lines. Only later would we learn that all but 11 of them did not exist. When Mr. Bush wanted to endorse a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage, he again cowered. A planned 2006 Rose Garden announcement to a crowd of religious-right supporters was abruptly moved from the sunlight into a shadowy auditorium away from the White House.
Nowhere is this president’s non-courage more evident than in the “signing statements” The Boston Globe exposed last year. As Charlie Savage reported, Mr. Bush “quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” Rather than veto them in public view, he signed them, waited until after the press and lawmakers left the White House, and then filed statements in the Federal Register asserting that he would ignore laws he (not the courts) judged unconstitutional. This was the extralegal trick Mr. Bush used to bypass the ban on torture. It allowed him to make a coward’s escape from the moral (and legal) responsibility of arguing for so radical a break with American practice.
In the end, it was also this president’s profile in non-courage that greased the skids for the Iraq fiasco. If Mr. Bush had had the guts to put America on a true wartime footing by appealing to his fellow citizens for sacrifice, possibly even a draft if required, then he might have had at least a chance of amassing the resources needed to secure Iraq after we invaded it.
But he never backed up the rhetoric of war with the stand-up action needed to prosecute the war. Instead he relied on fomenting fear, as typified by the false uranium claims whose genesis has been covered up by Mr. Libby’s obstructions of justice. Mr. Bush’s cowardly abdication of the tough responsibilities of wartime leadership ratified Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to go into Iraq with the army he had, ensuring our defeat.
Never underestimate the power of the unconscious. Not the least of the revelatory aspects of Mr. Bush’s commutation is that he picked the fourth anniversary of “Bring ’em on” to hand it down. It was on July 2, 2003, that the president responded to the continued violence in Iraq, two months after “Mission Accomplished,” by taunting those who want “to harm American troops.” Mr. Bush assured the world that “we’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.” The “surge” notwithstanding, we still don’t have the force necessary four years later, because the president never did summon the courage, even as disaster loomed, to back up his own convictions by going to the mat to secure that force.
No one can stop Mr. Bush from freeing a pathetic little fall guy like Scooter Libby. But only those who paid the ultimate price for the avoidable bungling of Iraq have the moral authority to pardon Mr. Bush.
I am OK if God wishes to Bless America.
I just hope America appreciates the Blessings of a Free Press and writers like Frank Rich!
July 8, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
A Profile in Cowardice
By FRANK RICH
THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby’s silence. Now we have the answers, and they’re at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.
The timing of the president’s Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage: his father’s pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clinton’s pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.
But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senators against his strategy in Iraq.
That Mr. Bush, already suffering historically low approval ratings, would invite another hit has been attributed in Washington to his desire to placate what remains of his base. By this logic, he had nothing left to lose. He didn’t care if he looked like an utter hypocrite, giving his crony a freer ride than Paris Hilton and violating the white-collar sentencing guidelines set by his own administration. He had to throw a bone to the last grumpy old white guys watching Bill O’Reilly in a bunker.
But if those die-hards haven’t deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libby’s incarceration be the final straw? They certainly weren’t whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. Mr. Libby, faceless and voiceless to most Americans, is no Ollie North, and he provoked no right-wing firestorm akin to the uproars over Terri Schiavo, Harriet Miers or “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.
The only people clamoring for Mr. Libby’s freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.
What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bush’s highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney’s use of prewar intelligence.
Valerie Wilson still has a civil suit pending. The Democratic inquisitor in the House, Henry Waxman, still has the uranium hoax underlying this case at the top of his agenda as an active investigation. A commutation puts up more roadblocks by keeping Mr. Libby’s appeal of his conviction alive and his Fifth Amendment rights intact. He can’t testify without risking self-incrimination. Meanwhile, we are asked to believe that he has paid his remaining $250,000 debt to society independently of his private $5 million “legal defense fund.”
