carepov

Throughout my discussions on MLW, I have softened my position regarding military spending. I am starting to accept ridiculously expensive but I have to draw the line at supidly expensive. If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?

I am for modern fighters and fleets - just not stupidly expensive ones.

I looked and I can't find information about what our contributions to NORAD and NATO are or what they should be. (certainly not 50 % of NORAD). If it is so easy, then please look it up and show me how Canada is not meeting its commitments. (Note: if we are not meeting commitments then I agree with you that we should) I'm sorry that I assumed that you were in favour of expanding our capabilities; I got you mixed up with Derek. I am sorry about your comrades dying. I do not agree with sending troops out to battle without the proper equipment and with over-restrictive caveats. On this point it is you that have misunderstood my position. We are actually saying a lot of the same things: think and plan first, spend the money where it's needed for the right capabilities, and then act in accordance to those capabilities - putting the troop safety first. My biggest concerns are with the stupidly overpriced F35s and the new ships. Wasting money on these items will take money away from protecting the troops. Where we might disagree is that I am not concerned that sometimes we rent equipment from allies, or work with them in other ways, to get the job done safely. As I've said before, this is teamwork and we should do more of it. We have spread ourselves too thin. The taxpayers, the governments AND the military leadership. I am afraid that we are not learning from our mistakes and are therefore doomed to repeat them.

Fine. Where in the world have such mandatory minimums worked?

Either way - it was a compliment to Canada. Can anyone find me one credible source that criticises Canada for under-contributing (mooching) off our allies like NATO?

I provided statistics earlier. Aboriginal women are three times more likely to be victims of violence. Kids are two-eight times more likely to be neglected/abused compared to non-abiriginal kids living in the same region. The over-representation in prisons is also too high to be explained by poverty alone. Try reading the Manitoba Commission report. The bennefits of the program are based on the the fact that the program is in synch with Aboriginal cultures. Aboriginal leaders were consulted in developing the program. Yes the bennefits should be extended to non-aboriginals whereever possible - but you said that we should cancel the program.

Is it racist to focus on white people for a campaign to prevent skin cancer?

Mandatory minimums have not worked in Texas and many other states. Can you point to anywhere in the world where mandatory minimums have worked? I am not fear mongering. I simply hate laws that end up wasting taxpayer money. And the only thing I hate more are laws that cost money and worsen society.

I took it as "doing more than our fair share", "overcontributing". Canada.

You know who is laughing at us? It's Americans that are repealing mandatory minimums because they do not work (no reduction in crime), unnecessarily ruin families and lives and waste money! Even Republicans from Texas! http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/texas-conservatives-reject-harper-s-crime-plan-1.1021017

Poverty can explain some increased rates of Aboriginal neglect, alcoholism, crime, etc... but not the magnitute of the differences. Why are you so against the Aboriginal Corrections program? Victims, Aboriginal communities, Corrections Canada are all for it. The program is helping to make our country safer. It's probably saving us money. What's the problem?

How about you MG, what is you opinion on the Aboriginal Corrections program? http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/aboriginal/002003-1001-eng.shtml

Your Secretary Gates said that we were "punching above our weight", i.e we were good team players. Sharing resources is good teamwork. Rescuing hostages is good teamwork.

Exactly. If you have faith in public opinion's concept of justice, why even bother with judges? We can have a reality TV show where the public votes in the verdict and then the sentence. I'll bet that the advertising revenue would greatly surpass anything that your forced labour work camps could generate.

Renting and buyng parts and equipment from allies is not under-contributing - it's teamwork.

It was U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that said Canada was "punching above our weight: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-21-US-stuck-with-NATO-bill_n.htm You think that Canada and the US should split air defence 50/50? Seriously? I have tried and cannot come up with any credible criticisms of Canada under-contributing to NATO or ABCA. I keep coming up with reports like this one: http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf that stress the importance of working with and supporting the US. That is what I've been saying all along. Can you please stop with you "support the troops" bullshit. Your approach is to expand military capabilities indefinitely without consideration of budget constrints, waste, or the development of useless capabilities. If I remember correctly you were in favour of a fleet of Canadian aircraft carriers! Guess what happens when you spread yourself too thin? Thant's right you end up being a jack of all trades and a master of none. More coffins, amputees and mental scars are coming back under your plan compared to mine!

I do not see it as different tiers of justice. It is a different approach or administration of justice. Do you find it abhorrent that there are different laws and sentences in different provinces and countries? By getting rid of it you would be making our justice system more abhorrent. We already have different tiers of justice, for evidence check out: http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter4.html#13

I'm quite sure that the costs of managing the program, transportation, supervision, security, etc... would make such programs unfeasible. There are work, education and training programs in prisons, perhaps these should be expanded. WRT corporal punishment, do you mean this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prison-beatings-caught-on-video-at-ontario-and-quebec-jails-1.2426904

You trust judges, that weigh both sides of every case, less than politicians, that hear none of the details of the case? You think that politicians are more interested in justice than judges? Seriously?

What is you opinion on this program? http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/aboriginal/002003-1001-eng.shtml How would you "leave race out of the equation?"

I disagree. Native Canadian societies are living with various diseases (medical and social) and focussed programs are needed to rectify the diseases. Do you find it controversial that some programs that try to treat prostate cancer look only at older men? How about skin cancer programs that benefit only white people or even just red-heads? It is perfectly reasonable to, (in fact it would be stupid not to) implement programs that try to reduce alcoholism, child abuse, FAS, obesity, diabetes, etc.. in Aboriginal communities

Here is some data from 2008. Do you think that increased rates of neglect/abuse in childhood have anything to do with increased rates of incarceration? How does the risk to Aboriginal children compare to non-aboriginal children in the same region? Maltreatment in substantiated investigations, involving First Nations and non-Aboriginal children, conducted in sampled agencies in 2008 (rate per 1,000 First Nations or non‑Aboriginal children in areas served by sampled agencies) Neglect: 8.0 times greater Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence: 4.7 times greater Emotional Maltreatment: 5.4 greater Physical Abuse: 2.1 times greater Sexual Abuse: 2.7 times greater http://www.fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/docs/FNCIS-2008-report.pdf (page 19)

Not necesarily. Violence is a problem. First, is it "positive discrimination" to focus on stopping violence against women? Aboriginal women are 3.5 times more likely to be victims of violence compared to non-Aboriginal women. 49 http://www.canadianwomen.org/facts-about-violence Second, is it "positive discrimination" to focus on stopping violence against Aboriginal women? Or should we just ignore this fact? Aboriginal women in Canada are far less secure than the average Canadian, is this not evidence of discrimination?

No, it is more likely that the child's mother was drinking, made other poor decisions, or was the victim of violence, neglect or mistreatment during pregnancy. OK, I never said it was.

No, in our society, race matters. Choose any reasonable definition of success; a child born today into a Native family does not have the same probability of "success" as a child born into a non-Native family. Certainly there has been some improvement compared to 20-30 years ago. But there is still clearly a need for programs such as: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/aboriginal/002003-1001-eng.shtml Yes, it has been over 10 years since the final report of the Manitoba commission, but the report is still very apt today. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter4.html