cannuck

I will have to disagree with the general tone of this thread - that this is an aboriginal problem to solve and that Whitey is not to blame. Well, not at all the case. The reason that people can sit around on reserves all day and drink, screw, fight and buy lots of drugs is because some frigging idiots (mostly WHITE idiots) give them an endless supply of money - totally unaccountable money, It perpetuates because we also allow BILLIONS a year to be poured into the "Indian Industry", the bureaucrats and consultants who live very high off of this hog, and kick a fair bit of their booty and efforts back to the benefit of politics in general. If you have to get off of your ass and work for a living for yourself and your family to survive, it really cuts into the time for endless drinking, screwing, fighting and getting stoned. Handouts to aboriginal populations seemingly "in distress" ANYWHERE is a huge mistake - it fosters what every bureaucrat and consultant has for a wet dream: dependency that taken to the extreme results in a culture of entitlement. This inquiry is yet another $100mm of the same thing. The Libs could care less about the cost, since it is OUR grandchildren who will have to pay this bill. If you want to jump up and down and scream "racism" at me, as that is what is politically correct, you should know that my wife and children are eligible for status, and some of my nieces, nephews and one grand daughter are full treaty.

I somewhat agree with the crazy lady on this topic. While I don't believe racism is innate in the human animal, the propensity to BE racist certainly is. The need to survive requires that tribal groups be able to distinguish between those who are allies and those who are a threat, just as other animals need to learn what species are a threat and which can be safely ignored...and of course what species can be eaten. These may well be learned behaviour, but the innate property is the social/familial group is employed to define what those risks and benefits to interaction with other identifiably different animals might be. Of course, there can be threats from within a species, breed, tribe or family, thus to reach that level of specificity to discriminate, the simple task of different colour skin, shape of body, etc. is a very basic subset of those REQUIRED skills. BTW: Painting Japan as some kind of victim is foolish. While it is very true that Western countries had vast colonial presence in Asia, it was japan that invaded Mancuria in 1931 and China proper in 1937 that set the stage for the American blockades, not some wild conspiracy for Yanks to own the suchi market. About THE most racist people on this planet are the japanese. You need to speak with Chinese who were subject to the pure BS of "Asia for Asians" that the Japs spewed as propoganda for the sole purpose of wanting to immitate the success of Western countries in colonizing and exploiting their Asian neighbours. I have one major criteria for judging what a nation and its race demonstrates to earn my respect - or hatred. That is how did they treat prisoners of war and citizens of occupied territories. On that count, it puts Japan at the top of the heap of the biggest assholes in history. THEY make their distinction solely upon race of their counterparts, so what kind of stupid person would then not reciprocate in defense?

Canada has a large per capita environmental footprint for several reasons: First, it is incredibly cold here. Now, if we all lived in igloos, that would not be a big issue, but being a very wealthy place, we almost all live in very large, detached dwellings. Being incredibly resource rich, we piss away a LOT of energy supplying those resources to the rest of the world (as we add so little value within our economy). Then, there is the BIG one: we are a very large country. Think of the energy we waste flying supplies into hundreds of remote Northern communities. Then think of the energy we waste moving piles of raw materials from somewhere in the middle of the country to tidewater (best example, heavy crude oil). And, on it goes. Instead of measuring out environmental footprint per CAPITA, maybe take a look at it per dollar of economic activity. I suspect it would be a very different ranking vis-a-vis developing nations.

1.2.3.4. I think you caught my drift. Yes, we DO fall to the easy charactarizations of "left" and "right", but those tend to get framed in what is expedient for the agenda of the writer. I find that counterproductive, as it eliminates the ability to discuss rationally the benefits of policy of any kind since it came from "the other side". 5. I can see your point, but I never considered the Harper governments to have shifted Canada very far from where things were when he started. What the Libs HAVE done is expanded political correctness to an extreme, added the bogus "refugee" nonsense into the mix and racked up a shit load of debt - for no good reason except to try to buy votes from identifiable minorities. I was dissappointed by Harper. I am disgusted with Trudeau (and his handlers, as I don't think he really has the intellectual power or maturity to be much of anything other than a high school teacher).

