Fatty Liver

Is this "the many" you're referring to? In a September 2011 plebiscite (referendum) conducted by Meyers Norris Penny, 62% of CWB farmers voted that they wanted to keep the wheat board and its Single Desk power. This is how Harper went about dismantling a truly democratic institution. Since 2006 when the Conservative Party came to power, Chuck Strahl, then Minister of Agriculture, worked towards the end of the Wheat Board's Single Desk, including the replacement of government appointees to the Board of Directors in favor of individuals who oppose the board's Single Desk, a gag order on Wheat Board staff, the firing of the pro-board President, and intervention in the election of farmer elected members of the Board of Directors.[16][17] December 2006 CWB Board of Directors election. Only one of five farmer-elected seats went to opponents of the Canadian Wheat Board's Single Desk power on the selling of Canadian wheat and barley internationally. Since there was only one incumbent farmer-elected board member opposed to the Single Desk, only two out of ten farmer-elected directors were opposed to the Single Desk. Nonetheless, the government appointed five members to the board; supporters of the board's Single Desk would have only an eight to seven majority. Doubts have also been cast by some on the results because Strahl, the Minister of Agriculture, removed upwards of 20,000 farmers from the voters list in the midst of the election. These farmers were disqualified for such reasons as not having delivered any grain to the Wheat Board in the past two years or not having produced enough wheat or malt barley to have generated significant enough income from which to live off.[18] December 19, 2006: Chuck Strah dismisses CWB president Adrian Measner, an outspoken supporter of the Single Desk. This was done by Strahl with the statement "It's a position that [he] serves at [the] pleasure [of the Minister/Government]. And that position was no longer his."[16] It was suggested that Measner had gone too far for refusing to remove pro-CWB documents from the Board website and also appearing at press conferences with opposition leader Stéphane Dion.[19] The majority of the CWB's board of directors opposed the firing of Measner.[20] March 28, 2007: Barley Plebiscite. 62% of farmers vote to end the wheat board's barley Single Desk power.[21] Legislation to amend the act dies on order paper when the September 2008 election is called. February 26, 2008: Conservative government loses court battle over unilaterally dismantling the CWB because it was contrary to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.[22] December 7, 2008: Board of Directors elections. Four of five candidates elected support the Single Desk marketing agency.[23] January 21, 2010: Supreme Court of Canada sided with the federal government in its 2006 order barring the board from spending its money on lobbying.[24] December 7, 2011: Federal Court judge Douglas Campbell rules the Conservative government broke the law in introducing legislation to end the Wheat Board.[25] December 15, 2011: Bill C-18, the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, which ends the CWB Single Desk, receives royal assent.[26] June 18, 2012: Federal Court of Appeal upholds Bill C-18.[27] August 1, 2012: end of monopsony takes effect I'm sure you'll crow about Harper keeping his election promise to dismantle the CWB, but ask yourself who it was that really benefited from this move. Multi-national corporations such as Cargill, perhaps? Cargill: Food Profiteers Thirty years ago, most developing countries produced enough food to feed themselves. Now, 70 percent are net food importers. Thirty years ago, most developing countries had in place mechanisms aimed at maintaining a relatively constant price for food commodities. Tariffs on imports protected local farmers from fluctuations in global food prices. Government-run grain purchasing boards paid above-market prices for farm goods when prices were low, and required farmers to sell below-market when prices were high. The idea was to give farmers some certainty over price, and to keep food affordable for consumers. Governments also provided a wide set of support services for farmers, giving them advice on new crop and growing technologies and, in some countries, helping set up cooperative structures. This was not a perfect system by any means, but it looks pretty good in retrospect. Over the last three decades, the system was completely abandoned, in country after country. It was replaced by a multinational-dominated, globally integrated food system, in which the World Bank and other institutions coerced countries into opening their markets to cheap food imports from rich countries and re-orienting their