An indepth look at the F35 from a technical point of view.

To understand this is to understand why it would be criminal to put our pilots in anything else.
The F-35 is a crucial strategic move for Canada.

 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4

Knowledge of Spill clean up.

@common denominator As a matter of fact I have. I live in western Canada. I have read the government spill protocols. I have been on remediation projects where spills were made into microbes from biological degradation techniques. My front yard has the results of a bio remediation project underneath my feet. Approved by the Ministry of Environment, my children have played on the grass that is happily growing on top of it. There are a few people from time to time that actually know something. So I say to you go back to school and actually learn something,

A recent opinion on the boards of the Globe and Mail:  Sorry folks apparently they have figured out how to stop copy and paste.  Regrettable.

The Harper government’s campaign to get the Keystone XL pipeline built received a boost from two American sources this week.
Joe Dick 25 minutes ago

The Harper government’s campaign to get the Keystone XL pipeline built received a boost from two American sources this week.

First, billionaire Barack Obama supporter Warren Buffet said the Keystone XL pipeline delivering bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to the Gulf Coast should have been approved by now and the U.S. refusal to do so risks damaging relations with Canada.

Second the Washington Post gave the U.S. president its worst possible “Four Pinocchios” rating for refusing to approve Keystone for almost six years.

“Four Pinocchios,” as explained by Glenn Kessler who writes the Post’s regular “Fact Checker” feature, means the individual being scrutinized is telling “whoppers.”

Or, if you prefer, lies.

As the Canadian Press noted, Buffet’s support of Keystone is significant since his investments in the U.S. rail industry and his friendship with Obama previously resulted in the widely held perception he was opposed to Keystone XL and in favour of transporting bitumen by rail.

But in an interview with CNBC, Buffet -- who says his shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock have gone up almost 2,000,000% over the last 50 years -- was unequivocal.

He said Canada has been “a terrific partner to the United States over the decades” and “to thumb our nose” at it is wrong.

“I would have passed Keystone,” Buffet said. “I think that we have an enormous interest in working with Canada, as they have in working with us. That oil is going to get sold. If we make it more difficult for them, who knows how they’ll feel about making things more difficult for us some day?”

The Post’s Fact Checker criticized Obama for claiming Keystone only benefits Canada because the oil it delivers will simply pass through the United States before being exported abroad.

It noted that’s untrue and ignores the findings of Obama’s own State Department, which has the lead role in reviewing Keystone and has concluded much of the oil it delivers will be used in the United States.

The completion of Keystone will also benefit U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana in getting their oil to the Gulf Coast, as well as American companies operating in the oilsands, where they control about 30% of production.

All of these facts undermine Obama’s contention that only Canadians will benefit from the pipeline, according to the Post.

The Fact Checker feature doesn’t take a position for or against Keystone and has been critical of all sides in the debate for spreading inaccuracies.

For example, it recently awarded Three Pinocchios to pipeline developer TransCanada Corp. -- meaning a significant factual error or obvious contradiction -- for arguing Keystone will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, since Canadian oil is, in fact, foreign oil.

But what it does indicate is a growing awareness in the United States that Obama is simply making up excuses as he goes along for not approving Keystone that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Creationism once and for All





There is a third way: A way that is cogent and appreciative of science, allows for people to have an unharrassed approach to their faith, and allows for an environment to be appreciative and cooperative instead of antagonistic and caustic.


It involves first of all a different approach to scripture, appreciates faith on the one hand, and a robust and embracing of science in all its various forms on the other. It is an approach that has no problem with the 13-14 Billion old age of the universe, the standard model and special model, the fossilized evidences of life back to 3 billion years or so and even the arrival of various pre-anthropic forms, climate change and pretty much all of accepted science.


It starts with not trying to make the bible into a science text. It never was intended to be interpreted that way by the original audience so who are we to make that different. This is the fundamental problem of the shall we say classical Creationist. And for those bible believing Christians out there, hermeneutics, interpretation 101 says the interpreter must ask the question: What did this mean to the original audience? An honest approach on this level should reveal that to try to make the bible into a science text book already does violence to the text. No wonder we have embraced foolishness, and to the world it is so readily apparent.


It is past time for Christians to repudiate this error and move on to a more healthy respect for science, with the sense of wonder and awe of how God created the heaven and the earth. Science can't predict purpose, and theology can't predict process--That is the realm of science.

On the cusp of another recession, discussion arose as to whether Canada should maintain a balanced budget....