Not to wander too far sideways, but those from the left side of the spectrum need to take a look at reality. Spend some time in Maduro's Venezuela, Mao's China or any of the successive North Korean left wing paradises, or more to the point the National Socialist Worker's party in Germany, and you can see that simply leaning left is no guarantee of anything good at all. You bring up Pinochet, a genuine Fascist, and a philosophy that WAS genuinely from the "right" and that didn't go so well (did for the economy, not for the people). If we extract just the substance, the range of labels from Left to Right GENERALLY start out with Marxist/Lenninst Communism at the left end, with ALL of the means of production belonging to the state, with Socialism in the middle, where the state allows private ownership, but imposes a certain measure of public ownership and control "for the greater good" (I chuckle at THAT one!!) and the "extreme right" being a Picochet. I would argue that this is total BS. Pinochet was IMHO the definitive fascist, but as to being from the right end of the spectrum, misses the mark by a country mile. While ownership in such a regime is not public, it is very much EXACTLY in effect what we have in Putin's Russia - ownership is granted only to those privileged to be rewarded by the leaders of the state. This is why I believe Hitler's Germany was really a fascist state, NOT a socialist one. Now, I can see why the Left would like to conveniently lump everything that is easy target as "the Right", but Fascism in no way allows what I believe to be the ONLY factor that defines a political and economic "right" - and that is freedom for individuals, companies and marketplaces to operate FRE,ELY under private ownership. NO classical "right wing" form of government meets that condition, as you need a dictator (Pinochet, Hitler, Putin) to rule with absolute authority to dispense privilege of access to resources, and that is NOT "right wing" political philosophy, that is fascist dictatorship (even when hidden behind the veil of supposed democracy). Today, outside of NoKo, I don't think there is ANY sovereign state that is truly communistic (some do come close), there are scores that are in practice facist, but there are NONE AT ALL that embrace genuinely "right wing" freedoms (which amount to economic and fiscal anarchy - the kind that Wall Street alone pretty much has). EVERY developed nation is IMHO a socialist state - as they have considerble elements of state ownership, state monopoly and effective state control over vast sectors of the economy - particularly those that provide genuine social services and in many cases utilities. Before the Yanks start poo-pooing that statement: consider that 2/3 of the US is covered by some kind of government sick care insurance, utilities such as the TVA own power generation and distribution outrigtht, only the state can work on waterways (Corps of Engineers) and vast areas of land belong outright to the state under BLM control. Socialist state, just like most of the rest. We need to stop the political expedience of simply saying "Left" and "Right" and look at each and every policy and strategy as being good for ALL people (at least the vast majority) or good only for those granted the privilege to benefit from (note that pendulum swings very much on the "left" and "right" side). As a life long political/policy junkie, I have come to believe that the ONLY thing that defines good legislation is that it NOT dispense special privilege to any one person, group, class, race, religion, etc., but that it is equally available to ANYONE who cares to qualify. SORRY for what turned out to be a rather large diversion, but NOW look at what the current administration here is going regarding political correctness and granting the privlege to dominate policy for the rest of Canada framed in the special advantages given to muslim immigrants, aboriginal candians, etc.