agricultural systems to grow food for rich consumers abroad. Proponents said the new system was a “free market” approach, but in reality it traded one set of government interventions for another — a new set of rules that gave enhanced power to a handful of global grain trading companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, as well as to seed and fertilizer corporations. “For this food regime to work,” Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved, told the U.S. House Financial Services Committee at a May hearing, “existing marketing boards and support structures needed to be dismantled. In a range of countries, this meant that the state bodies that had been supported and built by the World Bank were dismantled by the World Bank. The rationale behind the dismantling of these institutions was to clear the path for private sector involvement in these sectors, on the understanding that the private sector would be more efficient and less wasteful than the public sector.” “The result of these interventions and conditions,” explained Patel, “was to accelerate the decline of developing country agriculture. One of the most striking consequences of liberalization has been the phenomenon of ‘import surges.’ These happen when tariffs on cheaper, and often subsidized, agricultural products are lowered, and a host country is then flooded with those goods. There is often a corresponding decline in domestic production. In Senegal, for example, tariff reduction led to an import surge in tomato paste, with a 15-fold increase in imports, and a halving of domestic production. Similar stories might be told of Chile, which saw a three-fold surge in imports of vegetable oil, and a halving of domestic production. In Ghana in 1998, local rice production accounted for over 80 percent of domestic consumption. By 2003, that figure was less than 20 percent.” The decline of developing country agriculture means that developing countries are dependent on the vagaries of the global market. When prices spike — as they did in late 2007 and through the beginning of 2008 — countries and poor consumers are at the mercy of the global market and the giant trading companies that dominate it. In the first quarter of 2008, the price of rice in Asia doubled, and commodity prices overall rose 40 percent. People in rich countries felt this pinch, but the problem was much more severe in the developing world. Not only do consumers in poor countries have less money, they spend a much higher proportion of their household budget on food — often half or more — and they buy much less processed food, so commodity increases affect them much more directly. In poor countries, higher prices don’t just pinch, they mean people go hungry. Food riots broke out around the world in early 2008. But not everyone was feeling pain. For Cargill, spiking prices was an opportunity to get rich. In the second quarter of 2008, the company reported profits of more than $1 billion, with profits from continuing operations soaring 18 percent from the previous year. Cargill’s 2007 profits totaled more than $2.3 billion, up more than a third from 2006. In a competitive market, would a grain-trading middleman make super-profits? Or would rising prices crimp the middleman’s profit margin? Well, the global grain trade is not competitive. In an August speech, Cargill CEO Greg Page posed the question, “So, isn’t Cargill exploiting the food situation to make money?” Here is how he responded: “I would give you four pieces of information about why our earnings have gone up dramatically. The demand for food has gone up. The demand for our facilities has gone up, and we are running virtually all of our facilities worldwide at total capacity. As we utilize our capacity more effectively, clearly we do better. Fertilizer prices rose, and we are owners of a large fertilizer company. That has been the single largest factor in Cargill’s earnings. The volatility in the grain industry — much of it created by governments — was an opportunity for a trading company like Cargill to make money. Finally, in this era of high prices, Cargill over the last two years has invested $15.5 billion additional dollars into the world food system. Some was to carry all these high-priced inventories. We also wanted to be sure that we were there for farmers who needed the working capital to operate in this much more expensive environment. Clearly, our owners expected some return on that $15.5 billion. Cargill had an opportunity to make more money in this environment, and I think that is something that we need to be very forthright about.” OK, Mr. Page, that’s all very interesting. The question was, “So, isn’t Cargill exploiting the food situation to make money?” It sounds like your answer is, “yes.”