When I compare Canada to the US, I use a rule of thumb:  They are about 10x larger than us, we are 10% in size compared with them.  This is true when comparing sizes for example.  When it came to deficits  Canada went a different path on the heels of the 2008 recession.  The US opened the taps to public spending, Canada was frugal.  Consequently, the US has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and 18 trillion in direct debt.  That normally would translate into a national debt at 1.8 trillion.  Complain as you may, Mr Harper has demonstrated good stewardship of the Canadian purse that is perhaps the one thing he has done well.  A little recession is normal.  But by far preferable to a recession with 1.8 trillion in debt.

A State of Canadian Politics

Ideals compared to reality on the ground. A few interesting points. The conservative party was constrained by a minority parliament, then after an election and winning a majority, by the senate stacked with Liberals. So, gradually he began appointing senators so that they held a majority in both houses. This is necessary to advance the Government agenda. Because when the opposition holds a majority a bill suddenly becomes needing "extra thought" in a stall tactic that goes back to confederation.  If you want to get anything done, you stack the senate. 

However at this point, Harper's senate reform was to promise to appoint any Senator elected democratically. This was first tried by Brian Mulroney. Who appointed one senator elected in Alberta. Mr. Harper has appointed 4. This could have been an amazing reform had it caught on. It required the cooperation of the provinces. No other PM in history had tried so hard to bring senate reform. 

 To do any more than this requires a constitutional change. Which many Canadians do not appreciate is an enormous nightmare. Once the constitution is opened up, everyone will want to table some change or other to every other part of the constitution. After Meech Lake, no politician wants to spend that much political capital, BC for example would want more seats. (Where PEI has one seat per <35 a="" among="" an="" are="" banished="" bc="" be="" belief="" can="" cannot="" deceived="" deceiving.="" doing="" done="" either="" ever.="" example="" fairytale="" fell="" for="" has="" is="" it="" myriad="" nbsp="" of="" one="" only="" or="" others.="" people="" per="" problem="" realize="" reflection="" seat="" senate="" so="" some="" span="" suggest="" swoop="" that="" the="" there="" they="" this="" those="" while="" who="" with="">

Finally the Duffy thing. Using the old format of making senate positions political appointees, here we see an example of where that can go wrong. At the time of his appointment most pundits thought his appointment was a stroke of genius. Mr Duffy's and Pamela Wallen's status as well educated media personnel, opened perhaps for the first time, senate appointments from the 5th estate. It marked an advance for a perceived stodgy old house to the 21st century. The discovery of his alleged wrong doing left him kicked out of the party. And now he is having his day in court.

It remains to be seen how much goop will stick to the Prime Minister. This is the problem with appointed senators. The prime minister is perpetually tied to the decision. In the Case of the Liberals, there were so many bug bears under their bed, Trudeau dissolved the Liberal caucus all together in the hope non of the goop would stick to him. It remains to be seen how effective a strategy that is. Currently, Mr. Harper has stopped appointing senators. There are 18 vacancies with no indications of any of those seats being filled with an election coming up...

An important article probably shouted down:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_article_EditorsPicks


From the Wall Street Journal:  September 19, 2014

Climate Science Is Not Settled

We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

By

Steven E. Koonin

Sept. 19, 2014 12:19 p.m. ET

Enlarge Image

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Mitch Dobrowner

The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Related Video

Tens of thousands of people marched in New York City Sunday to raise awareness and demand action on climate change ahead of Tuesday's United Nations Climate Summit. Photo: AP

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

Enlarge Image

Scientists measure the sea level of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. National Geographic/Getty Images

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.

Enlarge Image

There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. Pictured, an estuary in Patgonia. Gallery Stock

For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:

• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.   **(in other words it is more probable less than one of them is right.)**

• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.

• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.

• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.

• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.

• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.

Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled."

While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.

We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.

Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN -0.83% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy

Oh come on Larry.  Really?  Ever check to see the Liberal senators were lining the nest with?  Ever check back a decade or so when there were more Liberal senators?  The disbanding of the Liberal caucus was pure genius.  Those weren't Liberal senators with their hand in the cookie jar, since there are no Liberal senators any more (sic)

This problem has been systemic.  And it was this government that put an end to it.  They got their hands dirty doing it.  But they did what no other previous governments had the jam to do.  I would shake a working man's hand that has some dirt beneath the fingernails no problem if they got the job done.  It is a pity others don't see it that way.

