BellGab.com Archive

First time since 1990.  U.S lost today to Trinidad and Tobago while both Panama and Honduras won, so the U.S ended up in fifth in the Hexagonal (ahead of Trinidad and Tobago.)  Top thee finishers in the hexagonal qualified automatically while the fourth place team plays the fifth place team in Asian qualifying.

This is kind of funny.  The Iowa State Representative behind the 'Suck it up, buttercup' law hangs up on an interview because he can't suck it up.

This is his very brief interview with CBC's 'As It Happens' interviewer Carol Off.  When the CBC called him back, he said he doesn't do interviews with 'advocacy journalists.'  I'll leave it up here to people to decide for themselves if her interview was 'advocacy journalism' but I think she was just trying to get him to be specific and he either couldn't or wouldn't answer.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.3853526/suck-it-up-buttercup-lawmaker-hangs-up-on-as-it-happens-1.3853530

Just for balance.

Sydney Sierota of the band Echosmith posted this on her twitter feed with the message "Got to wake up to this little cutie wanting to snuggle"

Obviously I don't want to say anything directly to her, but this is a black eyed child (on second look with grey, but I think it could also be argued that it's just a not yet fully formed black.)  I don't know, maybe I 'm just being stupid, but I find that baby a little creepy.

Do the Trump supporters here agree with this?

I think the large majority of Trump voters are the middle aged working class whites (probably most white males as well) who are mainly voting on economic issues.  I think what has happened is this:

Working class whites shifted to the Republicans first under Nixon (actually in the deep south, first with Goldwater and then over to the independent George Wallce, but anyway.)  Nixon's strategy was called 'The Southern Strategy' but, I think it is more accurate to call it the 'working class whites strategy.'  The strategy came from a brilliant political and polling analyst named Kevin Phillips who never thought that it would only be the U.S South that would align with Nixon and the Republicans.  Nixon and then Ford, obviously because of Watergate and subsequently, Ford's pardon of Nixon, lost a lot of these new Republicans back to Jimmy Carter and the Democrats.

My guess is, is that had Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volker as his first act as President and given him full authority to 'whip inflation now' and not waited until 1979, that inflation would have greatly diminished, the economy would have started to turn around, and even with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Carter would have been reelected and he would have kept many of these working class whites in the Democratic Party for another generation.  (Obviously this part is pure speculation, but the rest isn't.)

The important thing here though is that Nixon's appeal to working class whites was based on social conservatism and not economic conservatism.  Nixon said "we are all Keynesian's now and while he may have reduced some social welfare spending (I actually don't know  he was the first President to propose what is now known as Obamacare and he also suggested the idea of implement a GAIN to replace all welfare spending (Guaranteed Annual Income.)  So, on social welfare policy he'd be as close to Bernie Sanders today as to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and completely on the opposite side of the Republican Party.  He also appointed Arthur Burns as Chair of the Federal Reserve who promoted an expansionist monetary policy.
However, Reagan was reelected with his 'Reaganomics'  (aka more or less, Monetarism, supply side economics and voodoo economics) and he reaped the benefit of Paul Volker's actions.  However, he also got most working class whites of his day to believe that it was his entire agenda of deregulation (started under Carter), slashing social services, tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, strong support for the independence of the  Federal Reserve and free trade that was responsible for 'Morning in America.' (and some of those things may also actually have contributed.)

However, Ronald Reagan was first elected 36 years ago, and for today's working class whites he is either a distant memory, if remembered at all, or hold his agenda partly responsible for the growing income inequality and their difficulty in general of being able to find secure and reasonably well paying work (though most don't hold Reagan personally responsible.)

So, Ronald Reagan was able to make hold together this largely unnatural alliance of working class whites and the 'country club' establishment. However, due almost entirely to the appalling greed of these country club establishment Republicans in taking virtually all of the gains in income from productivity increases for themselves, and also in switching the tax 'burden' so much from themselves to everybody else,  this coalition has mostly fallen apart, and the middle aged and, to the degree they exist, younger working class whites are largely anti establishment Trump supporters.

