turningrite

Let me repeat: Mental illness is not an indicator of a propensity to commit atrocities and where an act that's been carried out was in fact planned mental illness, if it does apply, is almost always a contributing rather than causal factor. The public does want accurate information and now that ISIS has reportedly claimed the Danforth shooter as a soldier in its cause (likely conveniently) even more will demand that public officials be open about the situation. Cynicism is not a plot. I believe it's a healthy character trait that serves one well in a democracy. Among my favorite quotes is the advice to "never believe anything until it's been officially denied."

Well, then, based on your own logic you've got nothing to worry about. Things are working out just fine from your perspective. (I hope you have a big poster of Kathleen Wynne, who along with her predecessor did more than anyone else to sabotage Ontario's cost competitiveness, on your wall.) Why, though, your apparently instinctive vitriol for all things Canadian? Did a Canadian dump you at some point in your life?

1.) Of course it is. Let me quote you from your previous post: "its about vilifying people Conservatives don't like - the Liberal Government and Muslims." Care to explain? 2.) I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. People want real information but many suspect they won't get it. The longer it takes for public officials to communicate information about the shooter's connections, online activities and possible motives, the more likely it is many will conclude that an agenda to suppress details is afoot. How long did it take before we (quite reasonably) heard public condemnations of the motives involved in the Quebec City mosque attack and the Yonge St. van massacre. Hours, maybe? Public officials are so far only telling us what they think it is not. Hmmm....

There is no comparison to be made here. I respect the right of people to kill themselves. I don't believe, however, that they have any moral or practical right to kill others. I also suspect that it's very common for people who have another serious illness to suffer depression and/or other mental illness. Some kinds of cancer, for instance, can generate mental changes as a result of a condition called paraneoplastic syndrome. Few kills others, whether or not they display overt symptoms of mental illness. I believe Robin Williams was suffering a serious and degenerative physical/brain illness (Parkinson's) prior to his death. In such cases, suicide can be a rational choice. But in my opinion to compare such a situation to the case of a mass shooter and/or killer is repugnant. You should be ashamed of yourself for even alluding that such an analogy might apply.

1.) Oh, forgive me for thinking that you're chiming in on Trump's critique of NAFTA. As for whether Canada thinks it's relationship with the U.S. is "special" when compared to, say, China, well of course it does. That's kind of the point in maintaining a relationship that's existed for 200 years or more and been codified in various arrangements, including most recently the NAFTA. I'm no fan of the NAFTA pact, but it's rather immature on the part of Trump and/or his followers to portray it as some kind of foreign plot against American interests. 2.) Yes, because of NAFTA, and prior to that the Auto Pact. Canada has always been satisfied to be a secondary market and branch plant largely because that's what American industry, which dominated the auto market in North America until a couple decades ago, wanted. 3.) Canadian risk capital finances little in the U.S. and neither I suspect does it play a big role in building new manufacturing facilities in the U.S. these days, at least where the traditional North American companies are concerned. There have been risk capital ventures in the emerging electric car field but the extent of their eventual success remains speculative at this point and they are largely absent from Canada in any case. I believe that new auto assembly plants in Canada have largely over the past couple decades been built by offshore firms, particularly from Japan. The U.S. firms have mainly focused on streamlining operations in Canada and transferring manufacturing operations from both Canada and the U.S. to Mexico.

Mental illness in its own right doesn't constitute a substitute for motivation and to argue that it does is a disservice to the mentally ill, a vast majority of whom are not a threat to public safety. We didn't permit the mental illness suffered by the Quebec City shooter to negate the specific motives for and targeting of his attack. Nor should we have done. There are people, of course, who suffer psychotic breakdowns and act out indiscriminately like the guy out West who beheaded another passenger on a Greyhound bus a few years ago. But this type of crime generally involves no planning or specific targeting. The Quebec City attack was planned, as was the Yonge St. van massacre, and from all appearances the Danforth shooting appears to have been as well. At the very least, the shooter went to the trouble of acquiring a handgun and apparently knew how to use it. It doesn't appear to have been a split second decision on his part. Mental illness may well be a contributing factor but it doesn't explain or negate the actual motives.