The president’s presentation of the commutation is more revealing still. Had Mr. Bush really believed he was doing the right and honorable thing, he would not have commuted Mr. Libby’s jail sentence by press release just before the July Fourth holiday without consulting Justice Department lawyers. That’s the behavior of an accountant cooking the books in the dead of night, not the proud act of a patriot standing on principle.
When the furor followed Mr. Bush from Kennebunkport to Washington despite his efforts to duck it, he further underlined his embarrassment by taking his only few questions on the subject during a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. You know this president is up to no good whenever he hides behind the troops. This instance was particularly shameful, since Mr. Bush also used the occasion to trivialize the scandalous maltreatment of Walter Reed patients on his watch as merely “some bureaucratic red-tape issues.”
Asked last week to explain the president’s poll numbers, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center told NBC News that “when we ask people to summon up one word that comes to mind” to describe Mr. Bush, it’s “incompetence.” But cowardice, the character trait so evident in his furtive handling of the Libby commutation, is as important to understanding Mr. Bush’s cratered presidency as incompetence, cronyism and hubris.
Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, a consistent Bush and Libby defender, had to take notice. Furious that the president had not given Mr. Libby a full pardon (at least not yet), The Journal called the Bush commutation statement a “profile in non-courage.”
What it did not recognize, or chose not to recognize, is that this non-courage, to use The Journal’s euphemism, has been this president’s stock in trade, far exceeding the “wimp factor” that Newsweek once attributed to his father. The younger Mr. Bush’s cowardice is arguably more responsible for the calamities of his leadership than anything else.
People don’t change. Mr. Bush’s failure to have the courage of his own convictions was apparent early in his history, when he professed support for the Vietnam War yet kept himself out of harm’s way when he had the chance to serve in it. In the White House, he has often repeated the feckless pattern that he set back then and reaffirmed last week in his hide-and-seek bestowing of the Libby commutation.
The first fight he conspicuously ran away from as president was in August 2001. Aspiring to halt federal underwriting of embryonic stem-cell research, he didn’t stand up and say so but instead unveiled a bogus “compromise” that promised continued federal research on 60 existing stem-cell lines. Only later would we learn that all but 11 of them did not exist. When Mr. Bush wanted to endorse a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage, he again cowered. A planned 2006 Rose Garden announcement to a crowd of religious-right supporters was abruptly moved from the sunlight into a shadowy auditorium away from the White House.
Nowhere is this president’s non-courage more evident than in the “signing statements” The Boston Globe exposed last year. As Charlie Savage reported, Mr. Bush “quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” Rather than veto them in public view, he signed them, waited until after the press and lawmakers left the White House, and then filed statements in the Federal Register asserting that he would ignore laws he (not the courts) judged unconstitutional. This was the extralegal trick Mr. Bush used to bypass the ban on torture. It allowed him to make a coward’s escape from the moral (and legal) responsibility of arguing for so radical a break with American practice.
In the end, it was also this president’s profile in non-courage that greased the skids for the Iraq fiasco. If Mr. Bush had had the guts to put America on a true wartime footing by appealing to his fellow citizens for sacrifice, possibly even a draft if required, then he might have had at least a chance of amassing the resources needed to secure Iraq after we invaded it.
But he never backed up the rhetoric of war with the stand-up action needed to prosecute the war. Instead he relied on fomenting fear, as typified by the false uranium claims whose genesis has been covered up by Mr. Libby’s obstructions of justice. Mr. Bush’s cowardly abdication of the tough responsibilities of wartime leadership ratified Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to go into Iraq with the army he had, ensuring our defeat.
Never underestimate the power of the unconscious. Not the least of the revelatory aspects of Mr. Bush’s commutation is that he picked the fourth anniversary of “Bring ’em on” to hand it down. It was on July 2, 2003, that the president responded to the continued violence in Iraq, two months after “Mission Accomplished,” by taunting those who want “to harm American troops.” Mr. Bush assured the world that “we’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.” The “surge” notwithstanding, we still don’t have the force necessary four years later, because the president never did summon the courage, even as disaster loomed, to back up his own convictions by going to the mat to secure that force.