First of all, let me congratulate all for even bringing up this topic. The vast majority of the world, left and right politically, are about as ill-informed as my drug-addled idol, John Lennon. Phenomeal musician, heart in the right place, but head stuck up his arse. This is THE #1 problem on this planet. It is the cause of many of the other problems that are attributed to all sorts of things, but seldom to the real reason: too many people on a planet NOT just with finite resources, but with a very limited rate of replacing those that we have changed in nature to be useable once more. The politically left crap about third world countries being exploited for cheap labour does not belong in this discussion. The biggest offender for what will eventually topple the apple cart is Africa. Just take a good look around WalMart and tell me how many things have a "made in Zimbabwe" label. Or Somalia, or Yemen, etc. Places with exceptionally high population growth still have such a backwards version of what is supposed to pass for "civilization" that they have exceptionally high birth rates in the hope that enough children will survive to support the parents in their old age. Since they don't have functioning economies, they really don't have any way to be exploited by the standard boogey man of the left, the capitalist pig. The exploiting is all done by their own leaders - who will plunder all of the resources they can access while doing noting but waging war, often coupled with genocide on their subjects/citizens. Yeah, those are the values that our glorious leader and his Liberal government are trying to impose on Canada through truly STUPID and ignorant immigration policies. India is not a third world country, it is a developing nation with a very buoyant economy - and once again, I need to point out who is exploiting all of that cheap labour - Indians. Yes, Eastern capitalist pigs, not Western ones. China, of course, is still supposed to be a developing nation, but with the second largest economy on the planet, gone from zero to hero in three short decades, it is really more deserving of being called a first world nation. Once again, while there sure as hell is a HUGE amount of relatively cheap labour - ask a Chinese person if they feel exploited, and they will laugh in your face. Since China how has more billionaires than the US, who do you think is "exploiting" that cheap and highly productive labour and who is sitting there with no industry left in their country and shelves full of Chinese products? Another obvious HUGE difference between China and the rest of the world, they are the only country to figure out that population is a problem and actually DO something about it. Unfortunately, in the zeal (tempered by a fair chunk of realism - knowing that people are going to lie and cheat like mad over this one) they had to choose between 2 as sustaining the problem or 1 as reducing the problem and forgot about the cost thing when the current bubble of aging Chinese need to retire. Mao had a much faster way by simply starving them to death (it was 20mm by Chinese Communist Party numbers, much close to 100mm from those who know better), but this is not supposed to be tolerable to modern society. So what is? You can see here what a kindly gesture of sterilization gets for rousing approval. You think that is bad, just try selling that idea to someone who still lives in a cave-man culture where his manhood ranks somewhere above his need for monogomy to provide for an HIV free future. Of all cultures, sub-Saharan (and super-Saharan) ones are simply not going to let you knacker their men for the benefit of a future they care not to see. Ignorance, corruption and tribalism are the very stuff of their existance, not some concern for the problems of the world or mankind. That applies pretty well as you move East, but not quite the same once you hit China. If you really want to see people stop breeding like rabbits, your best bet is to pay good $$ for historectomies. In societies and cultures that refuse to accept that HIV is real, you really think they are going to embrace free contraception>?>?

If any compensation is due, it should come from the personal estates, salaries or pensions of those who actually MADE the decisions resulting in damage, not the taxpayer. BTW: STRONGLY agree that the Harper bunch were barely any more conservative than the Liberals - who are just barely to the right of the NDP.

Funny, but when the global warming fanatics spew their similarly flawed crap, or the anti-pipeline bunch or anti frac-ing knee jerk reaction groups do so, everyone gets in line to nod their heads in ignorant agreement, but when it is Islam that is targeted, it is somehow a terrible thing. Just an observation. I have a friend (ex Hitler Jungen, as it happens) who carries on like the above regarding contrails and the government trying to poison us all. Now, he has genuine reason to believe that governments can indeed conspire to hatch some pretty bizarre schemes, but the common thread in all of this stuff is that there is a tiny, TINY particle of truth somewhere underneath it all, and once the tinfoil hat is securely in place, it can be blown so far out of proportion that it gains traction with the halfwits we elect and turns into policy and legislation. Meanwhile, I will stay off of my cell phone. they might be trying to brainwash me with it.