I hear this on radio shows in that a lot of the older working class whites are still largely pro free trade and still argue that wages need to be kept low in order to not see jobs shipped overseas, while a lot of the younger and middle aged working class types are almost entirely suspicious of free trade and, while still largely being anti union and believing wages shouldn't rise too much, they also are unhappy that their wages haven't risen much at all since they started working full time jobs (or whatever equivalent they can find).

I also hear at least some of these callers say that while they support Trump, in general, they really don't care for most wealthy people, which is completely the opposite of the Reagan era working class white population.

Edited to add:  Trump fits the positions of current working class white voters in that he is anti the free trade agreements that have been negotiated (though not opposed to free trade agreements that would only have provisions favorable to the U.S), he wants hire taxes on bankers, if not on all rich people as part of his way of reigning in the greed of the bankers and his vague promise to 'make America great again' may be read by his working class supporters that he wants to see rising wages for everybody (that's just speculation on my part.)  Finally, maybe most importantly as was pointed out by GravitySucks, he also has pretty much come out against nearly all immigration to stop the foreigners coming here and 'taking our jobs.'  On pretty much all of these issues, he is strongly opposed by the establishment 'country club' Republicans.  This may also explain partly why Trump goes after Jeb Bush the most as Jeb Bush is easily the most identified of all the Republican candidates as being part of the wealthy elite Republican establishment (or 'the haves and have mores.')

Trump's authoritarian stances and his tough talk on foreign policy (which is a complete change from his previous position of 'let Russia do it' in regards to ISIL may also be reasons for Trump's support, but I tend to favor the economic issues as the main reason.

If, in fact, North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Cotton’s misguided history lesson on the North Korean nuclear deal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/13/cottons-misguided-history-lesson-on-the-north-korean-nuclear-deal/

So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and then spent months trying to develop its own policy.

Then intelligence agencies determined that North Korea was cheating on the agreement by trying to develop nuclear material through another method â€" highly-enriched uranium. The Bush administration sent an envoy who confronted North Korea â€" and the regime was said to have belligerently confirmed it.

In response, the Bush administration terminated a supply of fuel oil that was essential to the agreement â€" and then North Korea quickly kicked out the U.N. inspectors, restarted the nuclear plant and began developing its nuclear weapons, using the material in radioactive fuel rods that previously had been under the close watch of the IAEA. Japan and South Korea, the key partners in the accord, were not happy with the decision to terminate the Agreed Framework, but there was little they could do about it.

After North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006, the Bush administration tried desperately to negotiate a new accord with Pyongyang, including offering new concessions, but those efforts ultimately failed. The nuclear genie by then was out of the bottle. The issue was considered such a loser that the Obama administration has barely bothered to restart disarmament talks.

Questions have since been raised about whether the Bush administration misinterpreted North Korea’s supposed confirmation â€" and doubts also emerged about the quality of U.S. intelligence that inspired the confrontation. But Bush’s later efforts to negotiate a new accord were hampered by fresh evidence that North Korea actually did have an undisclosed uranium-enrichment program.

Funny how Charles R(epublican) Smith never mentioned any of this.

Sorry Albrecht, I still haven't gotten around to the list of Republican candidate corruption I promised. I haven't forgotten and I will do it , but at this point, I'm not really sure there's much point. Trump - winning!

Anyway, this is how I think the Republican debate would go if they were asked if they wanted to kill the Taliban.  I first wrote this on IRC, hence the comment style.

<Taliban Ted> I want to kill the people who I agree with on everything!

<Dr. Carson> I don't want to kill them, I just want to make sure they are tithing at the proper amount!

<Rick Perry> I forget who the Taliban are.  Oops.

<Scott Walker> We don't need to kill them, we just need to put up a wall between us and them!

