Epictetus

The rules we live by. It seems that Greg Farries who calls himself the “administrator” here has difficulty understanding the English language. This forum posts a list of “rules” which declares that personal attacks and insults aren’t allowed. Apparently if you’re “in the know” with Mapleleafweb “administration” that rule can be ignored. A participant leveled a personal accusation at me with respect to plagarizing. Mr. Farries perspective is: “Mad_Michael questioned whether the material you posted was plagiarized, and you successfully defended yourself. I'm not sure what else you would like me to do?” Essentially “It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions.”… Rule Number two in the listed forum rules doesn’t apply. Instead the rubric is you can say anything you like, level any accusations and bersmirch the character of others on this forum and as long as the person being insulted can “defend” themselves, everything’s just wonderful! Absolutely pathetic, but what can you expect from a Canadian “forum” website these days? The world’s full of wannabe “journalists” and “administrators”….who come complete with their own prejudices and set of “rules”….. I have no interest in participating in a “let’s pretend our word…our “rules” have any meaning…kind of website. Mapleafwebweb.com is microcosm of the same failure in integrity and honesty as the very government we’re discussing.

Dull boring men who usurp the process of democracy is acceptable is it? Dull boring men who manipulate systems to enhance their power and facility to re-structure Canadian law and fiscal management to suit their own personal interests is perfectly accpetable to you is it? It seems you have a flair for the dramatic in your prejudices Mad Michael! A charismatic leader translates to "Hitler" and the term "leadership" is it seems offensive to you. Not all charismatic peopl equate to Adolph Hitler Michael and leadership isn't a dirty word. Thanks for your input though, it certainly clarifies your percpetions.

I'm prepared to cut you some slack...I've read what passes for cogent argument from you in previous posts. If you're referring to particular statements which aren't identified in the link provided, please point them out. If I continue to participate in this forum, what you'll find is that everything and I emphasize EVERYTHING that comes from a source other than my own thinking is and will always be cited and credit given. Let's not get into acusations and petty innuendo just yet Mad-M...you might not like the result.

Good Point! Now let’s look at Canada shall we? http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/...nout040629.html If you prefer the stats from the U.S., feel free to apply the “logic” from those stats to Canada if you like. Seems a little odd to me though. Voter turnout lowest since 1898: reports Last Updated Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:03:47 EDT CBC News TORONTO - There were conflicting reports Tuesday morning about how many Canadians had voted in the 2004 federal election the day before. According to some preliminary reports, a smaller proportion of Canadians bothered to vote in the 2004 election than in any other poll apart from 1898. That year, only 44.6 per cent of the electorate cast ballots in what was actually a nationwide referendum about liquor prohibition. That figure would suggest that only about 13.5 million of the roughly 22.3 million eligible voter in Canada exercised their democratic right to vote. The Toronto Star reported that "fewer than 13 million" Canadians voted. The newspaper also reported that Prince Edward Island, at 70 per cent, had the highest turnout of any province The Canadian Press said 2004 turnout was about 62 per cent, roughly the same as the last election in 2000. But according to Elections Canada voter turnout in 2000 was 61.2 per cent, the second-lowest ever. Elections Canada's Web site was not displaying any 2004 turnout data. Is your point that American statistics prove that Canadians are voting in droves? Is you point that the American's knew before they voted that G. Bush would turn out to be a man of extremely low itellect and completely devoid of integrity? Please clarify your point for me would you?