It is hardly a matter if needing a "scientist". It is simple, grade school mathematics. Post you calculations and we can discuss. What you seem to be missing is that it takes energy to move the weights that provide the differenial in (gravitational force * moment arm) that you seem to think is all that is involved. It just happens that the energy needed to reposition those weights comes from within the system of the mechanism, and is exactly the amount added to and taken away from each positioning. Now that net zero could provide a constant motion (no excess energy to harvest) except for something pointed out to you by one of the first few posts: friction. The system of energy in vs. energy out that seems to be in balance to you (IF those calculations are valid in their assumptions) but it seems you have ingored that from that apparent balance, you must remove the amount lost at each moving mechanical interface (pivots and striking faces) to friction plus that lost to moving air. I have been waiting for you to discover these basic facts on your own, but instead you have gone off on a tangent without thinking things through.

I think you just paraphrased theoretical physics

Got a brief moment, and agree, I owe you the other side of the coin. IMHO, the very top of the list is peace. The way to prevent another super-power standoff is make the big players dependent upon each other for economic success. Chinie could very well have become a monstrous NoKo, but thanks to the very level head and steady hand of Deng at the helm, it instead turned into a trade dragon. For us, it means access to a very large POTENTIAL market that is not the US. We need diversity on our source of trade revenue and China can provide that. Sadly, we are not very good at selling our products there - more the passive Canadian nature than any other factor.

Yes, employers who have wronged employees and caused damages based on the reality of the day. TODAY it might be objectionable, but not that many years ago, it would be normal even for a government job to dismiss people for all kinds of reasons that political correctness has changed today. The standard of the day was NOT to do so, and I don't believe it is right to roll back the calendar. This also applies to residential schools.

Michael, you really seemed to miss the point. There is not compensation of $50 due, nor $0.50. There should be NO compensation whatsoever paid by our tax bill on behalf of anyone. Appologies...go for it. Money - screw off.

ah...nawww. Let me tell you how it works in the real world. One of my long time friends has an office just down the road from mine. They are in the livestock feed system business, and he is the key man writing software and integrating hardware. They are one of the success stories, sell their stuff around the world. About 10 years ago, he was sequestered for over a year, working secretively to develop a very unique and new approach to how the software worked using ROP feedback to adjust rations in real time. They decided to introduce this to the world in their first ever trip to a major IT show in Guangzhou. My buddy was scheduled to roll this out in a formal presentation on day two. He set up his booth on day one, and was approached by more than one person from China offering to sell him a new bit of revolutionary software - HIS OWN that had never been shown to anyone, anywhere at any time. That is business and trade, Chinese style. Any idea of legitimacy and integrity you might get from some idiot bureaucrat is pure fancy. Welcome to the real world. You might imagine it. In business, we live it. BTW: I personally know literally hundreds of hewers of wood, drawers of water and growers of wheat.

It is hard to say this, but to some extent, I do agree with Altai on this one. Not that people are naturally "racist", i.e. discriminate due to race alone, but that people are naturally very discrimanatory. It is a survival mechanism. A newborne is totally unaware of the race of its Mother, it is a BIOLOGICAL bond that the baby (human or animal) must exploit to acquire nutrition and protection. It is well known in the broader animal kindgom that surrogate mothers and children can bond equally well as natural child/mother pairs (or groups). The transferrance is learned or imposed, but the need to discrimately remain attached to the parent and child(ren) is innate. For example: I have a neice who is black, my nephew is white, their children are of a different race from their Mother - do you think that matters one bit to her???? (or the kids, or us for that matter). Another example is the endless tribal genocide that defines sub-Sahran Africa. Everyone there is the same race, but the innate dicriminatory nature of the species is that we can easily learn what charactaristics can be used to define another person or group that should be hated to the point of killing them for no other reason than they are (fill in ANY words in the blank). Once one tribe has fallen into that trap, their surrounding tribes need to learn how to discriminately guard themselves from the other, and pre-emptive stikes are but on protective mechanism. Wiping out the entire group is a long-term and permanent solution. My hypothesis is adequately demonstrated by the outburst of religious discrimination within this thread. Religion is a fairy-tale invention to satiate that inate need to discriminate. In fairness to Altai, I think it is what is lost in translation to English that has chosen the word "racist" in the place of "discriminatory". If I could do anywhere near as well in my second language as she does in English, I would be proud and satisfied - but similarly hardly free of egregious errors. OH: and regarding Japan - you can bet your bottom dollar that the US knew full well that the Pearl Harbour attack was coming. One of my very good friends and mentor in international affairs was one of the cultural anthropologists who worked with the crypto-geeks to master that Japanese naval code and most of all, how the key to the code was changed. They intercepted and decoded virtually ALL Japanese Naval transmissions. Because of his intimate knowledge and familiarity with all things Japan, I have learned to look at this from that side as well. What Japan was trying to do was copy US imperialist expansion in the Asia-Pacific region. Them being one of THE most racist races on the planet, they used the idea of "asia for asians" to try to gently nudge whitey from the region. So, it really was Japan that started the process rolling, unless you go back to Euro and Yankee imperialist intrusion into the area centuries before. Just for the record, though: Japan was one of the most viscious and violent occupiers in human history. I have Chinese friends (now all deceased) who lived through that.