<Jeb Bush> We can't allow them to die. Their husband is lying that they are in a persistent vegetative state!
<Jeb Bush> Of course, if the Taliban don't have their own private insurance, but rely on Obamacare, then they should die quickly!

<Mike Huckabee> Since they're not Chistians, I want to kill them, but first I want them to buy my products. Of course, if they convert to Christianty, I'll immediately pardon them even if they don't renounce killing.

<Carly Failureina> I want them all dead. They were the real reason I was fired from H.P.  I was actually the best CEO of all time! It's all the Taliban's fault, and Hillary's!

<The Donald> Kill the Taliban? That's too easy.  I could kill all of them personally with my own bare hands!

<Marco Rubio> I was against killing the Taliban before I was for it!

<Bobby Jindal>
Oh wait, nobody cares what Bobby Jindal has to say.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/carmakers-say-adios-to-canada-as-mexico-shifts-into-higher-gear-1.3108148

I don't see this as all bad as the story claims.  The manufacturing jobs are being lost to Mexico, but a wealthier Mexico will make it more appealing to export there, which will increase jobs here.

This should also help to decrease the amount of illegal immigration into the U.S.  Taken together with the U.S legalizing marijuana, those two things should put a huge dent into illegal immigration. 

The story mentions there are something like nearly 700,000 auto manufacturing jobs in Mexico. That's not a huge number out of a Mexican population of nearly 125 million but, I don't know if that is just the manufacturing jobs, or if it includes the other corporate jobs in marketing, human resources and finance.  If it doesn't, and taking into account that all jobs provided through foreign investment create spin off jobs in support industries and in service sector jobs like restaurants you are looking at as much as maybe 3-5% of total Mexican employment here.

The story mentions that wages have risen no where nearly as quickly as productivity.  It makes me wonder what the status of unions are in Mexico. It would not surprise me that, while NAFTA guaranteed 'rights' for corporations, that no such guarantees were given to labor unions.

That said, we've seen in China a sharp rise in wages to the point where most simple assembly jobs have moved out of China and into lower cost countries in that region like Vietnam, Burma and even North Korea.

In regard to wages, while the story mentions that the manufacturing jobs are low paid, I would expect that the professional jobs in marketing, human resources and finance would be somewhat higher paid, and certainly the middle and line management jobs would be quite well paid.  I would expect that most of the senior executive positions would still be filled by people from Canada or the United States at this time, but if they live in Mexico, they are still spending their money there.

It's a replay from a few months ago, so I guess it wasn't the exact moment of revolution.  It's from a very left wing perspective.  I personally believe Hedges connects a lot of dots that I don't believe really exist.  He claims things as part of some kind of a conspiracy that I think are mostly just individuals or companies doing things independently that in hindsight, taken together, look like some sort of huge scheme.

He makes some interesting points however and I like his take on the Tea Party.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-august-11-2015-1.3186670/america-s-revolutionary-moment-chris-hedges-on-rebellion-and-revolt-1.3186698

Good stuff for both the anti government and and anti industry types.

The fight against fracking: Jessica Ernst lives in rural Alberta -- she alleges that her well water was contaminated due to fracking. For the past eight years, she has been the "David" fighting a landmark legal battle against three "Goliaths": Encana, a major player in the gas drilling industry, the Alberta Energy Regulator and the government of Alberta. Jessica Ernst and her lawyer talk to Francine Pelletier as they prepare for their hearing in January in the Supreme Court of Canada.
more stories from this episode

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/fracking-lawsuit-joshua-bell-in-the-subway-bill-cosby-vs-the-image-closing-iroquois-falls-1.3169423/fracking-lawsuit-1.3169523

Former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein truly was a vile clown. RIH Premier Ralph.

Posted this in the GNS thread, but for those who missed it:

The universe is full of mysteries that challenge our current knowledge. In "Beyond Science" Epoch Times collects stories about these strange phenomena to stimulate the imagination and open up previously undreamed of possibilities. Are they true? You decide.