How much latitude is appropriate. Paul Coffin pleads guilty to 15 counts of fraud. Raphael Schacter: "If you have any type of a heart, you understand that everybody has his story," he told reporters. "It's very difficult. It's difficult for the client, it's difficult for the family and it's difficult for any lawyer who has a heart." What difficulties could Raphael Schacter mean? How difficult could it be (Mr. Coffin has already acknowledged his guilt) for a man to differentiate right from wrong and choose to behave as a criminal? Mr. Coffin should not only be expected to repay the funds he stole from Canadian taxpayers, he should be facing a minimum of twenty years in prison. As prosecuting attorneys and judges so often like to say, “This criminal activity demands that a strong message be sent.” Let’s get moving! There’s a whole cabal of thieves and liars waiting to have their day in court. The sooner the better, and Canadians will have the opportunity to judge for themselves if the Canadian judicial system recognizes one “law” and one “justice” for the wealthy and one for the rest of us. Just how “unfortunate” and “difficult” is the decision to break the law? Former Liberal Party of Canada president Stephen LeDrew will have to get back into the habit of paying his income taxes. A judge has just scolded the $250,000-a-year lawyer for years of tax delinquency and the extravagance of buying a $1.8 million Rosedale home just 16 months before he was tipped into bankruptcy. Justice John Ground of the Superior Court of Justice stopped short of requiring the high-flying Liberal to pay his entire tax debt — the demand made by tax officials that finally pushed him over the brink financially. But LeDrew noted ruefully yesterday that a requirement he pay 74 per cent of the $364,140, uncontested portion of his tax debt is a higher proportion than personal acquaintances and former federal privacy commissioner George Radwanski were able to negotiate with the Canada Revenue Agency. Ground used strong language to criticize LeDrew's behaviour, and pointed out that he took on substantial obligations that made it difficult for him to pay his current tax obligations while catching up with late payments. "The evidence is that LeDrew consciously and continually neglected to pay income tax instalments when due and appeared to regard his obligation to pay income tax as subordinate to all other personal obligations," Ground wrote in a 19-page ruling. "I am unable to conclude that a person who intentionally neglects to pay income tax obligations of hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years can be regarded, by any standard, as `unfortunate'."

Perhaps this is the acquaintanceship to which we are referring? February 1, 1994 - Martin enters into a Supervisory Agreement to allow his lawyer and Canada Trust to assume his share of control in Passage Holdings and CSL Group Inc. Unlike a blind trust, the agreement includes a "peek-a-boo clause" to allow Martin to "personally intervene in order to exercise the rights and privileges associated with the shares or the assets" in the case of "an extraordinary corporate event." February 2003--It is revealed that Martin used the "peek-a-boo clause" in his supervisory agreement a full 12 times since 1993, at which time he discussed CSL's business dealings directly with members of the CSL board. February 22, 1994 - In his first budget, Martin says, "Certain corporations are not paying an appropriate level of tax. Accordingly, we are taking measures to prevent companies from using foreign affiliates to avoid paying taxes which are otherwise due." In his budget implementation, Martin made it difficult for Liberia to qualify as a tax haven, but thanks to a loophole in the law, the Barbados still counted. Within a year, CSL International had moved its registered office from Liberia to the Barbados. One might reasonably having considered that the all-consuming paranoia of the American people after September 11/2001 would result in a blossoming of security and intelligence efforts. And it has. What’s considerably less clear is how the Canadian government can claim to have implemented tighter “security” along the U.S. Canadian border while the flood of American handguns to Canada appears to be relatively unaffected. In a MacLean's.ca story of August 10/2005 an estimate of roughly four thousand handguns having been smuggled into Canada through this “highly secure border” is cited as a conservative estimate. One might reasonably consider that like watching as Mr. Martin’s highly vaunted “gun-registry program” unfolded, the costs of which have mushroomed well beyond the governments predicted costs, we are simply watching another episode of “Mr. Martin goes to Ottawa” Kindly turn your attention to the earlier paragraphs of this contribution and consider the dynamic at play when the multi-millionaire shipping tycoon says one thing then does something directly opposite to the sentiment he’s evoked. Say one thing but then turn around and do the opposite…. While Canadians shell-out millions after millions of dollars to pay illegal softwood lumber tarifs imposed by the United States, while the BSE “affair” as was entirely expected….turns out to be a completely one-sided acknowledgement of a larger problem….. As sovereign control of Canadian water resources are played with like chesspieces on the boardroom tables of government and American corporate interests, where is Paul Martin? Poor Paulie…. He can’t risk ruffling the feathers of his American counterpart and equally as disingenuous “leader” by calling for America to tighten its borders to prevent carnage on the streets of Canadian cities. Martin and Bush are if not exactly peas-in-a-pod, they’re certainly from the same pea patch. Both have demonstrated a readiness to ignore the notions of integrity and honesty when it comes to their duty to Canadian and American citizens. How can I be so sure? Any honest man would have resigned his office after having been proven as responsible for taking a nation to war on the basis of a fabricated pretext. Any honest man would have acknowledged grave miscarriages of justice and potentially corrupt and illegal manipulations taking place within his party and his government and allowed the process of government to proceed. Mr. Martin knew that if he took the road of integrity and honesty, his government would have fallen. Instead he (in the spirit of the entrepreneur) “cuts-a-deal” with Jack Layton, who somehow has managed to hang on to the earnest naiveté of youth believing a politician can be trusted to deliver on his promises. Instead he commissions the Gomery Inquiry to give his pals room to manoeuvre and delay release of findings better persued by the RCMP. Martin’s going to need all the help he can muster when the whole truth becomes common knowledge. The whole truth being a litanny of mismanagement, highly questionable alliances and manipulations, a record of “double-speak” and personal involvement in a lengthy list of adventures down the thin line between what’s legal and what isn’t. I’d never for a moment suggest that the Honourable Paul Martin is directly complicit in fraud and illegal undertakings. I’d simply suggest that a good hard look at the history of government under the leadership of Jean Chretién with Paul Martin as Finance Minister and now government under the leadership of Paul Martin as Prime Minister leaves too many questions unanswered to commit to trusting this man with anything. Certainly not another term in office.

