myata

How would one want to simply wish it to become true. Here, I said - it must be so. Yet every claim has been backed up. Food safety - with a news story from a reputable news source of an expert claim. Need me to read it aloud to you? Deficit - multiple statements were available. And finally, Chalk River. No matter specific arrangements, it's the responsibility of the manager to ensure that projects are completed on time and at cost. Correct? Correct! So when it takes the safety regulator, who really has nothing to do with day to day management of the facility, only with its safety, to put her job on the line to get things done, because it's become a revolving door of never ending extensions, this is, no matter what and how much one'd blabber, still a poor, sucky, crappy management. And as such it should stand. Work hasn't been completed, minister had no hand on what's going on, management sucks. There. All true to the last point.

Statements like "lowest in 25 - 30 years etc" refer to overall crime rate. E.g. 2006 (National): 7518 (CBC: crime lowest in 25 years 1979 (National): 7666 (Stats Canada: Crime Rates). 2006-1979 ~ 30 year low. The report does highlight the areas of increase in crime. This is, not surprisingly, violent youth crime. Very likely, in the large extent, gang related. Fighting gang crimes must be a long persistent process on all fronts: social fabric of communities; police work to monitor gang activity and dismantle dangerous gangs; gun control. It won't be solved by bang on "get tough" slogans. Conservative position is an ideological scaretactic sales pitch that won't result in a long term reduction of violent crime. Strong and consistent gun control, social measures associated with ongoing persuit and dismantling of violent gangs, will. If "get tough" could ever bring low crime rates, our southbound neighbour would have been world champion. And as it stands it is, but in the other, opposite, way.

You're presuming that you'll always know the difference, but so many of troubled experiences of the past tell us that you (or at least, the great majority) won't. The same trouble that'll later "drag you out of house" will now promise you security and stability, and will show you who was responsible for all your woes.

Wow, what a breadth of take - without any substantiation. Let's try to develop these thoughts, e.g. "One can only be a free citizen if one can store a couple of nukes in case world around me goes crazy - and if you only try to take them away from me I can't wouch for what I'll do". Sounds convincing? The problem with this argument is that the question is not "where to shoot" - by the time it becomes obvious, for a few remaining dissidents, it's usually way too late. No, its "who to not follow". And that is a much tougher choice because following the trouble also means warm home, secure job and purpose in life - for a while.

I don't care about recruiting anybody into any camps, but for the sake of discussion, here's couple of examples: #1 Crime agenda. Conservatives are trying to play "tough on crime" agenda. While actual crime rates are at 30-40 year low. The existing problem areas are mostly related to gangs and associated crime (guns, drugs, etc). These are problmes that require persistent ongoing work in all relevant levels ie social policies, to keep disadvantaged youth out of gangs; gun control, to keep guns out of their hands; police work, to monitor gang activity and dismantle dangerous groups. Let's see where Conservatives stand on this problem, for real, ie based on their acts: - social policies: I can only think of some tax credits, plus $100/month under 6. Even real progress with childcare spaces would have made impact here; but I don't think it's happening. - gun control: Harper's not interested. And you can tell when he's not interested: it falls dead. Coroner's calling to prohibit assault guns; Toronto mayor, Ontario PM call to ban handguns, no reaction. With that come well known Conservative attitudes toward registration of guns, and restrictions on their imports. - policing: I recall promises made to put more police on streets. Not sure what happened to those. But certainly, taking on gangs would require much more than just more boots on the street. That could be specialized anti-gang units, sharing information across services and regions, and other such measures. I haven't heard anything, zilch, from Conservatives on this agenda. So by far most of the Conservative puff on crime seems to be going into "get tough" legislation. Is it an efficient policy? By ignoring most important elements of crime control, no. Is it ideological? Almost entirely. Is it social conservative? Absolutely. Tough penalties, loose guns - look no further than south of the border for a reality check. #2 Death penalty At my local candidates debate, I'll ask all candidates to answer multiple point question on death penalty: - my party denies it completely and utterly; - my party supports it in some circumstances; - my party supports its introduction in Canada in the foreseable future. Harper's acts indicate that his (Conservatives) position is at least #2. Another link to social conservatism.

Very likely (thanks for the data) totalitarian governments won't appreciate its citizens bearing arms. So? The point that was made, whether widespread arms would have prevented totalitarianism from rasing up? Arms were very likely abundant after WWI in Russia. Same in China. When society is sick bad thing will happen, and no gimmick, tool or trick would make a magical cure. Free citizen as a surer and better protection against abuses, than armed one.

