Charles Anthony

I agree.

What was the figure for other groups - Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Anglicans? All well represented in the UK.Actually, I would expect any sane person to put religion ahead of citizenship. Not to exclude the irreligious from sanity, I say that (given nobody has control over who their parents are or their country of birth) it would make even more sense for a sane person to treat every person of the world with equal rights and respect. In other words, citizenship and religion would be bottom priorities.

Oh really? Let us put things in perspective. I am with Argus on this one. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...7/BNStory/Front So..... I suppose the Chinese government considers spying on Canadians to be "responsible" interference in Canada's internal affairs....????

This: ...is a fervent ideology in its own right. Every time YOUR "society" fails to be just, I can equally say that you are blind to its unworkability too. The "society" has the brute force to implement what it wants and you are not willing to define limits. Milton Friedman was able to define limits. Try to change your plane of reference: what YOU label as extremism can also be identified as a middlepoint (or a balance) in objectivity with respect to treating people fairly. While YOU make "the government" and "its agents" as the final judge or authority, if I replace them with God or Freedom or Anarchy, I would be labeled as an religious extremist if I did so. Please expand on a few things: 1) Exactly what was his error with respect to money supply? 2) What is the difference between his recommendation about low inflation and money supply? 3) What do you mean no country?? Name a few examples. 4) What do you think the Bank of Canada has been doing for the last few decades???

That is not a fair criticism because neither ideology CAN be taken to the extreme. What does "not capable of addressing" mean? On the one hand, you say "encourage the free market as much as possible" but than you critize an ideology that encourages the free market as much as possible. What ideology do you recommend we follow to determine whether "the free market is not capable of addressing" something???? Also, do you honestly think that Milton Friedman advocated anything other than a "just" society?

I am surprised nobody has brought up the "Mr. or Mrs. degrees" that people seek. Many people enter post-secondary education because they are not married yet and they are bored. The affordability of post-secondary education in Canada makes it a convenient way for young people to continue socializing without being fully responsible for themselves. In some instances, it becomes a form of welfare.

You are being too idealistic! It might simply represent the manner in which most Canadians want to be governed. I would suggest that it is also a signal that Canadians do not really care about their federal government -- which is actually quite reasonable. When was the last time anybody really needed anything from the federal government??? No. The appeal is not to "be robbed" but rather that they want a government with a track record of "robbing their neighbor" instead. I firmly believe the appeal to socialism in Canada is a result of being able to get something for nothing -- and the other federal parties have better track records of delivering free lunches. It may not be the end of the world but it may certainly push some otherwise-federalist-Canadians over the edge towards wanting a dissolution of the federation. In my opinion, that is a good thing. -- or buy the next video game! The Tories are not able to promise what most Canadians want: a government that redistributes wealth. What else would anybody realistically expect a federal govenment to accomplish?

Of course not. But I'm not a bird. I'm someone trying to think of a way to solve the problem realistically.No. You mean politically. Since your policies are arbitrary to the bird, you are using the environment as a tool for political purposes. Yes, it is because of the way you apply such a statistic. The environment is not your priority. It is just a cover for treating some "rich polluters" and "poor polluters" differently.

I second that. Along those moral lines, the answer is simply: yes. It is more bad than the other time-wasters if it takes up so much time that you do not have any other pass-times. This coming from someone who can close his eyes and still see the moving lego-brick-walls and hear the bed-tracks from Castle Wolfenstein. Hmmm..... if only MLW had a background loop.....

So.... let me get this straight: everybody you met in Quebec was nice and helpful but they should cater to you??? The first time that I ever got stopped for speeding was in Ontario. The robocop approached the car with his hand hovering by his holster. He asked me how fast I was going and I said 80. He corrected me and said 82. The second time that I ever got stopped for speeding was on my way to Quebec City. The cop asked me if I knew why he is stopping me. In my distinctly English accent I said: "A cause de ma vitesse." He asked if I knew what the limit was on this road and I said it was 50. He dropped my ticket speed down by 30 kms and sent me on my merry way. If you look for trouble, you can find it. Kingston was the capital of Canada.

I would like to welcome MysteryMike to the forum and point out a quote from the Forum Rules and Guidelines: What is my political agenda? Other than to ensure that each country shares an appropriate portion of the burden when it comes to reducing pollution.Your political agenda??? You tell me: what is appropriate portion supposed to mean and who gets to define it? Here comes a political agenda question: what is reasonable supposed to mean and who gets to define it? What exactly does that mean? Yes, it is. Land mass does not come or go. No. It means that only 1 billion "units of pollution" can come from Canada per year -- same as India. Only a politician can judge the emissions of the two countries as being different. I do not care how Indians need to meet that target, that is their responsibility. If the two countries have the same land mass, they should be judged by the total amount of emissions. I do not care how many people live in each country and I do not think the birds flying overhead care either. By NOT politicizing it. What incentives do they have now? Politicians either agree to reduce emissions or not. The environment is not your priority. Mitigating circumstances?? If you were a bird flying around the world and trying to determine a safe place to nest, would you care about the political percapitas or percentages or mitigating circumstances? No.

You mean unless for some reason television service gets disturbed and Canadians are not able to watch hockey. Unless the separation of Quebec/Alberta/Whatever disrupts the television service in Canada, Canadians will not go to war amongst eachother. They have more important things to do. Given that Canadians grudgingly accept to pay extra for extra-useless television channels just to have the opportunity to watch a few shows, something as trivial as the economic costs of Quebec/Alberta/Whatever separation should be an easy sell.

