Charles Anthony

One day, I hope to have that problem but I am not there yet. You really do not know many people in the private sector, do you? Nit-picky jerk? Do not worry! In my book, you will have to do much worse than that to qualify as a jerk. It takes a lot to offend me. Bigotry is one of the things that enrage me. Anyway, about the 50% thing, combine all taxes at all levels -- all the way down to the municipal level. With all of the downloading from the higer levels of government down to the lower levels, it makes no sense to just look at income taxes. More importantly, my income is low, to say the least.

You understand, do you? I am curious to understand something too: from what source does YOUR foul racism spring? I agree. I sympathize with them too. In what racist pigeon-hole do you throw your understanding of me?? Just in case it matters demographically, I was born in Canada and more than half of my income goes to taxes. I also remember when people were enamored with Trudeaumania and thought everybody was happy because the government spent money.

Will this episode lower the reputation of the gossip journal or raise the reputation of Radio-Canada?

Like drivers who use uncertified vehicles?Actually, no. That is a false analogy. I see it as freedom and a right to property. There is no reward. The term "reward" is as relevent as going to a store and buying something. After you pay, the store clerk is not rewarding you by giving you the merchandise. You do not own the road, therefore, you do not own the right to drive on it. To drive on it, you must abide by the rules of property owner or get out.

Could it be that we should bow down and give thanks to the HomeLand Security MakeWork Hysteria Department for all of the continued success at diverting us from all of the believedtobelinkedtoAlQuaeda terrorists?

Slow down. There is the rub. UNLAWFUL is arbitrary.Who ever writes the history books is on the side of the law. I could tell you that ALL uses of force or violence are unlawful but I do not write the history books. Evil despotic governments could change laws to permit violence they themselves commit. Defining terrorism just becomes a circular argument no more profound than saying: "You are either with us or against us."

If there is a forest fire, we should put out the fire. Is it that simple? Interesting but unfortunately it provides ZERO incite on how to protect the environment in the real world.

Granted. Governments can change laws. Now, please suggest a possible amendment that would work.

Simply create a Quality Recognition protocol. For example: Each private daycare pays for an inspector to confirm safety standards every month or every year. After the daycare passes the inspection, the daycare is issued a certificate or a license. Parents ask to see the proof before registration. Parents who do not care to have their children in certified daycares should still have the choice.

That is not a reasonable fear because we already have private daycares and private schools. Whatever regulations govern their safety now can govern them without public funding. I support that.

No. I am suggesting handing out the FULL cost to parents and cancelling handing out money to the daycare/schools. You can not point to the $100 and counter my argument. The $100 is just a fraction of the cost. As you mentioned, it is to buy votes. Do they need different bureaucracy? No. They just need different ink on paper. For example, local building codes are a book with subsections. Some subsections deal with electrical, some subsections deal with plumbing, some deal with ventilation. Some subsections deal with bungalows and some deal with double story houses while others deal with multi-household dwellings. Either way, safety regulations are a side issue compared to the market of "public" schools and funding. Whatever safety regulations exist today for private schools/daycares can simply be applied. Would you expect there to be a difference between the two?

I disagree. If that was the only driver, it could be solved in a flash: reduce taxes and increase tax credits. However, I believe the true reason is that over time Canadians want more and more. Decades of Trudeaumania have created people who think that money grows on trees and all we have to do is order the government to pick it for us and hand it out. Canadians commonly do not want to pay their own way but rather they want their neighbors to pay. Therefore, we must maintain a higher tax base otherwise we will not be able to steal from Peter to give to Paul. I think those same arguments against public schools are equally valid. I think the "literate society" deal is a mask. Our public schooling is a make-work program for people who call themselves teachers but can not make a living in the private sector. If public schooling is truly "necessary" the government would hand out school vouchers/coupons to everybody who wants to go to school. I do not think tax-payers should pay for daycare either. However, if we are going to do that, I insist that it be done by minimizing how much money you have to take from the tax-payers. Safety: daycares are just buildings. They can follow the same safety regulations as shopping malls or restaurants. No need for extra bureaucracy. Historically, I understand our previous governments may have been complete cereal-box-prize-winning economists but there is no excuse today. If it costs $X to send a kid to a school/daycare, give the parent $X TOWARDS school/daycare either in the form of a coupon or cash. Do not give the $X directly to the school/daycare and force the kids to attend. The market mechanics of giving the money directly to the school/daycare permits waste and competes with private school/daycare schools -- making them more expensive.