Quantum physics is so fascinating that it appeals to a broader lay audience than a lot of other topics in science. It’s also so difficult to grasp and attempts to simplify it for a lay audience may open it to misunderstanding.

It is invoked to explain all sorts of strange, even paranormal, phenomena. Yet these explanations are often based on misconceptions about quantum physics. Quantum physics may indeed have the potential to explain such phenomena, since much remains to be discovered about it. But it is important to remain clear on what it does and does not actually claim at this point in its development.

1. No Indication That Entanglement Transfers Information
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which pairs or groups of particles that have been in contact with each other seem to remain connected over vast distances. When actions are performed on one of the particles, corresponding changes are observed on the others.

Some have said that this entanglement may explain psi phenomena (psi refers to psychic phenomena, including telepathy, clairvoyance, et cetera).

Garret Moddel, an engineering professor at the University of Colorado who has worked extensively with quantum mechanics, warned that the effect “is a very subtle one. It’s not a causal effect, it’s a correlational effect. What the distinction between those two is requires a rather patient and detailed explanation.”

“People tend to think that quantum entanglement means that when I shake one particle, I’ll be able to see the effect on another, but that’s not so,” he said. “It’s been shown quite rigorously that you cannot use quantum entanglement to convey information, only to convey correlation. So, it’s not a signaling mechanism.”

“It’s possible that psi and the whole world works by correlation and not transfer of information in a causal way, but that’s a much deeper discussion.”

2. Consciousness Is Not Necessarily the Key to Collapsing the Wave-Function
The observer effect in quantum physics is often seen as the most shocking and interesting aspect of quantum physics. The outcome of a particular actionâ€"the wave-function collapseâ€"is suspended until it is observed. This seems to suggest that human consciousness is able to physically affect an experiment. But, Moddel warned, it is not generally thought by physicists that consciousness is necessary to collapse the wave-function.

A detector is sufficient, as most physicists see it. Of course, it is possible that a human checking the detector is the key, but quantum physics as it is generally conceived does not currently hold this to be necessary.

Astrophysicist Mario Livio also discussed this misconception in a post on NASA’s “A Curious Mind” blog. He wrote: “Perhaps the most common misconception is that the observer plays a crucial role in the uncertainty principleâ€"namely, that the principle really stems from the influence of the observer of the phenomenon being observed. This misunderstanding has even led some to conclude that the principle could be directly applied to a variety of everyday experiences.”

3. It Doesn’t Only Describe the Subatomic Level
Achim Kempf, a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Waterloo in Canada, explained via email that quantum physics does not only describe phenomena at very small scales and only in special circumstances.

“In reality, quantum physics determines most of what we see in daily life, such as the color, elasticity, and heat capacity of everyday things such as water, rocks, metals, and also biological matter. On larger scales, the way in which stars, in their interior, fuse primordial hydrogen into the elements of the periodic system is also governed by quantum physics,” he said.

Furthermore, researchers speculate that our universe may have inflated so rapidly during its genesis that quantum fluctuations were “dragged along and thereby stretched to cosmological size.”

“Our universe itself may have arisen from a quantum fluctuation inside a mother universe,” he said. Though this hypothesis fits with the current standard model of cosmology, however, no concrete evidence has supported it so far, Kempf said.

4. Speaking of a ‘Wave-Particle Duality’ Is Not Exactly Correct
It’s a popular conception that in quantum mechanics microscopic objects, such as electrons or photons, are neither pure particles nor pure wavesâ€"they are both waves and particles. In some conditions they behave as waves, in some conditions, they behave as particles.

Serious textbooks on quantum mechanics, however, only talk about waves, or wave-functions, noted theoretical physicist Hrvoje Nikolic of the Rudjer Boskovic Institute in Croatia in a 2008 paper titled, “Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts.”