This statement reflects a lack of understanding of the North American vehicle manufacturing industry. Under current rules a vehicle must only be 62.5% North American made to qualify for the NAFTA tariff exemption. And it doesn't matter where in North America - Mexico, the U.S. or Canada - a vehicle or the parts it contains originate. Most of the flow in manufacturing has been to low-wage Mexico and not to Canada. Trump wants to raise the North American content rule to 85% with a stipulation that at least 50% be American. Neither of the other two countries, nor the auto industry, support this approach. In any case, you can rest assured that any American brand auto that's assembled in Canada likely contains a majority of parts manufactured elsewhere.

I've been to Europe several times over the past few decades and in recent times, particularly over the past several years, I've had to go through the EU's "passport control" system before leaving Europe to fly back to Canada. I don't think it sufficient to rely on third parties to provide such information, particularly at airports. Although I travel on a Canadian passport (except to the U.S., where I use my American passport) I've been asked by passport control in Europe whether I hold a passport from any EU country. Do our airlines assess and inform the government whether those leaving Canada hold a second (or third) passport? They should. Otherwise, given the number of Canadians who hold dual citizenship, the tracking system is pointless.

I'm not sure what to think about the situation at this point. Our mainstream media seem for the most part to wait to take their cues from government officials, which in this country means that a lot of information is spun through the lens of political correctness before we hear much other than speculation. Reportedly, the police have said the shooter was known to them due to prior instances related to mental illness, although some news reports have indicated that according to some who knew him he had displayed no apparent recent signs of overt mental illness. Mental illness alone, though, doesn't explain, address or negate his actual motives or triggers. During the trial of the Quebec City mosque shooter it became apparent that he, too, had suffered mental illness but in my recollection this wasn't portrayed as mitigating his actual hateful motives, which were very publicly assessed, discussed and reported on from the outset. And it also seems to me that we got specific information about the Yonge St. van attacker faster than has been the case with the Danforth shooter. No doubt, the police will comb through his computer and cellphone data to ascertain his specific motive(s). But will the public be informed of their conclusions? I won't hold my breath. Public officials seem to be handling this situation with kid gloves.

My mainly Irish-Catholic American mother felt that way, for sure. After immigrating to Canada from the U.S., where she'd married my father, at the beginning of the 1950s, she waited for two decades before becoming a Canadian citizen and her oft-stated rationale for the delay was that she couldn't bear the thought of pledging allegiance to an institution that had oppressed her ancestors and co-religionists. Thank goodness the citizenship judge was a French-Canadian. When my mother protested the royal oath, he made it clear that he didn't put much store in it either. "Just hold you nose," he told her. She often proudly noted that she obtained her Canadian citizenship under protest.

I'm wondering if their new digs will included government-funded room service? Maybe when he returns to these parts Trudeau can pull a waiter's uniform out of his tickle trunk and carry a silver-plated tray with bonbons from room to room. Nothing but the best...

Wow, so some First Nations are celebrating the symbols and detritus of colonialism! Who'd have thunk it?

I've been reading your posts on this topic and I have to say that I agree with you. The merits of our current immigration policies, including our points system, are generally overstated and the government does very little to track the success (or failure) of those who do arrive. The Fraser Institute has concluded that the most recent generation of immigrants is costing this country's taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year when calculating social costs paid out less taxes paid by this cohort. Australia's Productivity Commission (Don't you wish we had one of those!) recently examined that country's similar (to our) large-scale immigration program and in a 2016 report exploded some myths, in particular by concluding that large scale immigration doesn't resolve longer-term demographic issues, however may if properly calibrated and administered help to offset shorter-term labor market deficiencies and population trends. It recommended that Australia's system be adjusted to more accurately and fully meet specific labor market needs, de-emphasize family reunification and tighten access to government-funded benefits for non-refugees. In particular, it recommended that in selecting immigrants greater emphasis be placed on age (i.e. youth), demonstrable and useful skills and English-language capabilities. Seems pretty rational to me. We need to do better as well by adjusting our priorities. If Australia can do it, why can't we? https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake/report