What amendment would you suggest?? Please provide a new sample Charter text. Also, please provide how it would be implemented in practicality. Keep in mind: from the Charter quote

Granted. However, who would imagine them arguing face to face about lowering taxes! That is an important point. In that context, the Liberal leadership race with such high-profile people who CAN NOT speak French makes them look completely ridiculous, uncivilized, disrespectful and out of touch. Worse yet, it makes them look like megalo-maniacs.

I was just being silly. In my view, political parties will doing anything regardless of whether it vastly differs from their past history or platforms. I laugh at the last election: who would have imagined both the Liberals and the Tories both wanting to cut taxes? However, you are absolutely right: a majority federal historically needs Quebec. Even though technically, it is certainly possible to lose every seat in Quebec but also win enough seats elsewhere to gain a mojority. Until the Bloc and the Reform parties came around, I suspect the reason might be that the demographic-political distribution and how they vote throughout Quebec is closer to that of the whole country moreso than any other province. Similar to how an American marketing company will release a new product only in Canada and a select few States for a test period to extrapolate predictions of how the entire U.S.A. will receive the product. Quebec voting could be a best representative sample for the entire country. Do you really think that Quebeckers said: "Ah ha! He speaks French, therefore I will vote for his party!" rather than saying: "Le Bloc and the Liberals do not deserve my vote."? For years and years, I have heard people say that Quebeckers vote en masse as if they were one great big family. Today, I really suspect that argument is wearing thin.

I do not think that is a fair way to describe people who enter the military. Even I would not be that harsh. Besides, I have come across a lot of educated people from the military. Granted, some people acquire their education after recruiting but still, it would not be fair to demean them by putting them on par with people who only want to stop at 10th grade or dropout. I think there is a different characteristics that unifies military recruits: control, power and submission. It could likely be that the proportion of Canadians today who find such appeal is less than before. Maybe more Canadians prefer minding their own business and prefer independence from authority. Maybe they see that they have more appealing options in life than before. Compared to the U.S.A., maybe there are less opportunities for big business to make money off of the military.

I believe the major opposition to this plan is a result of the fact that there is less opportunity for child-care industry workers to bilk the tax-payer with behind the scenes grants or subsidies or handouts or advertizing contracts or wasted money. This is just an extension of the problem with education. As soon as a goverrnment announces cuts to education funding, the first people to complain are teacher's unions. I have compassion for poor people. What I do not have is compassion for people who are not poor relative to their neighbors but still expect the tax-payer to fund their expenses when there are true poor people who get nothing. I agree. Compared to lowering taxes, a cheque of "free" money in the mail appears concrete. It is buying votes. However, the only government expenses which are NOT buying votes are expenses like golf courses and hotels and advertizing contracts and whatever whereby the money goes directly into the pockets of "friends" of the government. Ah ha! What do you want me to say?? You guys reap what you sow!! You want big government, you get big taxes! I encountered that too. Last year, one lady was trying to explain to me how she and her husband were having trouble finding childcare for their toddler. Her explanation was somewhat unclear to me. Naively I asked if her child had health problems or need special attention throughout the day. At that point, the truth came out: they were looking for a subsidy. Fine. If people truly can not afford child-care, eliminate the taxes on daycares and babysitters. Eliminate (or at the very least reduce) the taxes of parents with pre-school children. [Parents of school-age children would be exempt because we already have ample state-run babysitting.] If that is still not enough, let your socialist hearts bleed and then give money to the parents. Unless a government reduces the taxes of the person in need, I do not trust the motives of that government -- they are buying votes. Reduce taxes first; hand-outs after. That does not sound very concrete. Actually, it sounds like you mean a government bureaucracy. Quality care??? Come one. I have never heard of anybody asking for "quality care". People just want a free lunch -- even at the expense of their kids. As it should. Considering the fact that people who stay at home (got nothing! but still had to) pay the taxes to support "quality" bureaucracy, I think it is fair to expose it that way. Yes! Sign me up! Why not pay for my boots and my water bill too. I can not live in Canada without boots nor water. Hey, how about doing my laundry and brushing my teeth while you are at it??