“Electrons and photons always behave as waves, while a particle-like behavior corresponds only to a special case. In this sense, the wave-particle duality is nothing but a myth,” he said. We can say that electrons and photons are “particles,” if we keep in mind that “the word ‘particle’ has a very different meaning than the same word in classical physics,” Nikolic said. But this is a matter of linguistics. They are waves according to the usual interpretation.

The De Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, he said, comes close to a kind of wave-particle duality, but it still treats “particles” very differently than “particles” are treated in classical physics. The De Broglie-Bohm is not one of the most popular interpretations.

Follow @TaraMacIsaac on Twitter, visit the Epoch Times Beyond Science page on Facebook, and subscribe to the Beyond Science newsletter to continue exploring ancient mysteries and the new frontiers of science!

Tara MacIsasc has been a guest with Dave Schraeder.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2080270/watch-spacex-to-launch-supplies-to-space-station/


Keep trying!

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-8-2014-1.3104270/scientists-push-to-renew-psychedelic-drug-research-for-psychiatry-1.3104349

It's from a Canadian perspective, but, some of it is worth a listen if you have the time:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/science-under-siege-part-1-1.3091552

Just so nobody says 'stick it in politics', I've put this in the politics thread.

1.Total consumption spending was around $12 trillion in 2014, 25%  (23%) of that is $3 trillion.  Total direct federal revenue in 2014 was $3.2 trillion http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total, so even without adding in the cost of the 'prebates', a 23% sales tax rate would not be enough for the tax to generate enough revenue to make up for the loss of existing federal taxes.  Quoting Arthur Laffer to say that the cost of federal tax compliance is around $1 trillion a year is simply not credible to me. In the first year, it would mean that retail businesses (there are around 23 million small businesses in the United States) would have to retool their computer systems and their cash registers to set up receiving the tax.  If the 'fair tax' were to be 'hidden' as opposed to 'paid at the cash register' it would also mean they would have to change all their prices.  Both of these would have very high costs, although they would be 'one time things' as long as the rate of the 'fair tax' didn't change.

2.I had an english instructor once who would write "MNS" on papers (I received it once, I believe). At the beginning of the year, she handed out a guide that explained what her acronyms meant.  "MNS" meant "makes no sense".  The guest's responses to how a 23% sales tax would somehow lead to lower prices or, at most, would barely raise prices and, even more so, the response to how the huge increase in sales taxes wouldn't lead to a massive black market "MNS".

3.I agree with the idea of eliminating corporate income taxes, partly because, as the guest said "corporations don't pay any taxes" but mainly because corporations should receive an incentive to reinvest their profits.  So, I would increase dividend taxes to the 'normal rate' to partially make up for the loss of corporate taxes.  Other than that, I would get revenue by shifting to pollution taxes and possibly increasing the capital gains tax rate. I would also increase pollution taxes so much that I'd have the ability to significantly decrease, if not eliminate, the corporate share of payroll taxes. Business payroll taxes certainly have a negative impact on job hiring (though how big I have no idea), as corporate income taxes are 'after profit' their impact is probably minor, though obviously they discourage investment. Of course, very few large corporations likely even pay the effective 35% rate anyway.

4.The idea that switching from the present tax system to the 'fair tax' would increase GDP by "10% in the first year alone", is ridiculous. One of the first things taught in macroeconomics is that in the long run the only way to increase real GDP per capita is by increasing productive capacity (new plant and equipment, better infrastructure, better education...).  Even if eliminating income and other taxes did spur growth, the idea that productive capacity would increase significantly in the first year is laughable.  Eliminating corporate income and payroll taxes likely would lead to greater growth, but it would occur over many years.  Eliminating other income taxes and personal payroll taxes would likely have little impact, if any, on growth rates.

5.The guest promoted his 'prebates' but left out that lower income people already pay little to no income taxes and that even a great deal of payroll taxes are paid back to low and lower middle income earners through the EITC.