Governments are all the same. Monday 22 June 1998 Mrs Pupatello: “Representing OPSEU workers, the people who have been under OPSEU have watched for some time all the government motions to supposedly create efficiencies in government. I'd like your comment on the efficiency of expending over $700,000 on this particular bill. It essentially began as four sentences in a paragraph, section 73 of Bill 142, which members of the government committee failed to pass at committee last November because one individual was sleeping, another was doing correspondence and another was out of the room. In essence, the opposition members of that committee were able to defeat a particular clause, namely section 73.” “Now we have Bill 22.” “That four-sentence paragraph has become a bill in its entirety, receiving eight days of hearings, sent to an inappropriate committee, and with seven hours of debate minimum, which the government costs out at $100,000 an hour, so well in excess of $700,000. This, from the government that purports to be bringing efficiency to the Ontario government.” http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_d...ustice/j008.htm You really really don’t want to get me started pulling recorded testimony and citing examples from a wide spectrum of authoritative sources exposing the government of Mike Harris for what it truly was! A fair and reasonable argument could be made that the Ontario government under Dalton McGuinty is with but a little air-brushing around the edges, exactly the same kind of government. We have a government at both levels provincial and federal that care not one whit for either the “oaths” they’ve sworn upon taking office, or the “idealism” of the concept that these rogues have a responsibility to the people of Canada. In case anyone hasn’t noticed…. Canadian government is without anything approaching “leadership”; without anything remotely resembling integrity and honesty, and some would suggest this is exactly what the electorate deserves. Canadians actually re-elected Paul Martin! We’re getting the “government” we deserve.