The Canadian Arctic and the Ukraine

I don't know why it seems that no one seems to get the connection between what is happening in the arctic and what is happening in the Ukraine.  If Putin gets away with it, do you think an incursion on Canada's arctic isn't an eventuality?They have planted the Russian flag on Canada's sea bed up there.  They will lay claim to it without a second thought--*If* they go unchecked.

The Globe and Mail had a series of derisional comments about heaven.  Here is my comment about it:  Am very disappointed in being unable to cut and paste any more.... 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/big-bang-thumbprint-may-unlock-universal-truth/article18475476/comments/?ord=0

Reply to: Where is Heaven? 

Alethia 5 minutes ago

Jesus indicated we all live in the Kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" While it is a stretch to suggest there is "heaven on earth", for Christians and Islam, God is king of the whole earth. Heaven is His province.
Yet the scriptures also refer to heaven as some place entirely other from here. A place of eternal bliss, in the presence of God. Over the millennia various conjectures have been made about its proximity. Few have estimated that it starts where we are. Science has been good at measuring natural phenomena. But because there was a big bang, then 14 billion years of stellar evolution, billions of years of sediment, the rise of modern science to the point where we put satellites in the sky, does not preclude something entirely other that science can never comment on: The realm that begins with the human spirit and ends with ultimate Spirit. I wish Christians, Muslims and Jews and others would quite trying to strain at a gnat; try to locate spiritual things within a naturalist framework; and swallow the camel by buying into the debate in the first place.

Faith has always been something existential. It was never meant to be defined by only 5 senses.

 A CTV article says Keystone pipleline will support China?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pmo-says-anti-keystone-ad-featuring-harper-distorts-the-facts-1.1659539#commentsForm-479100


Benefits China how I wonder?  The pipeline isn't likely to send China more oil because it is loaded in the Gulf of Mexico.  No,this about return on investment.  Canada has approved investments from all around the world, including China, US, UK, Eurozone, and even Russia.  There are very strict rules in place on foreign ownership, for valid reasons.   The scare mongering that foreign workers will be imported to Canada because China owns a piece of the action in the oil sands, is silly.  Immigration laws also very tough, prohibit some mass importation of Chinese labour.  The key issue with Oil Sands labour is does and will Canada have enough skilled people to do the job?  Currently, we may--although there is a critical shortage looming.   More serious is the population rate in Canada, since it is now not even self-sustaining, we will need to allow foreign immigration.  There is no question, if the boomers want to enjoy retirement, we must have Doctors and Nurses and Physiotherapists, and Engineers and Architects hold up our CPP because we are not raising enough Canadians to fill the looming void.  Most Canadians don't appreciate what a serious this problem is.  Canada must cherry-pick the best, brightest minds from around the world.  At least the current shift in Immigration policy allows for an already skilled worker to stand in a place that would take us 25 years to grow on our own.  The ethical question is really about how we steal the best and are a big part of the Brain Drain of the 3rd world.  For that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.  However Canada is a pragmatic nation where we have the "anything it works" world view.  Continued expansion of the oilsands project will inevitably need the importation of outside workers: But we have the right to say who comes in when they come in and where they come in. Still in Canada today, we have highly skilled "Drs. and Physio therapists driving taxi-cabs", and scrubbing our toilets, and flipping our burgers as they wait for us to allow them to do what they are already trained to do.  Some have despaired of that. Some now expect the rest of their life no matter how skilled they are, to be a life of drudgery. Some are thankful to work these jobs no one wants, because they get to live in Canada.  After many years of indentured servitude we might even let them be Canadian citizens.

Canadian Political Foment

 Re: Canadian Political Foment

 Crisis! Polls indicate a rejection of Mr. Mulcair by the majority of Canadians.

The current meta narrative is a fairy tale.  The 5th Estate's story goes like this:  1) Mr. Harper is the devil, and his cronies the demons of hell..  Therefore anything goes to send him back there. 2) Mr. Harper puts out attack ads, but won't give us a story (Because he knows the 5th estate believes point #1).  3)  "The medium is the message."  The story--what ever it is becomes the truth.  Spin be damned so long as it accomplishes the defeat of point #1.  4) Journalists project their own insecurities.  The authority of their written word is undermined by a Prime-minister who won't dance to their tune. Clearly Canadians are having a crisis of faith in the political system of the pundits assertions, so the unconscious reflex is to create a crisis of faith in the government of Canada.  If they can make Canadians believers it would assuage one's guilty conscience.  It is called transference to project one's belief one's anxiety onto others.   This compulsion is indicative of the anxiety of the scribal class.  5) Mr. Mulcair is the saviour of the left: Hearken ye one and all for this man is unblemished and perfect!  He is the man to save us from proposition #1! 

