tml12

Most people that are 'ostracized' from today society do so voluntarily because they believe society should conform to their needs instead of the other way around. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That may be true Sparkawk but it doesn't hold up in all instance.

Not to defend the Dems (I'm a pox on both houses kinda guy) but what did you expect? I repeat: Look at the response by the Republicans and their media attack dogs to Murtha this week. Now imagine those same curs unleashed on any opposition to the presidents "War on Terror" agenda a scant two years after 9-11. It would have been a massacre. Fie on the Dems for not growing a set of balls when they could have made a difference, but then, as a minority party, chances are they just would have been steamrolled anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I cannot disagree with any of that.

This one I would change to: -make sure that no gov't corruption (such as Adscam) is ever found out about again. (did I say 'found out'? I meant 'allowed'.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Canadian government is full of it in these five areas: 1) Pretending it can keep healthcare 100% public. 2) Pretending it can keep the U.S. out of our foreign policy (Trudeau failed here and if he failed, his successors will fail too). 3) Pretending Canadians are so much different than Americans. 4) Using increased taxes to make everything seem better. 5) Convincing itself that by stretching our armed forces so thin they make a 15 year old with an eating disorder seem 5000 pounds that somehow the terrorists will "like" us. And to think I still haven't abandoned the Liberals altogether (what is wrong with me). And I realize that comment about eating disorders isn't funny. Neither is the state of our armed forces.

Did a directive come out somewhere to start posting these quotes? Other Bush supporters that I know on other boqards have been trotting these quotes out for weeks, ever since the uproar in Congress about Bush's lies to go to war. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Democrats cannot admit that a president named George W. Bush convinced them that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If you're going to call Bush a liar, then call the Democrats ignorant.

Insane is the right term. The policies for ending discrimination, a while ago, meant taking down signs (and barriers) that said "Whites Only". It is hardly a step forward, nor does it indicate a positive change, to simply change the sign to "Non-Whites Only". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, agreed. So because we discriminated against certain people before, we are now giving them the right to discriminate against us. Two wrong cannot and do not make a right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just read in the paper that the Public Works Department ended this policy. Justice was served (albeit not right away).

I agree. I think this just demonstrates how annoyed and frustrated with the state of federal Conservative politics. If he's going to help, let him. Otherwise he should just shut up.

If certain segments of the community are involved in a greatly disproportionate amount of crime, then it behooves us to examine the cultural factors at work which might be causing this level of criminality. Without noting and admitting to a problem how can the problem be addressed? And yet, statistical abnormalities to the degree we see in regard to black crime are unexplainable except by some cultural/ethnic factor unique to that particular group. Thus if we're to address them we have to examine that group to see how such cultural factors might be eliminated or redressed. There are innumerable programs which seek to address specific cultural problems within minority communities. Why not one addressing crime? Because no one in authority wants to come out and admit that the Black community, or at least, some portion of it, has a problem with criminality. I saw a Globe article once where a reporter sat all day in what was then a new thing, a special drug court in Toronto. The reporter observed that only about 2% of the defendants appearing before the judge that day were white. That says there is a problem within what is still, when we're speaking of visible minorities, the immigrant community. And I don't think anything has changed since then. Or am i wrong that virtually all those being murdered in Toronto are non-white, along with virtually all the murderers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus, By all means, explore the issues...but don't get focused on the wrong ones. If we all agree that being black doesn't "cause" one to commit crime, then we shouldn't be looking for solutions to "black crime"...we need to look for solutions to crime that happens to be committed by more blacks than others. It's a fine distinction, but an important one in my view. And, I'm not so sure that the contention that no one in authority is prepared to stare these issues down is correct...at least in Canada. For example, way back in 1996 the Criminal Code was amended after those in authority noticed that more Aboriginals than other races were being put in jail for similar crimes. The conclusions were not drawn that Aboriginals are just a criminal race...rather they didn't seem to be getting treated fairly in sentencing proceedings. So, s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code now reads: "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders." Now someone may want to track down the HANSARD from the debates on these amendments, but I would suggest that Canada has been more than willing to address these issues and act to correct them. FTA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe that if people are committing crimes, they are doing so becaue they are alienated from society. Teenagers, minorities, aboriginals, etc. are typecast as the majority of criminals because they are perceived as being the most "ostracized" from society. Many of these people are ostracized from society because mainstream society does not welcome that, or doesn't try hard enough to accomodate them. This is unfortunate, but true. When one feels that their society confines them, they naturally will do their best to fight their confinement. We need to fight injustices and discrimination in order to fight crime, not characterize it as a hopeless issue of race.