No, only to point out how ridiculous and incredible the all around "blame the Liberals" is. By that time Conservatives were in power for close to two years and should shoulder much of responsibilty for the failure of a project under their management. And yeah, the fact that is was actually completed only some months after the scandal hit the media, shows to everybody with a bit of impartiality, that it was a 100% square a failure of management. There's training, professional certification, reporting and supervision. With full funding, any of which could have detected incompetent or abusing operator before major harm has been done to the innocent people. I defer to the opinion of experts that's been quoted. According to another interview I heard on CBC radio sometime back, the changes introduced by Conservatives are restricting food inspectors in their ablity to do their job. While the upgrade project could not be completed on time, requiring multiple emergency extensions. Speaks to the quality of management. See above. But only in your wishful thinking. Epithets of course were intended to make up for missing argumentation.

Cool. Let's start with Mulroney then. No, Fathers of Confederation. They're the root cause of all of our problems.

It may have warranted a thread of its own, but for the sake of saving space let it just go here. Rice - On Russia/Ossetia (BBC). Highlights: At last, an admission. Hopefully to settle all doubts about who's responsible. OMG. After all, "violation of sovereignty" is not OK? Even with a super strong case like non-existent WMD in Iraq (see above for Russia's in Ossetia)? Who could have thought! Now let's remember that unlike EU, NATO is a defense allegiance. Promise of military involvement as instrument of peace? Trying to follow the logic. And of course there were committments to hold off expansion of NATO, given to Russia at the time of perestroika. Which can be also interpreted as responding to Russia's concerns of being surrounded by a huge military block on virtually all sides (save North). But our committments, they are a funny thing. They work in one direction - one that suits us and us only. That one is at least is clear: Play to our tune, or face our wrath (oops not much to show for it, at this time - but at least we tried). Of course "isolation" only exists in Ms.Rice's vivid imagination. As was already noted, outside of West's immediate proximity, not a single country condemned Russia for its actions (but many expressed support, of a varying degree).

Both China and Russia had long bloody civil wars which did not stop the rise of totalitarianism. Why? Not enough guns? Think better, maybe.

Why wouldn't our uber-transparent Conservatives just ever spill the whole story? There'll always be something hiding in the back? Oh yeah, cuts to the provincial public water inspections! I think something about was actually in the coroner report, will confirm later, with more time. Does it have anything to do with jerks who managed public water in Walkerton? Perhaps their "management practices" could have been detected earlier? After all, anything, any problem is a result of some individual error, so why bother with public supervision at all, correct? Let's have everybody check over themselves, call it self regulation, and get down to our great management of other, more important things; btw works well in financials too. Another nice try. The link is glaring at me, here, highlighted as a quote (hint) and no, I can't see. Nope. Nothing there. Empty page. OK these are conclusions of experts (doctors, scientists), we'll have to wait for the results of public enquiry (hope one gets called - though the results won't be known till after the election). And again, we just keep forgetting that those little details, repairs that simply couldn't be completed on time, delay after delay followed by another delay, under our great management. No, wait! They did - after the scandal hit the fan. So is that what it takes to get the things done, under this new managment? Kudos to Linda Keen then, even though it cost her her job!

I like that bold outrageous youthful spirit in the Conservative's comments, "I do it, because I know I'm right and to hell with doubts". Ie. I'll cut inspections on public water safety and see what happens; I'll change the process for public food inspections to allow more industry self regulation, and .... And of course, the reactors. To heck with the nature, we're doing the right thing here! And if we just can't finish the repairs on time once, twice, several times, every time asking for an emergency extention, it's still our great management, now let's find Liberals to blame. Great strategy that works. For a while. As people in Walkerton have found out. BTW earthquakes do happen in this area. I've experienced one or two.

Somehow this glorious truth never dawns on Americans when they go on their overseas adventures. Anyways; alert and determined population is the only prevention of threats to democracy. Arms got nothing to do with it, only a fetish blown out of all meaningful proportions. A politician will wave a freedom banner and call for a global quest, and the God loving, gun toting folks will cheer and praise and jump on the bandwagon. Gun won't make anybody one milligram smarter, and to think that by virtue of having 000,000 spread around we're getting some kind of protection against "the evil" is an utmost illusion. Our only protection is keeping open mind, questioning politicians when they embark on adventures like Iraq, resisting fear, and refusing to be drawn into something what's patently wrong, no matter how or what it's wrapped into. Matters what's in the head, not in the pocket. As a matter of fact, I suspect that if anything, the relation guns - freedom is the reverse one. Of all developed nations US was one of the very few where majority actually supported aventure in Iraq; it is also one of a few with virtually unrestricted gun ownerhip; make your conclusions.

Harper's Conservatives like to praise themselves for their good management record. But is it really as good as stated? Let's do a quick really check, only to make sure that what we hear is what we get. Starting with the latest: 1. Canadian Medical Association Journal slams Tories for listeriosis. 17 lives. 2. All should still remember the fiaso with Chalk river isotopes reactor, where lives came very near to being threated. For blame were - guess who - Liberals, and the independent regulator, certainly not those directly responsible for operation of the reactor, and their ministerial supervisors. This is about lives, not some millions, some of which got mishandled by previous government. A deja vu from Harris / Walkerton in Ontario, with self regulation of industries; cuts to public safety arrangements. 3. Now about millions. Dealing away with surpluses so that now there's a persistent talk of deficit. So is Harper's track record as good as he says? Should he get the license to continue the same course?