Imagine the fun an Anglican parish would have when an Anglican Woman Priest married to an Anglican Man Priest wants to get divorced. Part of me thinks that their ministry might suffer.

difference between printing money and creating money.There is no difference between "printing" and "creating" money. You are misusing the term "printing" money like the cartoon animation of a printing press reproducing large perforated green sheets. The government (through the central bank) and private banks (through fractional reserves) create money. The mint prints money for the sole purposes of meeting everybody's demand for pocket change and cash. Period. If the mint shuts down, the government and banks would still be able to create money -- we would just be forced to use plastic and computers to keep track of transactions. one is motivated by votes the other by profit....which would be more efficient?Efficient? The ability of banks to create money depends on their ability to only hold fractional reserves -- which, in turn, is supported by the tax-payers. When tax-payers subsidize business, what is your criteria for efficiency?

I remember hearing Sir Mack say nobody could replace Linda.

Why start now?

I wonder how they would treat a candidate who was deaf and communicated with universal sign language.

Why should we be comparing countries in anything but absolute terms? You have a political agenda. Your statistics will allow us to over-exaggerate and under-report the problem. Actually, quite the opposite. It hides the truth. Your statistics could hide the fact that one country may not be polluting much at all -- but because their pollution did not change from the previous years, you would be able to trumpet out all of the pop stars saying "You bad guys have not reduced your emissions enough relative the the poor countries!" Your statistics could hide the fact that one country could STILL be polluting more than the entire rest of the world combined -- but because they polluted double the entire rest of the world combined last year, you would say "Good work guys! You win the prize!" But don't you see? If India is polluting more than Canada right now in 2006, and we say (for example) that both countries should decrease their emissions by 5% of their current 2006 levels, then India will, in absolute numbers, have a larger target than Canada.You are justifify your percentage policy by exemplifying a percentage application. It goes nowhere. How about we compare your percentage policy to an ABSOLUTE emissions policy. Using your example, if Canada's pollution is the equivalent of one fart per year and the Indian's pollution is the equivalent to a million farts per year, YOUR PERCENTAGE POLICY would take centuries for India to come close to pulling its weight. With an absolute emissions policy, we could say: "Every country must reduce its emissions to one fart per year per square mile of land mass." Canadians (could sell fart credits but) would not have to do anything and still pull its weight. If India reduced its emissions to the same level as Canada (down to only one fart per year), who cares how many people live in India??? That is their problem -- nobody else's. Your method is good for concealing the true effects of emissions policy on the environment. If I was your neighbor and I was burning crap in my backyard and the fumes were spilling over to your yard, would you really care how many people live in my house??? My responsibility to the environment should not change.

I am not saying they are "more environmentally conscious" but rather I would say that your craphole should not be required to reduce its emissions. Period. Do you think the craphole should be required to reduce its emissions if it has no industry?

Maybe you should use your same explanation and exchange "consumes -- pounds of food per day" with "emits -- pounds of pollution per day" and see what you get. Let me simplify: The damage caused by pollution emitted from Canada is a direct function of the amount of the emissions from Canada -- regardless of the number of people in Canada. The damage caused by pollution emitted from India is a direct function of the amount of the emissions from India -- regardless of the number of people in India. Naturally, more people may lead to more pollution but we should not lessen the responsibility of a country which emits more pollution. Therefore, to reduce the damage caused by pollution, both countries need to reduce the amount of emissions -- regardless of what "per capita" or "percentage of whatever" figures. Countries should have targets which are absolute quantities of emissions. Period. Try to imagine one great big polluting firm in India which emits more pollution than the whole of Canada put together. Should the overall targets for India be greater or lesser than Canada's targets???

I am putting this here because it seems to fit well. The author argues that fractional reserves are unfair. Mike Hewitt

They do not need a right. They need only make a demand or a declaration which Rest-Of-Canada does/can/care not to oppose.

Quebec is not a barren land. With separation, whoever (single individuals or corporations) depends on government funding or transfers will either move out or starve or get a real job. How does that leave Quebec? Answer: better off and more efficient.

Indeed, but... ...how do you draw that conclusion? A per capita target has nothing to do with the damaging effect of the pollution. Why not just target total emissions? A "per caudica" or a "percentiga" target ultimately derives from a measurement of the amount of emissions anyway. Again, if everybody disappeared to an anarchist haven and left me alone here in Canada, all of your percentages would change (they would rise and you would all blame me) but the total effect of the pollution would be the same. What am I missing? I fear that the statistical manipulation of data to create nebulous targets is used to hide some type of environmental con-job. Rewinding a bit: Wrong. Your analogy is phony. According to your analogy, I could say that because India as a country consumes more food than Canada on any given day, Indians must therefore consume more food than Canadians. Nothing more and nothing less -- with respect to food. If you want to look at emissions, I could also conclude that if Canadians and Indians generally fart at the same rate, Indians would contribute more to carbon emissions. YOUR "per capita" targets would not make a difference and lead you to chase your tail. No, it would not. Correct. However, your reasoning is wrong. We, the people of Canada, are not. Only SOME people in Canada are. Your percentages hide who is polluting. With that logic, anything goes. We should hold the kitchen knife manufacturers resposible for making sure their kitchen knives are not used to commit crimes. That is a social and economic agenda -- not an environmental solution.Do you want to reduce emissions or do you want to use the environment as a tool with which to redistribute wealth?

This has been discussed earlier in the following aptly-named (so as to appear in the forum SEARCH function) thread created a week earlier: Constitution, Charter, Meech Lake & All That -- Night of the Long Knives which was provoked by an earlier thread: Funny Video The answer can be found with this post from Aug91 from the above threads.