No one can stop Mr. Bush from freeing a pathetic little fall guy like Scooter Libby. But only those who paid the ultimate price for the avoidable bungling of Iraq have the moral authority to pardon Mr. Bush.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
George Bush's Power Grab: Authorizes Martial Law Provisions
Another chilling reality of the Dubya Bush disillusionment. He is now defining a national emergency in ways that will allow him to personally and unilaterally dictate and direct almost every power in all orders of government and even the private sector economy apparently without going to Congress.
These Presidential Directives are being made without notice never mind consultation with Congress.
Whatever happend to the American governance principle of "Checks and Balances?"
Harper and Day Do the Right Thing With the New RCMP Commissioner Appointment
I am usually very critical of the Harper Con-government but when they do something right or courageous I will applaud. I think the appointment of William Elliott as the new RCMP Commissioner is both right and courageous. I give this move more than applause. I actually give it a standing ovation. Mr. Elliott has proven to be able and respected in a trans-partisan way, serving in Prime Ministers Mulroney, Martin and now Harper.
The deplorable leadership and inept management culture of the force has been cancerous to the goals of good policing. Commissioner Elliott need not, and should not, wear the red serge uniform of the RCMP. That is something one earns through professional policing and service on the front lines. However he need not wear the uniform to run and reform the organization. He is, by all accounts, a capable and earnest public servant. It is that sense of duty to public service that has been missing in the nepotism and mismanagement of the RCMP leadership of late.
The RCMP is to serve the public and live up to its motto by “Maintaining the Law” we need fundamental change…especially at the top. There is too much evidence showing disturbing incidences were the management and leadership of the RCMP has been in service of more private and personal interests. There are examples where there have even been serious breaches of the law by the RCMP! That is unacceptable and only "serves" (sic) to undermine public confidence in their credibility and ability to maintain the law.
It is time for big changes in how the RCMP is run. That is clear. To presume this can be done only from the “inside” is a privilege that the RCMP, as an organization and an institution, has squandered. To those traditionalists who believe the military culture of a police force cannot be lead by a civilian, they will have to adapt. The RCMP is not just their organization. It is Canada’s police force that has a proud history and was at one time a proud symbol of our country.
It is time to restore the confidence of Canadians in the RCMP and to return it to a reputation as a respected, effective policing authority and an enduring international symbol of what is good about Canada.
Good luck Commissioner Elliott and good job Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day.
The deplorable leadership and inept management culture of the force has been cancerous to the goals of good policing. Commissioner Elliott need not, and should not, wear the red serge uniform of the RCMP. That is something one earns through professional policing and service on the front lines. However he need not wear the uniform to run and reform the organization. He is, by all accounts, a capable and earnest public servant. It is that sense of duty to public service that has been missing in the nepotism and mismanagement of the RCMP leadership of late.
The RCMP is to serve the public and live up to its motto by “Maintaining the Law” we need fundamental change…especially at the top. There is too much evidence showing disturbing incidences were the management and leadership of the RCMP has been in service of more private and personal interests. There are examples where there have even been serious breaches of the law by the RCMP! That is unacceptable and only "serves" (sic) to undermine public confidence in their credibility and ability to maintain the law.
It is time for big changes in how the RCMP is run. That is clear. To presume this can be done only from the “inside” is a privilege that the RCMP, as an organization and an institution, has squandered. To those traditionalists who believe the military culture of a police force cannot be lead by a civilian, they will have to adapt. The RCMP is not just their organization. It is Canada’s police force that has a proud history and was at one time a proud symbol of our country.
It is time to restore the confidence of Canadians in the RCMP and to return it to a reputation as a respected, effective policing authority and an enduring international symbol of what is good about Canada.
Good luck Commissioner Elliott and good job Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)