That must be a mistake??? According to some experts on this site Henry is just awful and throws lots of passes that are completions but really should count as interceptions because the defender got real close. When choosing him for this award didn't they realize that he can't play well in cold weather??? Revoke! Revoke!

I was really hoping they were fattening Hurl up for trade bait.

For all of the optimists out there recall if you will how poorly the Bombers played against the Esks. in their first contest in July. They lost 32-3 and that was with Willy at the helm for most of the game and Nichols starting and Franklin finishing for the Esks. The Esks, D is probably better then it was and now they have Reilly back. Not hopeful.

Geez guys, make up your minds. So basically, you want us to win but still play crappy? That sounds like a plan. And lose two or three starting NI's while you're at it, if you please. We have only won 2 games, haven't we suffered enough without having to lose players also. Not just yet. I'm hoping those flashy new jerseys become the permanent uniform, so they can also look really bad while losing.

Money and girls. If I signed in Mtl. it would be all about the girls, got to have something to spend all that loot on.

I agree, I think Peach is effective in his role and seems to contribute to over-all pressure and containment well even if he doesn't produce the sacks. Much like Zach Anderson who rarely gets noticed. Rotating in Cole and Gibson gave the Bombers a nice mix of abilities. I don't see the D-line as one of their problems, lately they've played well as a group.

It is the Head Linesman and Line Judge who stand at either side of the line of scrimmage. If you look at the faces of the referees in the video footage, it would appear that Rick Berezowski is the official in question, though I'm not 100% sure of that. I couldn't find a shot that shows what number he wore. What is more interesting is that official has been a "problem" for the CFL in the past (though that previous call was in favour of the Bombers). This is a story from 2011. http://www2.tsn.ca/story/?id=377334 And according to this story that was written around that time in 2011, he has been on the bubble before : http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/side-judge-replaced/ Note how he has refused to pick up the flag in the past, even at the suggestion of his fellow officials. So I decided to post this because the CFL cannot continue to award and hire incompetence in their officiating. Especially when there is a recurring history. I've noticed Higgins doesn't have a problem throwing people under the bus when it comes to accountability, kind of refreshing.

I pegged him as a good car salesman.....at least better than Dominick Picard.

Won't be surprised if he's picked up by another CFL club.

Is Thad Gibson out for the year? Besides Westerman and Cole he's the only other DE that's shown a spark.

Hopefully with Nichols as the backup next year and a new OC installed, O'Shea becomes a little more flexible in his QB management.

Sad. Was it confirmed that the injury was related to previous knee operations?

Apparently in Sask. it's not unusual for people to bring their goats with them to Tim Hortons. Can't say I'm surprised.

What's the matter with Popp, has he lost his mind or does he have a gun pointed at his head? Trading Crompton or Marsh is one thing but trading Cato plus a draft pick would be sheer stupidity.

You know what, I really can't just let this one go. Too many times the CFL has come back after a game like this and said to the Bombers "Sorry, we blew the call". Once OK but it's happened so many times and it always seems to be to the Bombers I just can not let this kind of gross incompetence slide anymore. I demand reparations. The apology was less than a whisper after midnight. No mention of it on the CFL.ca site and the only reference was in a game summary. "The Bombers almost pulled off a dramatic comeback in front of an energetic Investors Group Field crowd, scoring on a Rory Kohlert touchdown then getting the ball back just 11 seconds later. But their late rally was stumped on a penalty following a third-down conversion, forcing Hajrullahu to try a long field goal that he couldn't connect on." They did not even have the gonads to say that the penalty that "stumped" them was controversial.

All Adams has to do is set in the right place then ask for confirmation then there's no call to make. He's as much at fault as the LJ who made the call. Both were lazy about what they were doing. I wonder if we'd made the FG after this play if the reaction to the call would be as bad as it is? What are they going to do when the receivers in motion are off-side half of the time before the ball snaps, flag every play? There is a degree of leniency and discretion involved in officiating football, it's not chess.

But Adams is allowed the yard from the line of scrimmage. He CAN move. Unless you're insinuating the rule should be changed? No I'm insinuating that he moved off the LOS. He's more than a yard away from the line judge when the ball comes up and the LJ should be on the LOS to get the right angle. 3rd and inches, Adams involvement in the play was the definition of incidental. Bonehead call by the line-judge made worse by confirmation by the head official.

That's the crux of the matter, time for the CFL to invest some of their TSN money into training and employing professional officials.

He doesn't look to have much meat on dem bones.

Another election promise but here is the reality. While the Conservative government claims its defence spending over the years has risen massively, independent studies show the Tories actually underspent their own approved military budgets by close to $10 billion. They also chopped nearly $5 billion from defence since 2012, in large part to help Stephen Harper reach his much proclaimed budget surplus. "The spending now on the military, when you adjust for the inflation is back where it was … at roughly 2007 levels," says David Perry, senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.