1.) I reference below statistics from the Quora website, which indicates that 800 million Chinese continue to live in mainly rural provinces that remain impoverished based on objective international comparisons. 2.) "Economic orthodoxy has long favoured open trade." Well, of course it has. That's my point. It's self-interest. The dispossessed don't get to have a say about economic orthodoxy, do they? 3.) My point, of course, is that if there were not a demand for low-skilled labor, jobs that require such labor wouldn't have moved to the developing world in the first place. You can't have it both ways. The singular attraction in moving these jobs was to lower input costs (Do you understand the term?), which, where labor intensive manufacturing is concerned, mainly means lowering wages. This is pretty logical. Politicians, the ever useful agents of the corporate classes, have done everything in their power to pave the way in this process. If reading things you don't like serves to raise red flags for you, perhaps you need to examine whether you should visit websites where often contentious issues are openly debated. I'm not alleging a conspiracy here. The intent and processes of globalization are out in the open for all to see, particularly as the perverse consequences become more apparent. Finally, I think you're absorbed in reading materials that sustain your own views. I believe this tendency is called bias confirmation. I think you need to broaden your perspective. I note here that you haven't commented on the blistering critique of recent trade deals like the TPP by respected economists like Stiglitz. I guess winning a Nobel counts for little in your world view where "Centuries of literature, peer-reviewed academic research backed up by studies and mathematics can't be faked." But the ones with which you don't agree can apparently be ignored. Academia research and debate is all about challenging orthodoxy, not confirming it, as in the latter case you would appear to prefer. https://www.quora.com/Is-China-rich-or-poor-Why

And your point is? People unfortunately often botch suicide attempts. Or they do so in ways, like jumping in front of subway trains, that massively inconvenience others. We need to provide people with more humane options. Sure, people can be urged into committing suicide by others but do you not think this is happening today? Perhaps those who feel vulnerable would be able to register their unease in a system in which people have to request an assisted suicide and an objective counselors or administrators could then intervene in cases where abuse or intimidation are apparent. There are pros and cons for every idea and there is no absolutely perfect model. But I prefer to allow individuals to choose their own fate rather than having others do so for the sake of feeling better or even morally superior about it.

Too many Canadians fall into the trap of believing that the U.S. health care model is the only alternative to Canada's terrible system. This stark dichotomy undermines making the reforms necessary to transform our system into a more efficient and sustainable model. We already have a structure upon which to build a "public option" as part of a new system. It is the lack of this option that undermined effective health care reform south of the border. Health care isn't free, nor should it be. We should as much as possible remove its costs from general taxation and transfer them to a stand alone program funded mainly by contributions/premiums. Eligibility would be assessed on the basis of contributions and years of residency, as is now the case with seniors benefits.

Once China developed a sufficiently large internal economy, why wouldn't it be able to survive without access to the American market? It would be an adjustment, for sure, but I think you're underestimating Chinese ingenuity, reach and influence. Russia and Iran are economic minnows compared to China, which along with the U.S. is now the biggest fish in the global economic sea. Many economic commentators have commented about the leverage China holds as a result of its strategy of gaining a financial foothold in America. I think the Americans underestimate the Chinese at their own peril. Trump is boxing with China, throwing a few punches here and there but then pulling back. He's not in control and I suspect he and his advisors know this. By the way, what have Trump's trade demands illustrated? With what countries has he made any significant deals or obtained real concessions? International negotiations, as it turns out, aren't the same as real estate or casino deals.

I'm not sure what ethical obligation anybody has to inform anybody else of their intent to end their life, except perhaps for a spouse. My friend who chose assisted suicide was utterly transparent with everybody close to him about his choice and as far as I'm aware they/we all accepted it. I used to have qualms on the latter issue concerning depression and addictions, but I've changed my view on this. I believe that suicide is quite often a rational choice and I think having a humane and reliable way of so doing would be beneficial to those who are really serious about it. Our health system offers very little psychological support and as survival becomes more difficult for ordinary people in our economy I think we have to acknowledge that suicide is actually a practical and morally valid choice. I thought a lot about this after an acquaintance lost his job in his late 50s, could never find another one, spent down his savings and was eventually served an eviction order due to non-payment of rent. There were no options other than becoming homeless because social assistance wasn't sufficient to cover his rent and the waiting period for social housing is several years. On his eviction date he was found dead in his apartment, an overdose suicide I believe although I'm not sure as cause of such deaths is seldom if ever publicized. I suspect it would have comforted him to know his suicide would not be a matter of chance. I think his choice was rational, eloquent and indicative of what this society's values really rest at this point in history. I think it's what I would do were I in the same situation. We should be honest about these things.

