Charles Anthony

There would still be idling. It does not matter where that revenue goes. What is important is that there is a direct price placed on idling (more specifically the road) because that will lead to drivers using less of the road. In fact, I will go out on a limb by suggesting that we could protect the environment even if we burn [figuratively, that is, because actual burning would contribute to green-house gases; hardy har har...] the money collected from a road tax and it would conceivably be justified. At the risk of thread drift, I want to address this from a radical perspective: Some people identify over-population as the major source of environmental problems. They may or may not be correct. However, from your own words, those people should oppose the care-free use and subsidization of transportation. I think I finally understand what you mean. Canadians need a politician who will think outside of the box and take a chance.

LeafLess, Let me start with a confession: I learned a bit of French from a school system that was the product of Trudeaumania. If that prejudices you against me, so be it. Maybe I have been brain-washed and I am a Liberal drone. Your expose comes across as nothing but a rant because you reflexively equate French with French-Canadian-government-bilingual-Quebec-discrimination-public-service-whatever jobs. You know what I find very distressing about this rant? Your fixation on public service jobs. I am struggling through this anti-French fixation and I am guessing that it hides a covet for a public service job.

-- because you fail to justify why you are limiting your choices to only a tax or a ban on incandescent bulbs. There are more choices. You have to justify why you are indirectly targetting incandescent bulbs as opposed to more directly targetting green-house gases.

This is being discussed in the You know what worries me more than GHG emissions? -- Compact Fluorescent Bulbs. thread.

You are getting everything mixed up. The price for occupying the land is zero. In other words, nobody is being charged for idling on the road. Collapse? You do not need to be able to predict the future for a business to operate successfully. Most businesses make guesses and adjust future behavior accordingly. This is where you are completely wrong. All you need to do is raise the price [right now it is zero] of polluting the environment. This is interesting: You can look at it a few different ways. 1) A congestion tax will make them pay more for polluting. Thus, it MUST change behavior because people have limited budgets. 2) At the very least, it may discourage an increase in population density in that urban center.

Correct. It is not a big deal. A price mechanism is the quickest way to find out how to improve a business plan. What you do not recognize is that right now, a business plan is actually in effect: prices are zero and nobody pays for damaging the environment. No. The thread is examining roads that are already built.

Correct. Trucking companies will transfer the extra road charges to the grocery stores. The grocery stores will transfer those charges to YOU the consumer. There is nothing wrong with that. Maybe so but as it is now, in big cities, we are subsidizing behavior that damages the environment: idling. Big deal. It is not necessary to quantify anything. All we need is a price mechanism.

Inflation is a lot more complicated. You can not have it both ways. -- as they should -- assuming the government should be monkeying around in the market.

No. We already have it in place with RevenueCanada. They can say: "Everybody below a certain income X gets the subsidy or tax credit." A subsidy can be simpler than that. Furthermore, an outright ban of incandescent lights forces people to switch to alternatives which are very expensive. Should we forget that added cost of fluorescent and LEDs?

That can be solved by giving them a subsidy to their income.

However, it is the consumption of the electricity which is identified as the problem. Thus, if the price of electricity was raised, there is no need to ban anything. Everything (incancescent, fluorescent, LED, toasters, micro-wave ovens, air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, fans, stereos, video games, etc. etc.) will be targetted more effectively without the need for any bureaucracy.

The Daily News -- HalifaxI do not know what to think! Is this an other PR stunt like subsidizing hybrid vehicles??? Why focus on lights??? Many different things use electricity -- not only incandescent light bulbs. If it is the consumption I would like to suggest that the price of electricity service be raised instead of banning something.

You are being very clear and I appreciate it. There is something that is unclear to me. What exactly are soldiers doing? The website says: "supporting NGO workers who were delivering CIDA - funded aid – constructing schools, drilling wells, and improving public sanitation." Are Canadian soldiers doing construction?

Do you know how to speak French?