Of course Trudeau's financial compensation is not tied to this one issue, but the future of the Liberal Party of Canada certainly is. Since no sane, logical and informed person could possibly vote for the Liberals as this administration has presented themselves, they have desparately sought out new sources of support - paying for such idiocy with our tax/debt money. Can you not see the pattern? Minority whines, Liberals give them not only what they want, but MILLIONS of times more than any sane person could ever consider. Think of the aborigianl situation, the "refugee" immigration nonsense, Khadr "millions for murder" scandal - the list is endless, and the bill is in the many BILLION$$ - all just do buy votes. If ANY alphabet soup of minorities has been wronged by their employer, it is up to their employer to compensate for their loss, NOT my grandchildren.

The PIIGS were a different case altogether, and Iceland was the smallest bit of that deal - not exactly a world leader in much other than ice. IMHO, the whole episode was the Euro banks making sure the Euro never gained hegemony. You have to remember: they all share a great deal of ownership by international banksters, but there is only one place on the planet where they actually own the central bank. A strong Euro that continued to gain credibility was a threat to the Greenback - and that would have release the pent up inflationary forces from increasing the money supply to pay for the synthetic, toxic instruments. I think, once EEC central bankers realized that the chartered banks had their way with them, nobody was going to make a big deal out of Iceland. Iceland was in the Euro zone, but NOT a Euro currency player - but the exposure of its banks was mostly in Europe in Euros. BTW: The default in Iceland was the banks, not the sovereign debt if I remebmer correctly. Banks had grown far larger than the economy, and when they crashed, the central bank didn't have the financial ability to BE a central bank. That is not the same as a sovereign default at all.

I have struggled with this issue for decades. It is the points raised by B-C and Altai that I seem to feel these days is what should determine the outcome. Not only Canada - AND the US exist in their current political form as sovereign states once under the control of an aboriginal population, but so do MANY modern states. While I may not agree with USA/UK simply deciding that Israel should exist in what was clearly Palestine, reality is that is now in the past and needs to be dealt with under the reality that there are two states within one territory, and THEY need to figure out how to co-exist. I think it is reasonable to assume that whatever the current legal makeup of any sovereign state might be, THAT is what should define who/what it is and over what it has authority. Jursalem IS the de-facto capital of Israel today, so then we can move on to the next issue. That would be recognition by the USA. I can not think of too many things pro-Yank that Hezbollah has said or done. In fact, as enthusiastic members of the Iranian framed fundamentalist part of Islam, I believe we can agree they are anti-Western. Israel, on the other hand, has been pretty much consistanly pro-Western. When you consider that they owe their existance mostly the USA and UK, what else could they be?? So, if an American President was to do anything at all regarding a contentious issue (and it certainly IS contentious) what side do you think he would logically come down on? DUH!!!!! As to the timing of when and reasons why Trump has chosen to inflame this situation, I don't pretend to know what goes on behind closed doors inside the Beltway (other than a lot of illicit sex acts, it would seem). I tend to agree, though, that this is one big flip of the bird from Trump to fundamentalist Islam - as that clearly fits the profile.