The Chinese are smart. They have a lot more leverage in this fight than many might imagine to be the case. I believe they are among the largest foreign holders (maybe the largest?) of U.S. government bonds. They could wreak havoc on America's public finances if squeezed too hard on trade. I agree that the WTO system is problematic and needs reform but I suspect Trump's current strategy is to attack allies and countries that have more-or-less fair trading relationships with the U.S. in order to make it appear that he's not specifically attacking China. The U.S., and the rest of the West in general, is going to have to negotiate carefully with China. We're not in a position to call all the shots.

I deleted the one gratuitous sentence in your post. Otherwise, I think you haven't seen what's happening because you're not looking. You've heard of M-103, right? You should read Neil Macdonald's excellent 2017 piece on that little political stratagem, which he notes is part of a broader ongoing effort to manage and restrict speech in this country. (See link below) I never said in my post that we can't seek foreign perspectives. Thank goodness we can do so because I often read British and American news sites. The only problem is that they seldom report on events, trends and controversies in Canada. So I'm stuck with the generally more restrictive Canadian media coverage. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/anti-islamophobia-motion-1.3994374

Have we yet implemented exit controls? I heard there was discussion about this but was unaware we had formally opted to do it. I think it's a great idea. They've had exited controls in Europe for quite some time. Every time a person enters or exits the country should be documented. But I suspect the Charter cheerleaders will find a way to attack such a system if it's ever fully developed.

Government micromanagement tends to turn potential success into miserable failure so I'm wary of governments that by fiat stimulate selected sectors in the economy or determine winners and losers. Ford can't resolve the trade dilemma with the U.S. so there's little he can do about Trump's protectionism. Canada took a huge gamble with the FTA and NAFTA and now the chickens are coming home to roost. We have almost no leverage. I think our only hope at this point is to roll back taxes dramatically, eliminate pretty much all non-essential government spending dramatically, cancel social programs other than pensions and disability support and implement a health care system where eligibility is based on contributions as is the American public medicare system for seniors. Those who've paid taxes for years would be credited with deemed contributions but going forward everybody would have to pay premiums covering the full cost of the medical system or opt out of it entirely by buying private insurance. We simply can't afford freebies. The old economic model is finished. It's time for a massive rethink. If we don't move on this soon, we could all become impoverished in the near future.

China didn't design the system. It was largely designed and promoted by corporate interests in the developed West. China simply realized that it could benefit from the system and has done so. But the big winners are the corporate elites and financiers who sit in boardrooms in Western economic capitals.

1.) What are you talking about? It's my understanding that a majority of the population in China, particularly in rural regions, remains impoverished by Western standards. Hmmm... 2.) Of course it was designed to transfer wealth. That was the entire point of globalization. Managed trade deals aren't win-win. They're increasingly about investor protection and boosting profits at the expense of consumers. Have you read anything about Joseph Stiglitz's critique of the TPP,. (See link below.) And he won a Nobel prize in economics. You? 3.) Why has unskilled labor been so favored under globalization despite a lack of supposedly marketable skills? Oh yeah, lower wages. You seem to have become entranced by the big lie. Dream on.... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/tpp-is-about-many-things-but-free-trade-not-so-much/article27169740/

1.) I think you're missing the point. 2.) Blowing up the status quo, as I said, is one thing. Doing it without a plan is another. We'll see how that works out. I guess you're conceding that Trump might have a very unconventional disaster with Putin. The main issue for many Americans as much as for the rest of the world is the extent to which Trump might permit American and Western interests to be debased for the sake of preserving his special relationship with Putin. Even Republicans are now asking what leverage Putin holds over Trump? It's really quite stunning. 3.) We have our own illegal migrant situation and most are flowing north over the U.S.-Canada border. Many don't oppose the migrants as a security risk, as the Japanese were (unfairly) viewed in both countries during WW2. Rather, the recent migrants are seen here as a social cost, which, of course, is a completely rational concern for those who pay taxes and are increasingly told to expect less in return for paying their taxes.