6.Switching to a 'fair tax' would not eliminate the IRS.  To be sure, it would be smaller, but there would still be a need to ensure that businesses sent on their 'fair tax' remittances as well as an agency to fight the newly hugely expanded black market. There would also need to be an agency to hand out the 'prebates' and, more importantly, to prevent what would likely be massive fraud with the 'prebates.'  I believe that the IRS also handles state income taxes, so, implementing a 'fair tax' would likely force states to eliminate their income taxes and move to sales taxes as well (or maybe increase property taxes).  Many counties (and I believe cities) also use sales taxes as well.  So the full effective sales tax rate (the nearly 30% the federal sales tax would have to be to achieve the same amount of revenue) as well as state, city? and county, would likely approach 50%! in many states.

The French Finance Minister and early economist Jean-Baptiste Colbert famously said: "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing."  While having as many different taxes as possible increases compliance costs, it keeps tax cheating and fraud to a minimum.

7.The guest said that a paying sales taxes are a 'choice'.  This, is, of course, for everybody but the 'back to earthers' ridiculous.  He also said that the effective rate on the 'flat tax' goes 'up and up.'  This is simply not true.  Many of the wealthiest save or invest a great deal of their income rather than spend it.  None of that would be taxed. It is most likely that the middle class, or the slightly upper middle class would end up paying the highest percent of their income in 'fair taxes.'

8.The Fair Tax would almost certainly not eliminate lobbying and claims for 'deductions'.
Charities would certainly get a lot of sympathy if they argued that sales tax payers should be able to send in tax receipts and receive money from back from the government equal to a percentage paid to the charity.  There are many other worthy tax deductions and credits, for instance those that benefit the physically and mentally challenged.  Again, it would be hard to imagine these people not receiving subsidies to equal what they presently receive in tax deductions and credits.  The fair tax would not eliminate lobbying, it would merely shift the demand from credits and deductions to direct subsidies.

9.Finally, and possibly most importantly, which sadly nobody called the guest up about, a 'fair tax' would result in a huge increase in taxes paid by middle class seniors.  Seniors earn most of their income from their 401k (RRSP in Canada), from social security and from other savings/investments.  Other than interest income on savings and dividend taxes, at present, none of this is taxed.  While poor seniors would likely pay no 'fair tax' thanks to the 'prebates' of income up to around $20,000 or so, a senior making more than that would start paying taxes whereas they pay very little now.  The only way around taxing seniors who have, presumably, already paid taxes all their (working) lives would be to exempt seniors from the 'fair tax.'  This would mean: 1.An agency be needed to determine who the seniors are, 2.The 'fair tax' would have to be even higher for everybody else.

Edit: It seems Spillane's also lowered the amount of the 'prebates.' In a previous post I wrote on this on another board, he had proposed 'prebates' of $6,400 for everybody, this time he said $2,300.

Vancouver, BC â€" When asked to discuss several popular conspiracy theories, British Columbians and Albertans are more likely to believe in the prevalence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) than in the existence of Bigfoot or Ogopogo, a new Insights West poll has found.

The online survey of representative provincial samples shows that 46% of British Columbians and 47% of Albertans believe that UFOs exist. About one third of residents (35% in BC, 32% in AB) also think that the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 amounted to a conspiracy.

Two-in-five Albertans (40%) and a third of British Columbians (32%) think that scientists have found a cure for cancer, but that the government or pharmaceutical companies are withholding it, while smaller proportions (27% in BC, 31% in AB) believe that a human being has already been cloned.

On two issues, there are some wide gaps between the two provinces. Pondering the 1997 death of Princess Diana in a car crash, more than a third of Albertans (37%) consider the event an assassinationâ€"a view shared by 27% of British Columbians.

One-in-four Albertans (26%) believe global warming is a hoax, compared with just 12% of British Columbians.