Geez, I didn't realize you were a JFK conspiracy tinfoil hat type.

It is actually fairly simple: in matters of trade, China will follow the rules in China (which essentially means "do what you wish, just don't irritate the CiCom Party) and Canada will folow the rules of Canada - that for the most part mean to follow the rules. The other issue is that China has few natural resources and Canada has an abundance. Therefore, to earn any export money, China does to by adding value, whereas in Canada, our manufacturing and other value added component is immature in some sectors and non-existant in others. We draw some water, hue some wood, grow some wheat and send a commodity out at a very small return. They in turn process our resources and sell them on to us an others at 100x value added. Like complete fools, we just smile and buy some of the worst quality CRAP that we will have to replace (from China) many times over the lifespan of a decent quality domestic product. Problem is: as we continue to mine our finite resources for the quick, easy and SMALL buck, those who would do the real work and add value are no longer in business. Compound that with our switch to a speculative economy, and there is little opportunity to fund value added enterprise on Main Street, as in our blind plunge into the religion of greed, we just give it to Bay Street (really, more often to Wall Street) waiting for some free ride miracle to make us rich. Now, China has a BIG problem with gambling, and speculative ventures are right down their alley, but 100% of the money they use to play is coming from a massive productive sector that adds a hell of a lot of value...enough to make Chinese companies from zero to hero buying up major enterprises worldwide with surplus cash - earned from selling us endless containerloads of worthless crap that we no longer have the productive ability to displace.

this depends on WHO is holding that sovereign debt. It is not true that default is without consequence, as the cost of further borrowing becomes high, or impossible (to me, BTW, the best thing that could happen - I see no genuine reason for public debt at all). Inflation will not necessarily take care of debt. It is more useful to look at debt/GDP ratio, but even that ignores that economists (IMHO the most inept discipline short of civil engineers who would put steel rebar in concrete) measure not only productive values, but speculative activity. My arguement is that if no wealth is created, speculative gains are not gains at all, but simply re-distribution of wealth. IF they cause an increase in the money supply (and they do) the resultant new issue of fiat currency results in new debt - that is a pent up inflationary force. When other central banks prop up various currencies for practical reasons, that currency and all pegged to it (either formally or simply in fact) are far overvalued until those forces are realized - usually in a crash. Why that is important in this context is that the largest of all public debt is the US, and the greenback is held up by most central banks since they hold so much of THEIR assets defined in USD, they must intervene to hold it up. But one should ask why this is the case? The answer is that what is unique about the USD is that they have never defaulted on sovereign debt (even the non-war debt of the Confederacy IIRC) thus established hegemony for the Greenback. Its a roller coaster, but if you want to see what happens when a truly shakey debt situation gets out of hand, look at Venezuela. It holds the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, but due to mismanagement of debt - mostly the THREAT of default - people can't buy enough food, their oil company can not raise capital and can barely operate. Russia holds a big chunk of the debt of Citgo (subidiary of PDVSA) and in the event of default, WILL take that asset from the people of Venzuela. Sorry to ramble, but this opens an incredbily large bag of issues. Starting to wander too far off topic.

Abouit as realistic as the idiotic crap the the Liberals have pulled over the last year or so. The difference is: the debt these people created in their bungled efforts to buy votes that is left behind for my grandchildren to pay is quite real.