Hi Eureka! Would you agree that the meager ‘showing’ at Canadian election booths says something about what Canadians believe to be the likelihood of political “change”? Might this ‘spotty’ record of Canadian participation in the electoral process reveal anything about who ‘believes’ and who doesn’t ‘believe’ that the Canadian political process is in fact a waste of time? If indeed the majority of Canadians accept the premise that the political process in Canada has been and is continually usurped by “the ole boy’s club” and one politician is pretty much the same as any other politician is it more likely or less likely that people would get out and exercise their franchise? Your statement that “Some of us have a little better acquaintance with reality.” is accurately reflected in the turnout when elections roll around….. “Some” people “better acquainted”….without the support of the majority are unable to effect change, that’s the way this system works! As cozy and comfortable as it may be to sit back with self-confidence in our personal “grasp” of politics in Canada, that doesn’t really address the situation. Apathy and complacency are the enemies of democracy. An enemy that exists within the very “democracy” that has bamboozled Canadians from one scandalous ‘eruption’ to the next. I’m glad you feel your “acquaintance” with “reality” satisfies your personal impulses to participate in the electoral process, but would you suggest that enough people share this “acquaintance” to demand and receive changes to a political system that is fundamentally flawed? When Ministers of government (Anne McClellan) parrot the words of the chief of Canada’s federal policing authority then doesn’t recant those statements when the Commissioner admits the explanation was “flawed”, does your “acquaintance with reality” inform you that the license to deceive Canadians is what’s being granted? When millions upon millions of dollars are spent and twenty years go by and the fact that the Canadian judicial system brings a case to court (Air India) without sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute, does your “acquaintance with reality” suggest to you that something’s terribly wrong? When the once Finance Minister claims “I didn’t know”…(Paul Martin, also deputy of the Treasury at the time of the “Sponsorship Scandal”, does your “acquaintance” with the whole Paul Martin story (reflagging CSL ships, moving CSL off-shore to avoid taxes, Voyager Bus Lines pension fund questions…. etc..) inspire a great deal of faith in the “reality” offered by this Prime Minister? May be you could tell Maher Arar or any of the folk now held under “security certificates” which “reality” is actually powering Canadian federal police agencies… Is the opportunity there for more people to share your insights into the political dynamic that must undergird your awareness of the “reality” of Canadian political process? How might one go about building this “acquaintanceship” with this “reality”?

I don't think you have to look further than the non-confidence vote to find underhanded dealings and veiled threats to stay in power. All high level politicians are crooked to one extent or another IMO. They are just the best at dodging, covering their behinds, and covering their tracks. The system of checks and balances is what needs to be monitored and rechecked. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Crazymf Greetings! I couldn’t agree more. ‘Checks and balances’ like the procurement oversight that Chretién scrapped and then Mr. Martin “reintroduced” as though it was some “great insight” into controlling how billions find their way into the pockets of Quebec ad-men and others among the two dozen or so other “cases” identified by the Auditor General’s office. Canadians ought not to “fool” themselves into thinking that simply because someone attains public office that they’re “principles” remain intact. The greater issue in my opinion is that the political climate of Canada is being manipulated through Parliament at the hands of a “representative government” with zero integrity and a pervasive unwillingness to be held accountable for their actions. We’ve had the Stone Age then the bronze and iron-ages and now we have the age of “spin”. There are fundamental problems at the core of Canadian government that have little to do with personalities per se, and much more to do with the “system” that’s been shaped by lawyers and politicians to provide the gaping holes through which accountability is allowed to seep out. Systemic change is absolutely what’s needed. Although the “enormous” costs of the procurement policies in place prior to Jean Chretién’s ‘retirement’ of these checks and balances was sighted at the time he elected to do away with this systemic check, the outcome has been billions of dollars lost and wasted. Everyone in Canada realizes that politicians operate above the law and have histories in legal firms, business ventures etc., which have more than adequately equipped them to circumvent “legalities”. The only way of addressing the apparent lack of integrity in government that Canadians have grown to recognize as endemic is to re-work and modify the “system” itself.