Personally, I suspect that a problem with recruitment is a lack of Canadians who want to be soldiers in foreign countries. Agree. Bringing in conscription would absolutely bury the party that legislated it, especially in Quebec.Really??? Two things to consider: 1) More importantly, do you really think anybody would show up? for a draft to send Canadians to Afghanistan, of all places? What would the military do then? fill up our already over-filled jails with draft dodgers? 2) How would you imagine Canadians dealling with a true war on Canadian soil without a draft? Would a draft be political suicide at that point?

Comment?? Ils vont changer de 180degres leur strategie: ils acheteront les votes des reste-of-Canadiens qui deteste le bilinguisme.Un dirigeant de parti liberal non-bilingue sera le meilleur candidat pour attirer les uni-glotto-Canadiens.

Why would you? ? ? Nobody needs to be forced to learn personal hygiene or mathematics. If they wanted to learn personal hygiene or mathematics, they could do it. [by the way, I remember being spoon-fed a lot of stupid courses in school, but are they REALLY teaching kids personal hygiene??? If so, that alone is enough proof of how stupid our schools can be!] That does not sound great. It sounds horrible. Consider the opposite: if NOBODY had the right to "impose" anything on you, would you still want to impose something on your neighbors?

Interesting results. Do Eastern Europe and North Korea exist in the world of liberty?? It sounds like trade-offs were made between people who controlled and dictated liberty. Did all of that "donated liberty" come for free?

You guys are all missing the boat. Up above: the solution has been clearly illustrated. Until anybody figures out a way to create a stable market for the environment, there will be no solution. In fact, I would also say that ONCE a real market for the environment is created, there will be less need to know anything about water vapor or carbon dioxide or forest fires or greenhouses. Much like expensive suits: very few people need to know how they are made but everybody makes sure they get them to the dry-cleaners on time. Why bother??? All you have to do is identify whether the forests and the environment are treated like they are free commodities. Why bother??? What difference does it make??? Would you expect everybody who buys a house to know everything about building construction??? No, we do not have to shut down industry at all. We have to figure out a way to incorporate a cost of the environment into their production or preferably whatever they sell. Not an easy task. Effectively, the environment must be "sell-able" : i.e. somebody must be able to own and transfer ownership, similar to real estate. Think of your frontyard: do you need to know everything about your property to protect it? No. Do your neighbors need to know everything about your property to respect it? No. You will likely protect your property and make sure that you maintain curb appeal so that the value of your property does not drop. You will also likely buy home insurance and security service and regular appliance maintenance contracts to out-source things that you can not do -- all because you repsect what you own and because after you pass (or retire or move) you want it to continue to maintain value.

I agree. I wonder what will happen when Bin Laden truly dies. He is only 50 years old now and he could potentially live an other 50 years give or take decades. I have a frightful thought: imagine if the people harboring him never announce his death.

Holding a referendum when the desire for separation is down will be incredibly stupid. It would be better to wait fifty years than to have the YES side achieve less votes than they did in the last referendum. I hope not but I fear you are right.

That is quite a lot to ask. Why not add a Nobel Peace Prize to everybody's list too? I think shutting up and paying your taxes is more than enough to earn the right to call yourself Canadian. Yes. We enjoy telling people how to live their lives outside of the realm of "civility" and we refuse to mind our own business.Getting past my snarky sarcasm, I understand your point. My point is that many social problems in Canada (and possibly elsewhere) can somehow be boiled down to people trying to tell their neighbors how to live their lives or jealousy at other people's success or some hypocritical do-gooder obsessive disorder or simple racism -- rather than minding one's own business and treating eachother with respect.