“Many Western Canadians continue to look at certain issues related to medical research as fodder for conspiracy theories,” says Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs, at Insights West. “On climate change, however, the differences between British Columbia and Alberta are more pronounced.”

One-in-five residents (20% in BC, 21% in AB) believe in Bigfoot (or Sasquatch). Similar proportions (19% in BC, 18% in AB) think 9/11 was a U.S. Government conspiracy, while slightly fewer believe that Ogopogo exists (16% in BC, 15% in AB) and that lottery outcomes are rigged (14% in BC, 13% in AB).

Considerably fewer Western Canadians believe that the lunar landings are a hoax (7% in BC, 10% in AB), that Osama bin Laden is still alive (5% in BC, 6% in AB), that dinosaurs never existed (3% in BC, 4% in AB) and that Elvis is still alive (1% in both BC and AB).

Do you believe:
1.UFOs exist: Alberta 47%, British Columbia 46%
2.JFK Assassination Conspiracy: Alberta 32%, British Columbia 35%
3.Cure for Cancer is being withheld: Alberta 40%, British Columbia 32%
4.Human Being has been cloned: Alberta 31%, British Columbia 27%
5.Princess Diana was assassinated: Alberta 37% British Columbia 27%
6.Global Warming is a hoax: Alberta 26% British Columbia 12%
7.Bigfoot is real: Alberta 21%, British Columbia 20%
8.September 11 was a government conspiracy: Alberta 18%, British Columbia 19%
9.Ogopogo is real: Alberta 15%, British Columbia 16%
10.Lottery outcomes are rigged: Alberta 13%, British Columbia 14%
11.Lunar Landings are a hoax: Alberta 10%, British Columbia 7%

http://www.insightswest.com/news/ufos-are-real-for-almost-half-of-western-canadians/

http://hoh.rollcall.com/ufo-activist-to-capitol-hill-beam-me-up/?dcz=

These are from Twilight Zone comic books published in the 1960s and 1970s.  The date and issue number are in the name. I have about 60 issues, I don't know how many were published.  There were these types of articles in about half of the ones I have.


1.Door to Oblivion



2.Dream of Gold



3.Fiery Death (about spontaneous human combustion)



4.Grandma is Missing



5.Journeys Into Oblivion



6."Oh You Beautiful Doll"



7.Phantoms From the Past



8.Strange Reunion



9.Strange Visit at Sea



10.Terror From the Sky



11.The Amazing Mr. Home  (Daniel Home)



12.The Cipher Manuscript



13.The Curse of Amne Machen



14.The Dead Man's Train



15.The Death Car



16.The Echoes



17.The Flaming Ship



18.The Green Children



19.The Haunted Church



20.The Inner Warning
URL=http://someimage.com/UEU0pRk][/URL]


21.The Living Fossil (not rally paranormal)



22.The Man in the Green Coat



23.The Mysterious Gambler



24.The Phantom Bullets



25.The Plane of Death



26.The Ship that Vanished



27.The Thing from the Sky



28.The Torment of Esther Cox



29.The Unmovable Coffin



30.The Visions



31.The Wheel of Light



32.The Wonderful Lulu Hurst



33.Three Dreams of Death



34.Travelers in the Twilight Zone



35.Ultra Crepi Clarion



36.What's in a Name (reincarnation story)

Burnaby is the 2nd largest suburb of Vancouver and the third biggest city in the province with a population approaching 250,000.

This has to be heard:
http://www.cknw.com/2014/10/17/dont-let-sylvia-gung-anywhere-near-burnaby-city-hall/

Please forgive me if this has already been commented on and delete this post.  I did a bit of searching and didn't find it.  I'm pretty sure I read a thread like this a couple months ago, sooo....

I know of a couple real science programs.

From the CBC in Canada
1.Quirks and Quarks
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/
with an extensive archive

From ABC in Australia
2.All in the Mind
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/
The host is very dismissive of parapsychology

From BBC
3.The Science Hour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016tmt2