Air India From the transcript of the judge’s ruling: [1263] It is incumbent upon the Crown to establish that that device had been located within the baggage area containing the M. Singh bag originating in Vancouver. Crown witness, Professor Christopher Peel, offered expert opinion evidence that it had been. Defense expert, Dr. Edward Trimble, supported in part by Mr. Frank Taylor, testified to the contrary, placing the device in an area of the aircraft containing luggage loaded in Toronto. [1264] The difference between the two bomb locations identified by these experts amounts to a distance of only some five feet, remarkably small considering the size of the aircraft and the small percentage of it recovered. However, it is a crucial difference as the Crown’s theory is lost if a reasonable doubt arises in that regard. Maher Arar "The Americans had indicated that it was RCMP and it was the RCMP who indicated to me that there was no official discussions," he said. However, Mr. Easter did not rule out the possibility RCMP officers working the Arar case alerted U.S. law enforcement without approval of their superiors at RCMP headquarters. Asked if the Canadian Security Intelligence Service also provided information on Mr. Arar to the U.S., Mr. Easter replied: "I can't get into talking what CSIS did or didn't on that particular matter." However, U.S. authorities indicated yesterday an RCMP team in charge of the Arar investigation co-operated with the Americans to make certain the man did not return to Canada. If you were asked while on vacation to a foreign nation to describe a ‘traditional’ Canadian event, you might offer the “Calgary Stampede” or “Hockey Night in Canada”, or even more basic still, pancakes and maple syrup for breakfast….. But you’d only be partially correct. A new ‘tradition’ emerging from the Canadian ethos should justly raise alarms among all Canadian citizens. After one hundred million dollars and twenty years of investigation, the ruling by The Honourable Justice Josephson in the Air India trial of the accused Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, (suspects in the Air India explosion of June 24/1985) as cited in the aforementioned paragraphs, calls upon the foundation of exactness in proof and clarity required by Canadian law in determining accountability. “However, it is a crucial difference as the Crown’s theory is lost if a reasonable doubt arises in that regard.” {Determination of the exact location of luggage within the cargo section of the downed aircraft} This same effort to complete and meticulous evidentiary findings is however obviously and unarguably completely ignored when any reasonable person examines the circumstances around the arrest and deportation (by the United States) of a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. Canadians are, some reluctantly and others enthusiastically watching while Canadian law and enforcement of those laws is applied ambiguously and capriciously with respect to many events unfolding in the new climate of fear and mistrust that’s gripping the world. We have watched The Honorable Anne McClellan repeating the words of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (later retracted by Zaccardelli) regarding the tragic deaths of four officers near Mayerthorpe Alberta. “I gave what I believed was the best information I had knowing full well that at that time I didn’t have all the information.” a contrite Zaccardellli said. “Clearly there’s a lot of things in there that in hindsight we will have to look at in a different perspective.” RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli The “leap” to conclusion offered by the Honorable Anne McClellan and Commissioner Zaccardelli with respect to the underlying “reasons” behind the slaughter of four RCMP officers resonates with the broader theme of avoiding accountability that plagues not only the RCMP CSIS and members of Parliament in today’s Canada, but extends to the Prime Minister’s office itself. Now let’s be absolutely clear on this point. On one hand the Canadian justice system cites a possible difference of five feet in the placement of suspected terrorist bombs aboard flight 182 amid highly speculative “expert opinion testimony” as ‘crucial’ in adjudicating the trial of two suspects, yet when testimony and information concerning what role if any the RCMP and CSIS played in the Maher Arar case, a deafening silence descends under the rubric of “national security”. As four police officers are murdered by a known psychopath, (a lengthy history of attention by the RCMP on the killer James Roszko, {36 arrests and six convictions}) the “cited” (the first “explanation” to be thrown to a press eager to distribute anything in the name of “news”) points at marijuana grow operations. While there were marijuana plants on the Roszko property, this action by the RCMP had nothing whatever to do with a “grow-op”. The Canadian government through our elected representatives appears to be acting on impulse and perhaps hysteria when it comes to finding the culprit responsible for some events, but is closed-mouthed and secretive when it comes to disclosing the underlying events behind several tragic miscarriages of justice when the sequence of events points to government ineptitude. There have been many people participating in a variety of Internet “Forums” eager to divert attention away from the lengthy list of irregularities and questionable activities of members of the Prime Ministers closest staff and the party he represents. Canadians cannot help but feel that the betrayal of their trust and the use of ‘sleight-of-hand-reasoning’ being consistently exposed, as the vehicle of choice among Canadian parliamentarians has become an issue that warrants intense scrutiny. There are of course websites and forums dedicated to misconstruing fact and opinion. Walking a thin line between using these public forums as a means of furthering political agendas and affording extremists an arena for their prejudices. Bloggers and participants in Canadian Political forums need to protect the spirit of freedom of speech and right to criticize the status quo. In my opinion these rights are being intentionally trampled on in some sites, prepared to grant space to bigotry and permit emotional reactionism to “rule” when reason fails.