Not necessarilty. The basic idea is quite easy to grasp. The details can be daunting and may require serious discussion. What is being stated is that because something may appear to have complexities in it, does not necessarily makes it bad or wrong. Most good things we know (your car, eg.) are quite complex. The point is not, "A is simple for Joe, so A is good" but rather, "A,B,C should all be considered for the best solution to the problem, if Joe really wants the best solution to the problem". In a thread devoted to the plan, all rational arguments, no matter how complex, should be accepted. What is at issue is that lauded by some attitude to dismiss anything out of hand, if it has any resemblance of potential complexity in it.

It won't preserve anything if things come to worst. Hadn't, ever. Only help to make a departure statement. However, it does create the illusion that by itself, somehow it guarantees freedoms, and as such is an alternative to a free minded, active participation in the society. Which of course, is total nonsense. If one had to name one instrument with the greatest role in the society's evolution (and preservation) of freedoms, I'd say, school.

For that, one first needs to understand what freedom (and lack of it) means. A gun in the pocket won't give you that knowledge. More likely, the opposite.

As already mentioned, this is not the thread to discuss the details of Green shift plan. It was only used as an example of what many complain (and some deliberately cultivate perception) of enormous complexity where none exists. Mental laziness, unwillingness or inability to find out things for oneself is a serious concern. If it becomes a widespread behavior, it may be a sign that society has entered into its final stages.

I don't understand your examples how did individual gun ownership help in any of these cases? The state will always have more of more powerful guns whan your pocket popper, which which you can scare only a passerby or neighbour. Confused, scared, close minded people are dangerous, and twice so if they had guns. Guns is a only thing. Dead thing. It does nothing.

Yes firearms are a sure way for the government to be afraid of citizens. As citizens of each other. And fear leads to less freedom. As so often, we stumble on the same miracle rake that was supposed to safe us from all evils. Except there's no panacea. Only active involved individuals can keep their society from going bad. While they do, no arms will be necessary. When they don't, nothing would help.

And here's yet another example, as if we needed anymore. #1 A price is put on unwanted commodity #2 Corporations interested in keeping and improving their profit margins can do two things: 1) increase the price; 2) reduce the use of unwanted commodity; 3) both. So at least some corporations will see the incentive to reduce the output of GHG; #3 Consumer is faces with higher price on some products, but also has more disposable income. They can decide to not do anything (tax cut equals price increase), or to change their behavior by buying less of GHG intensive products, and save some $($$). Some consumers sure won't bother, others will see the incentive. In all ways, the real economic incentive is created to reduce the use of unwanted commodity. As rightfully said, it integrates the issue of GHG emissions with the economy by creating correct signals within the economy itself. Now I'm not saying all is nice and clear in the plan, but what of the above requires more than first 3 grades of elementary school and/or mental effort of calculating a tip on a jar of beer?

Certainly not invading places ,000 miles away under obscure pretext, nor praising somebody for exact same thing somebody else was blasted short while back.

One can find any number of complaints citing green shift as too complicated. What is worrying is not inacceptance of the plan, but that proud cultivation of "I'm dumb and proud for that" approach to problems and issues. If that's how things start, the result is certain to be nothing short of dumb either. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Interesting point but I don't see how it would address the issue that's been raised. I.e why is it, that in mass expectation (ostensible, cultivated, or real), every decision to be taken has to be about as simple and shining, as a nickel. I mean, nobody there, God or otherwise, has given us any assurances about that. Yet, any problem, it has to hit average Joe right on the head, or Joe will never believe it existence. To b-c.: I understand, but that prospect is extremely gloomy. Although very much in line with the row nature's approach to its problems. So, no matter how we'd try, we'll never exceed the limits we were born into (the logical equivalent of your statement).

A sad reality is that by its grossly unilateral, undiscriminating position in this conflict, the West in fact boosted less democratic forces in Russia and in all likelihood delayed its arrival to a full fledged democracy. It strange that it needs explanation for the learned politicians, but a large society like Russia's cannot turn around on a dime (not at least, without hugely negative effects for itself, which would likely outweigh all short term gains). Understanding, trust, confidence builds over a long time; the record of the West toward Russia so far has been that of broken promises, overlooked committments, and most recently, rash and unjust condemnations. If this results in less democratic Russia, seeking allegiances with the undemocratic societies of the East, rather than us in the West, we (West) will have only ourselves (OK, mostly ourselves) to blame for that.