Facebook?? FakeBook. Good heavens. Next, Dion should dress down in baggy pants hanging to his knees wearing a twisted ball cap and start talking jive. Hello?!? My name is not Facebook. Adults who fake being part of the "in-crowd" are laughed at by kids.

I would imagine that the answer to the Opening Post would be similar to asking a religious parent how to raise children in a secular society or a slave in a cotton field. I want to agree with that but I still think a parent should do more. A responsible parent teaches an understanding of context and diplomacy. A parent that "comes to see a fundamental flaw in the law or in the social order" should teach a precautionary fear of the law and an understanding of power. Thus, whether that child wants to be a rebellious hero or a status quo drone, that child will be equipped to understand what to expect. Examples: A rebellious hero will likely go nowhere by taking the risk of opposing a police officer when stopped for a traffic violation. Whereas being a status quo drone and acquiescing to power may lead to a peaceful and cheaper resolution. A rebellious hero will likely get further ahead by taking the risk of refusal when asking for a raise. Whereas being a status quo drone may go nowhere.

In that case I will continue to voice my opinion. Saying "be more respectful" is meaningless because I was not rude. I beg to differ. If you pay a minimal amount of attention just to the discussions in this forum, it should be abundantly clear that reservations about The Mission In Afghanistan are coming from people of different political stripes. Furthermore, my opinion did not come exclusively from myself. I developed my opinion from paying attention to other people's opinions. They told two friends and they told two friends and so on and so on and so on. My opinion matters.

I concede: it is hard for me. He also puts responsibility on me for sending him there because I did nothing to stop him from being sent there. How does that work? So, here is a question for you: what should I do if I object to The Mission In Afghanistan? It really seems like I am expected to shut up and simply agree that I sent him there.

Other people have mentioned the officiating before. I have not followed every series but part of me thinks that we would have better hockey if we threw out the referees and just had pick-up. The officiating is all over the place.

Nothing. I was trying to demonstrate a real-life situation where there is more than two opinions on the same issue. I think I failed. Both of those things are debatable and can lead to more than two opinions.

Actually, no. It does not make me feel better. In fact, it makes me feel a lot of animosity towards people like you who insist on putting ridiculous responsibility on people like me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I DID use my voice to gradually convince other Canadians to pull troops out of YOUR mission? I am tickled pink and no, it is not about the money. It is about principle and responsibility. Here is a question for you: if The Majority of Canadians go broke and can not afford to bring you back to Canada, how are you going to get home?

Why? I do not even know that "the proper rules" are. Do you? The trouble with using dramatic explanations is that some of your audience may not need them nor be impressed with the over-simplifications. Some people actually live side by side with immigrants and actually learn the fine details of their lives.

There can also be a third side to an issue. How should such an issue be democratically resolved?By the way, what do you think is the best patrolling policeman to population ratio for your city? I am sure everybody in your city has a different opinion on that one.

Count me out. Next time you say that think "the Canadian people minus Charles Anthony sent the military to Afgahnistan" instead. Thank you very much and I will keep paying my taxes to support YOUR mission.

I remember hearing about Yeltsin's first uninvited surprise visit to the G7 summit in the 1990's -- I can not remember the year. I never met Yeltsin either (sorry, I just had to say that) nor do I understand Russian but seeing Yeltsin on television ordering Gorbachev to read that letter (or whatever that was) made an impression on my developing political mind. It looked more powerful than hearing Reagan order Gorbachev to tear down that wall. Maybe old people remember JFK's "Whatever your country wants to do to you!" speech in a similar vein. Are you suggesting that Yeltsin is to blame? or that some other statesman could have stopped Russia's inflation?? I do not think that was the point. The point is that Yeltsin happened to be there at the time. If it was Bobby Fisher leading Russia at the time, you would blame him instead for the inflation. There is no need to defend rigged elections or shady laundering deals. However, it is important to note that Yeltsin was in Russia. I have never been to Russia but I expect they do things differently there. Canadians wonder why all politicians of all stripes change once they get elected. We say "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and we shrug our shoulders. In Canada, we do things differently too.