Subey

Charles... don't worry about it! This graphic explains all. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/any...NewBaseline.jpg While you might be distracted by my skillz as a graphic artist please try to look past the eye candy to the content that lies below...

Perhaps I wasn't clear on where this should come from. It has to be internal, from women within that society. In the same way that women's sufferage can't be lead by men. What you are mistaking is that the symbol is an anchor for the thing itself. Exactly Now you understand why we are shifted Left of the US and they are shifted Right of us. I think the easiest way to look at human history is to think of the old carnival game where you are given V metal circles and asked to cover a Red circle in its entirety. Every nation on earth is exploring the human experience. Its generally redudant to have duplication. And interactions are more interesting when there is distance between each perspective.

Right now every nation is like a little cultural sandbox where they explore various issues. Some examples are "Gay Marriage, Euthanasia, Prostitution, Drug laws, penal codes" etc. What about a G-8 like group where everyone got together to explore and share these issues as a group rather than as seperate ships in a convoy? *** On a semi-related note. What about an earth version of David Brin's Uplift concept? Only applied directly between Canada and a specific voluntary third world nation. Right now foreign aid seems to be a pretty hap hazzard affair with no specific goal insight. By focusing aid within an Uplift framework perhaps that would result in the most advantage gain.

Extracting the most valid argument against my proposal is the idea of interconnectedness and that only a single political party can put forth a cohesive working platform at any one time. Ultimately this is true because the umbrella that governs all policy (as has been observed in this thread) is the collection and distribution of tax money. There are solutions, but is there an elegant one? What if the process was inverted? with 2 elections? The first election would be to determine the tax/distribution to the 5 branches. And the second would be for what to do with the money. Ex. Party X wins the Umbrella election with the following agenda: Personal Income Tax down 1% and Education spending up 500 million. (Each party would have a different distribution I assume) and then the second election would be what to do with the money. i.e. Canadians have voted to increase Education spending by $500 million. Now each party has a platform on what they want to do with that money. (NDP will lower tuitions, Conservatives will increase scholarships etc.) *** I'll sum it all up using Pizza (for you luddites ) Current Democracy: 2 people, one is elected to chooses the size and toppings Chimeric Democracy: 2 people, one person is elected to chooses size and you get 1/2 half pepperoni and 1/half cheese If democracy is about representation. Then it should move towards a model that is more representative. Chimeric Government is a suggestion in that direction.

I rest my case... the West's view is to look forward. Call that X. Therefore in order to be unique they MUST express -X. The Poles between which Global Culture is hung are far from hidden. If you think the people in TO had a choice in which direction they faced then you are mistaken.

Democracy 2.0 aka Chimeric Government: Raison D'etre: A single party can't accurately represent your beliefs. 1. Divide the government up into 5 major branches. Ex. Foreign,Education,Health,Economy. The head of each branch directs the policy for that branch. 2. When you vote. You vote for which party you want to represent you in each branch. Ex: Foreign: Vote Conservative (I like their approach to the war on Terror) Education: Vote New Democrat (I like their attitude towards higher education) Health: Vote Bloc (I am interested in health care reforms) Economy: Vote Liberal (I like their approach to unemployment reforms)

None taken. You've located the diametrically worst interpretation of the content of my post. A lesson is in there... but not for me *** This is the issue simplified feel free to transmute grey areas into black but 'bear' in mind they are all Snow White at the highest resolution. Western Culture is not Western. It is Human Culture. Allowing women to express themselves freely as an example is not some alternative that the west has devised. It is a human cultural location that exists on higher ground that any cultural position which believes otherwise. The problem that Islam has (and which "radical islam" is an offshoot of), is that their cultural progress is hamstrung by the need to be unique. In the simplest example. If Ontario does X,Y and Z. Then Quebec can only do X,B and C. Because Quebec identity is built on the concept of being unique. In order to maintain that you have to artificially keep an eye on what everyone else is doing and avoid duplicating it. Quebec is the microcosm of non-western cultures. In order to maintain identity they are avoiding adopting Western values in the mistaken belief that they are "Western Values". They are not. They are HUMAN values. The West just happened to acquire them first. *** I'm not saying that the west is the pinnacle of the evolution of human values in all areas. But in many it is. Especially with women.

Let's say you come up with a 10 point plan that address perceived reasons for Muslim terrorism (i.e. attacking the root) How many of those solutions would affect a bowling for Columbine or Oklahoma City scenario? Probably none because you would still be attacking symptoms and not a root. *** If you want to address an actual root of problems with Islam and its relationship with the rest of the world then the root that will result in the greatest success is to attack the Hijab. Assuming it doesn't have mysognistic properties (up for debate) there is no question that it amplifies their culture as being alien. Seeing someone's face and its expressions is a fundamental method of HUMAN communication. A fundamental method of relating. And as such a means by which HUMANS build bridges between one another. While there will be a price to pay (any time a major cultural shift like losing the Hijab occurs results in strong opposition) for both women and men within the muslim community for making it a dominant issue of cultural evolution that price is less than allowing that barrier to remain place.

No it can't be, please not the Slippery Slope arguement! Ultimately you miss the point of my post. Canada exists because 'Kanada' doesn't. That is a sacrifice of an order of magnitude that is difficult to conceive. To look at it any otherway misunderstands history. That sacrifice should be honoured and recognized because it is the foundation upon which we have built our nation. It doesn't HURT our culture to acknowledge this. It enhances it. We send representatives off to Dday ceremonies, we have a Governor General, we have Canada Day. Ceremony is the tool culture uses to acknowledge historical contributions to the world and to ourselves. Regardless of their literal numbers now or in the past, Native people's contribution through sacrifice supercedes many other ceremonial acknowledgements. And i'm pretty sure we live on a planet that understands the importance of sacrifice... even if you don't believe in Jesus

I was thinking about something similar for Canada. Everyone wants a voice and a presence. (the following existing completely outside of land/governance/Quality of Life issues which should be moved ahead regardless) Short term: Incorporate a real ceremonial native presence during federal and provincial ceremonies ( I'm just talking off the top of my head but perhaps a representative of native people in Canada and a representative of the Algonquin could do something together when a new government takes office in Ottawa) (anticipated resistance shouldn't be too big) Medium term: Reassign a NATIONAL holiday or make a new one that specifically honours native people's and their heritage. Labour Day is a holiday with great positioning in the year, but with no ceremonial manifestation associated with it other than to be outdoors so that would be the immediate thing that would come to mind. This would include ceremonies wherever appropriate. (resistance ? hard to anticipate but shouldn't be too large) Both of these would serve to dramatically increase the presence of native people in the mind's eye of fellow canadians.

The problem here is that you are trying use use the catalyst rising out of CALEDONia as an opportunity to solve "native land issues" (both admirable and logical). Your first pass at a solution is "education". Fair enough but... In order to find the real solution you have to abstract caledonIA and see how many other situations fall into the same pattern. At that point a painfully obvious paradigm will emerge: Human nature when expressed through political bodies is inherently unreasonable. The amount of that unreasonableness is directly proportionate to the disparity in power between the political bodies involved. *** Another perspective... start with Caledonia vs 6 Nations. Abstract that to City vs Rural. Then its game over for 6 nations. Because: Cities are the primary unit of cultural currency that is recognized on the world stage. Canada has an international film festival and a professional baseball team because of the City. Because tract after tract after tract of Rural was consumed. The City will always win. Because we want more currency. Because currency buys history.

A fundamental error that people make in trying to address these types of scenarios is that they look at it as if it were a Political problem. Hence they look for Political solutions. Only when its correctly identified as a human nature issue, can a solution be found.