Sorry you were subjected to the doubts of those who's greatest travel experience has probably been the next WalMart beyond their nearest, but please don't hesitate to share some more. Your habits sound very much alike what I prefer to do. I seldom stay in Western-style chain hotels, I much prefer to go out into the local neighbourhoods and stay there. I will only hit the big 5 star chains if I have to meet with someone who would not understand being out "on the economy" (an old Canadian Army expression). In doing this for decades, I have NEVER experienced a negative reaction from my hosts or complete strangers. One of my most memorable trips of that nature was in KSA, about 17 years ago. I had been coming frequently as an American business with a Lebanese component, but the people we dealt with were quite aware I was Canadian. After a few visits in Riyadh and Dammam, our hosts had made quite a point of how I would break apart from our group and head out into a local hotel on every trip. They asked endless questions about my background and experience in MENA and the Maghreb. Having spent a LOT of time in Morocco, I knew exactly what they were getting at. The imperative is to NEVER embarass your host or your guest, so before being accepted into a circle of friends as an actual friend, they need to know you will not do anything to embarass those around you and that you will not be offended in any way by their customs and values. Once accepted, your friends are totally responsible for you, as you are expected to be similarly responsible for the safety, well being and happiness of them. Our Lebanese facilitators had made some fuss about how our Saudi counterparts were in some way influential, but I was soon to learn that they protected their real identities FIERCELY when dealing with Lebanese, as they viewed them as opportunistic. They trusted our American component even less, as they could not understand how the US side simply regarded everyone who did not want to be "just like us" as somehow inferior. The resulting boorish behaviour would simply not be acceptable in Saudi society. I know this will ring B-C's bells pretty hard, but reality is many countries deal with outsiders with a great deal of politeness, which most Americans interpret as "friendliness", but it is actually just polite deference to keep them at arms length (this is ESPECIALLY true in KSA). Canadians are given a bit more of the benefit of the doubt, but all that means is you can be considered to be invited into a genuine friendly relationship. I was invited to leave our group and come away deep into the desert for a few days with our hosts once they were comfortable that I understood how to behave. I was to find out that even though my new friends were very young (coming up on 30) they were highly respected by several community leaders and significant figures within the Kingdom. I spent several days meeting with people not in a business sense, but in many family celebrations including a wedding, a birthday party, a celebration of an eldest son's "coming of age". One of the ways one can measure the degree of respect being shown is the invitations to private meetings during gatherings, and paying attention to WHO is pouring you tea or coffee. When it is the eldest son at one end of the spectrum or simply a servant at the other, you can figure out how you have been represented to your host and how he appraises that introduction. Let's just leave it that I got to meet several families and their patriarchs, and got to experience a LOT of Saudi culture that is seldom visible to the rest of the world. My takeaway from that experience was that Canadians are extremely well regarded in KSA, but they can not understand why we don't come over more often to tell them what we can do for and with them. Some of the most sensitive contracts in KSA now go to Canadian companies, but an awful lot of plain old day-to-day commercial activity is done by European companies that the Saudis would LOVE to see displaced by Canadians. I have had similar experiences in several other countries, but to tell them here in any detail would just be met by the kind of rudeness and derission Omni has just experienced in this thread. What those of us who have been fortunate enough to experience such travels take away is friends. Our two young Saudi hosts are to this day very good friends, and I have the joy of watching their children grow up in a situation where they are exposed to international travel and family friends that will shape their lives and the character of their nation for decades and generations to come. The secret in being a tourst seems to be in NOT being a tourist, but a visitor prepared to open your mind and get in step with your host country.

Damage is easy: national debt and annual costs to pay for massive bureaucracy. Personal damages: tax bill and value of time wasted dealing with inept idiots. As to "not understanding the legal system" once can sue for other than financial damage or redress.

We are in resource business, the model is to take stuff out of the ground for a lower cost than what the markets will pay - and that makes life pretty tough these days,. I am slowly moving back to my comfort zone (manufacturing), but most of the companies in the sector I wish to return to are in dire financial straits as well. Never stopped me before, but I really am getting a bit too old to keep on trying to change the world, one product at a time...so I will limit myself the three more and call it quits. That is a pretty good idea. Will try to get back this evening and go there.