Of this there are believers and sceptics.   

It is disconcerting after all the efforts of the media to convert Canadians into leftists.  The polls show Canadians don't buy the narrative.  So what ever could be the problem? Surely not their glowing reviews of Mr. Mulcair. 

Canada withdraws from UN desertification treaty.

Alethia

12:48 PM on March 29, 2013

Ah the UN, smell the air, breath deeply... Aren't you glad we are a part of the UN?
Don't you love how they spend our money? How accountable they are? Anyone remember how that 14 Billion was spent after Tsunamis wiped out 200,000 people? 'Remember how it was supposed to help the areas devastated rebuild? Nation after nation as they dug out from the disaster reported seeing not one thin dime. Where did the money go? Ah but it is the UN, they are not accountable to its donors...

The story behind the story? Canada read the script of this "scientific meeting" that uses Canada as a bully-pulpit. The sheep in this country forget that China's CO2 input *grows* by more than the entire Canadian Carbon Foot Print. Why should Canada fund this sort of "science"?

Who is behind these attacks? Who is targeting Canada? It certainly wouldn't be the OPEC countries who's taps will be impacted when North America achieves self-sustaining energy dependence. You know that block of 16 or so nations that appointed Portugal to a seat on the security counsel? I am just glad Canada has a memory, and proud it has the gonads to finally say enough is enough.

On vegetarianism and PETA.:

https://www.facebook.com/bill.graham.98434

Bill Graham

Anyone have any favourite, delicious vegetarian recipes?

Like · · 8 hours ago via mobile ·

• 

  Antoinette Louw Is this the man who always tease me about PETA? Wonderful! If you find easy ones, please share. I usually only omit the meat out of other recipes. Look at Allrecipes.com

  8 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
• 

  Bill Graham I'm still not a PETA supporter! However, I *am* seeing the wisdom of a plant based diet...

  8 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Dixie Jones I just sent you a family favourite recipe for zucchini pie!

  7 hours ago · Like
• 

  Roxane Boardman Side dish or main?

  7 hours ago · Like
• 

  Antoinette Louw PETA means well. We may not always agree with their ways, but at least they try.

  7 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Kent Watson Sure that's easy but first you start with some beef and then......

  7 hours ago · Like
• 

  Emmett Koch No, mine all have some kind of meat in them,,,

  7 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  John G. Hartung The secret: discover dishes that originally were vegetarian so you don't have the problem of simulating the meat flavor.
  
  John's Basic Ratatouille
  
  Olive oil...See More

  7 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Trisha Rutter Reimer A chili with lots of different beans and yams or sweet potatoes chopped in! Soooo yum!

  6 hours ago · Like
• 

  Trisha Rutter Reimer How about a chick pea "salad"? About a can of rinsed chick peas, a couple of beets boiled and diced on top, some feta cheese sprinkled over, some greek spice mix (you can buy a bottle of "Greek seasoning") sprinkled over, maybe some slivered almonds, too.

  6 hours ago · Like
• 

  Bill Graham Emmett, watch "Food,Inc" and "Forks over Knives" and you may start rethinking what you eat...I'm not totally there yet - and I still have fast food too often (but aiming to eliminate that AND Pop); I am, however, seeking to change my intake for health's sake...

  6 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
• 

  Steve Winkler Chocolate Cheesecake .. I am sure that this qualifies somehow as vegetarian

  6 hours ago · Like · 1
• 

  Trisha Rutter Reimer Bill Graham you still gotta get your hands on "Fresh". You will see how you still can eat a "reasonable" amount of meat that is raised well (when animal husbandry is done right, it will benefit the soil and the animal the way God intended. And then as a result, benefitting humankind on many different levels!).

  6 hours ago · Like
• 

  Bill Graham If you've a copy of it Trish, we'll gladly watch it.

  5 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Joan Graham Hi Tiny!

  about an hour ago · Like
• 

  Allan Brouwer you want favourite and delicious! That's asking a lot!

  49 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Trisha Rutter Reimer Don't have it. Did I ask you if you have netflix?

  21 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Owen Abrey May I jump in? Let vegetables and vegetable eating have their place. However, no matter how we might want to deny it, man was not made a herbivore, man is an omnivore. To think we can make the world a better place by denying what we are at a scientific and biological level is displaying the unreal self if there ever was one: A vain and futile pursuit that wastes energy that might otherwise really make the world a better place. So many substitutes for the primary cause.