You must admit that the 'Red Book' was quite a successful marketing and branding exercise. The conservatives are like those geeky engineering types: smart guys who can build wonderful gadgets but don't have the marketing savvy to capture the public's imagination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Better a gadget that works,than a promise from a glitzy book that doesn't.Twelve years and waiting... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah. Is it a surprise that Martin isn't using it anymore?

Ralph Klein says the Martin government will be re-elected because the Canadian, read: Ontarian, public thinks Harper is too right-wing. http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...dd-13e5c3728ff2 Why is Klein doing this? And can this really help Harper seem more moderate? I mean, Ralph really "helped" Harper in the last election...is this another way of him "helping" again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I am pretty sure he meant crooks.

I do not think he will lead the PQ to defeat against Charest.

Wrong. The left's hero Cindy Sheehan believes in an immediate troop withdrawal, and we all know how much the kook-left supports her. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am referring to realistic people in government, not people like Cindy Sheehan.

True but whether or not you actually believe Harper has these new feelings (I agree with you that deep down inside he hasn't changed) you must still evaluate the Party from there OFFICIAL point-of-view. As for Martin and corporate Canada, that still would make him more libertarian than conservative when you evaluate him alongside his socially liberal views. These are the facts. As for the sexual assault case, it makes perfect sense to install cameras and plant more police around in the name of justice.

G & MBut another federal judge says this: National PostShould I be confused or expect the Supreme Court to decide? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The technicality was that Myriam Bedard apparently "quit voluntarily", rather than having been forced to resign.... I think an investigation will find that the undue duress placed on her due to Pelletiers' comments and actions would be sufficient to make any self-respecting person want to leave... as a consequence of the remarks... and the original ruling should be upheld, because her employer was "abusive".. We've all heard the remarks he made, and I don't think any Canadian would want that arsehole back in his job.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seriously. I can't believe he is playing this innocent act. Screw him, the judge, and all the others and let us bring accountability and transparency back into the Government of Canada.

You've said the same about the federal Liberals. Is there anyone you don't think is conservative? I mean, short of Fidel Castro? We seem to have three main choices: Extreme Right Wing: - the CPC Party Conservative: - the Liberal Party (using the Mulroney/pre-Mulroney definition of Conservative) Non-Conservative: - the NDP In my view, there's only one choice..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, err you really look at the political spectrum from a completely extreme left point of view. The Conservative Party is, according to their convention here in March, pro-choice and pro-universal health care. How can they be extremely right-wing if they encompass these views? Similarly, the Liberal Party of social liberalism and economic centrist is more libertarian than conservative. Those of us who are regulars on this forum understand you are an NDP voter but seriously, at least get the facts right.

True enough I could have put them in, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If ever the undeniable truth that the major reason for the huge spike in COPD around the globe is not tobacco but the air we breathe comes out, the Green Party will be the one to reckon with. So you should have put them in. Just in case. YOU CAN NEVER BE TOO OPTIMISTIC! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Liberal minority unless Harper can improve his image.

Even I think an immediate troop withdrawl is a dumb idea. I don't see how voting for a sensible withdrawal plan means the Democrats 'folded'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer. If anything, the Democrats seem more united behind this reality after the vote.

Your facts are really opinions:The Liberals are in touch with what at least some people want - if they weren't they would not get elected. The federation is extremely flexible, in fact, it is the flexibility that allowed the federal gov't to intrude in areas of provincial juristiction. What you are asking for is a less felxible federation where the federal gov't has very limited powers. It is also ludicous to say the Canadian gov't is corrupt - the sponsership scandal was an isolated event created by a few individuals and the amount of money was relatively insignifcant. More importantly, this corruption cannot be compared to the rampant corruption in the former SSRs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sparkawk, I agree generally with your post but to say the money wasted was insignificant is a bit much. Just what is a specific amount of money, then?