True enough, and it only took him until week 14 to do so.

OK...everyone makes mistakes. I'm certainly not immune to them. However, why didn't they pick up the flag? His memory couldn't be that bad that he couldn't remember 5 seconds later that he did indeed acknowledge Adam's position on the line. This doesn't make sense. Agreed. And I'd assume that Adams and/or O'Shea would have told the ref, "yes we did have an end...Darvin Adams, and you acknowledged it". Would that not jog his memory?Or command centre could have called and said "pick it up idiots!" No they couldn't and you know that. Why? Why couldnt they? They all have ear buds. Johnson could have easily said "wtf you doing? Pick up flag and drop it again and say no infraction on the play". They follow along dont they? Illegal procedure is a non-reviewable play so the Command Centre can't get involved. No one can order an official to pick up a flag. There was that game in 2011 between Montreal and the Bombers were an official threw a flag for defensive pass interference in the end zone against the Als. It was a terrible call and should have actually been offensive pass interference against Greg Carr. The officials huddled and tried to get the official who threw the flag to pick it up but he refused. He was fired shortly thereafter because of that call. No.. I get that. What i meant is that the command centre is watching live. They must see things close to real time.. If they see a potentially game altering mistake by the officiating crew, wouldnt it be prudent to allow them to stop the error? Why wont they allow a situation like that to help fix these dumb mistakes... If they can't then that should be on the agenda for next season. Only one game going on at a time in the CFL so it wouldn't be difficult for the command centre to watch every play and be in full contact with the head official to help them out on the field.

I'm watching Hockey now - will be fully vested when the season starts in less than two weeks. I agree it was a chincy call but the player was not on the line. Only issue I have with the call is the lateness of the flag. I agree with other posters here - the line judge watches the line from the sideline, and usually throws the flag right away. Only thing I can think of is he confirmed with the line judge from the other side first. i.e. he didn't want to throw a flag if a bomber receiver from the opposite end was on the line - thus negating the call. When the other sideline judge said no, he threw the flag. No different than the Sk too many men penalty in the G.C. a few years back. But here's how I see it, the bombers were playing the defending Grey Cup champs and now, with the loss of Collaros, the best team in the league. They hung with them all game, really fought it out. Those guys complaining about the Bombers O - hey that's a Rich Stubler Defense, and Rich knows Nichols very well. He made his adjustments and it took the bombers a while to figure out what to do. That's why they're the CHAMPS. Good on Wpg! I expected a blow out and instead was treated to a close game that had a heartbreak ending. If the bombers had played that way a few more times, it wouldn't have been a must win. It still wasn't IMO - B.C. will be slaughtered by the Eskimos today. Bombers still, have a good chance. They just gotta keep playing this way every week. If they do, they'll win their share of games. If they lay an egg last week, it's on THEM - not an official. You're allowed to be one yard back from the line. That's in the rule book. The pictures clearly show him half a yard back, in line with the tackles (who were aT least in line with Nichols). While I'm not convinced it's a conspiracy....it was 100% the wrong call. Yep it is. But you know, a 'good' team will make that 49 yard field goal. Also, we have absolutely no idea what would have happened after that play if the officials let the play stand. Nichols could have been sacked twice for big yardage loss, or they could have turned the ball over. Just because they get the first down doesn't mean they win. I like Liram, I think he'll be a star, but I just saw the guy he replaced and was out of football for TWO years come in and kick a 50 yard field last night in an Ottawa loss (Justin Palardy). To me, the call was irrelevant - the BOMBERS lost that game, not the officials. Liram is paid to make those kicks, he's not paid to make garbage field goals and 3 out of 4 extra points. He failed ,HE lost the game. You're being a bit over-zealous here. At best a 50 plus yd. FG is a 50/50 proposition for any kicker, especially accounting for wind variations.

That doesn't explain why Stoudermire started the game at Safety.