Insane is the right term. The policies for ending discrimination, a while ago, meant taking down signs (and barriers) that said "Whites Only". It is hardly a step forward, nor does it indicate a positive change, to simply change the sign to "Non-Whites Only". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, agreed. So because we discriminated against certain people before, we are now giving them the right to discriminate against us. Two wrong cannot and do not make a right.

*ahem* who originated gst??? *ahem* But hey, if you want to sling childish generalizations, the how's this; the Conservatives are all about WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE because nobody wants them back in after Brian screwed up, and then in true Conservative fashion, jumped ship and left the mess squarely in Kim Campbell's lap. Too bad, too. HER I would vote for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sadly she teaches at Harvard now...

Toronto StarThis case bothers me for several reasons. From what I understand, a 16 year old girl, a recent immigrant who is white, was bullied, sexually assaulted (raped?) for 16 months in a high school in Toronto by 14 black boys. The 14 have now been charged with "sexual assault" or "aggravated sexual assault". In addition, 2 black girls have been charged also, for assisting in the "rapes" somehow. In addition, I understand that some of the mothers of the accused 14 boys have said that racism is at root of the charges. I have read that the boys were black basketball players, and the publicity will compromise college scholarships. If I understand properly, school cameras on one occasion filmed black boys dragging her into a staff washroom. On another occasion, the girl was about to be assaulted in a fast-food resto washroom when an employee stopped the assault. IOW, a fast-food restaurant provides better safety than a public school. (The school was a publicly-financed Catholic school.) 1. I am bothered that I don't know what is going on. 2. I am bothered that journalists seem afraid to use the word race but some mothers are not. 3. I am bothered that no one seems concerned about the situation of this 16 year old girl. She did absolutely nothing wrong. 4. I am bothered about these terms "sexual assault" and "aggravated sexual assault". In plain language, what is meant? 5. I am bothered about the Canada that exists, and for its future. ---- Such is English Canada. I thought I wrote this post carefully but I return to edit. I changed "black guys" to "black boys" since I referred to a "white girl". Am I wrong to say that I heard the mothers were from Jamaica but news reports said nothing about the accused boys' fathers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Such is the case in our society.

G'day, LEAFLESS Well, learn to bake. Nothing like fresh-baked, home-made bread Or, alternatively, use the Marie Antoinette solution, and simply "(let them) eat cake" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And, sadly, it just may come to that...

Of course. Those who want to change the current wonderful situation, i.e. "projects", is a racist!!!

what!? Why do demographics need to be represented? Please tell me why that should be mandatory? I mean, I'm just saying...you're discriminating by ethnicity and gender regardless. At that point does it matter which one you're discriminating for? Why do these things even need to be a factor?? This is all insane to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> cybercoma is correct. At what point DOES it matter who you're discriminating for? When is discrimination EVER right?

Paul Wells Warren Kinsella---- I chose August1991 as a sobriquet because of Mikhail Gorbachev, a smart guy. For Gorbachev, in August 1991, everything seemed the same -he flew back to Moscow and the Soviet Union still existed- but in fact everything had changed. (Remember when Yeltsin made Gorbachev publicly read the names... ) Wells and Kinsella, also smart guys, they too don't quite get it. They're like Gorbachev in August 1991. You are welcome to dismiss my opinion, or sobriquet. But I think many smart English-Canadians have chosen wishful thinking over apparent facts. Like Gorbachev. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> August is right. There are many debates left to be had, many battles yet to be fought. Sovereignty will probably never be a dead issue here in Quebec. Dormant, yes; dead, no. Whether or not Quebec will separate will not only depend on Quebec voters, it will depend on the attitude of English Canadians and the government at the time. It seems to me, English Canadians, not all, but many of them, are beginning apathetic about the whole Quebec situation.