Lost in Manitoba

That's harsh BD.

OOOHHH!! You mean the awesome brain power that led to training guirrilla fighters (aka terrorists) and supporting a man who, later on, would cost the US billions of dollars and two wars to try and kill him? Yeah, that's some strategy.

For sure there is a better way to do things. Its a failure of the government, not just the liberal one, that a better policy hasn't been implemented. Skills and education should be the main determining factor of immigration, then the potential for fitting in, ie. will younger adults be more likely to adapt, or maybe young couples whose children will be taught ala canadian schooling. Severing ties with your original country probably isn't that benificial though. I'd assume in business and politics, we have more success with countries we have ties to. I'd like to see an immigration preference especially for the EU and the US, as these seem to be our most closely held ties.

AF does seem to be overly emotional about the issue. A large part of his arguments refer back to Canadian lives lost in war, probably due to his own family history. Traditional values should be kept because someone we loved died for them, or something of that ilk, I believe. Well, in part, I have to agree with him. Immigrants should learn to speak one of our official languages. They should teach extensive Canadian studies (literature, geography, history, and politcs) in schools. Canada should be thought of as the #1 country in the world for any immigrant. As for multi-culturalism, however, keeping traditions such as language, clothing, religion, food, and other customs of the like, does not seem unreasonable to me. Diversity and multi-culturism can make a society better, as long as we have the common love for the country itself. This is more of a failure of the government, than a problem with the immigrants themselves. (Or, put it this way.) If I moved to Mexico tomorrow, chances are I'd learn spanish and local customs and mores (to function better in the society), but chances are I'd continue to dress like I always do, eat non-spicy Canadian cuisine, and talk to my wife and children in english. Would I be wrong for doing that?

Hugo, can you please post that site where you got that info? I got the stats: 118k adopted/yr and 1.5million couples waiting to adopt. WOW. That sure is a lot. How many children are in social custody waiting to be adopted?

This is about cities (well Winnipeg anyway). Its being spearheaded by Glen Murray, Winnipeg's mayor, not Doer. Doer isn't completely onside, from what I hear. Glen Murray, though, is a leader in the Canadian Federation of Municipallities, as well as the spokesman for the Big City Mayors. As I understand it, this is a fight between the cities vs. Feds and Provinces. Trying to convince Ottawa to hand over control of finances will be fought tooth and nail. The idea is that the majority of people live and make money in the city, and yet the city doesn't have enough revenue to mantain services. The majority of revenue comes from property taxes and government handouts. Does anyone think that property taxes are fair? Do you think it is right that the largest player in the economy should be in debt because they cannot get their share of tax revenue? The money is produced in the city, should it not be used to sustain that city? And, if the city actually puts in a dedicated tax guarantee, such as gas tax for roads only, than I would say so much the better. I'm more familiar with Winnipeg, but imagine a city like Toronto, Clagary, or Vancouver under the "New Deal".

I wasn't calling pro-lifers hyprocrits. It just seems to me they are wasting there time, not that their cause isn't a good one, just ineffectual. I was just making the suggestion that if they try a different approach, they might be able to succeed in their goals.

Good Sir, I thought the same thing when I read Hugo's last post. Both sides do have a vested interest in the abortion debate. There are some who are so anti-establishment that they cannot accept the fact that they cannot do what they wish to their own body. Their are some who are so pro-traditional conservativism that they cannot accept the fact that some do not believe as they do. Whatever the case may be, I have thoughts on the entire debate. It would seem a lot of time, effort, and money is spent by the pro-life groups to protest, lobby, fund medical groups to give expert testimony, etc.. All of this to little avail. Butting heads over such a personsal and individual choice seems to be ludicrous. I was wondering if more good could be done if the pro-life groups used their time and money to overhaul and improve the adoption process. I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but I recall that the adoption process in the US(as well as Canada) is a long tedious, drawn-out process, while the waiting list for potential parents is long and the orphanages are overcrowded (If this isn't absolutely true, just bear with me). If pro-lifers spent less money on signs that labelled people murderers, and more money on making the adoption choice more apealling, as well as more accessible, wouldn't that message be more acceptable to the public? Wouldn't pregnant women respond better to 'Hey. Look at this. It's not so bad.' than to 'Murderous Whore'? Truly, I believe, abortion isn't desirable for anyone, it just seems to be the 'lesser of the evils'. Any thoughts?

The Economist has a good article on the WTO decision.

Anyone listen to CrossCanada Check-up this weekend? The discussion was great and really good points were made.

Without getting too much into social engineering, this does have an influence on our behavior. The gov't wants more conservation and green policies. Well, if money is an issue with me, then obviously I will reduce the amount of garbage I throw out. This means recycling more(which won't be charged for), making conscience effort to buy products with less packaging, and ultimately lobby producers to reduce the amount of packaging, especially non-recycable packaging. The onus is on me. MB has rent control and from what I have seen and heard, it is probably the cheapest place to live in Canada (in terms of rent).

Here is the link to the City of Winnipeg's New Deal proposal. Its basically a new tax plan and fiscal strategy to let the city move away from begging the feds and province for money, borrowing from lenders, and smothering homeowners with ever-increasing propert taxes. It's a blend of user fees and dedicated taxes collected by the city itself. The other big cities of Canada seem to be interested and genuinly excited about the 'New Deal', as well as it being highly praised by the media. What's your opinion?

I presume everybody has heard the report of Arafat and his greedy paws using palestinian aid money to build up his contingency/retirement fund and $100k/month to keep his wife in the lap of luxury. This is too bad. Though not a fan of all he has done, there is sympathy for his cause. Now, all I see is the typical political greed and corruption.

Is all human life sacred?

Not a fan of the WTO, or over-globalization. Nor am I a Bush fan. I did hear a commentary on RadioOne about this steel tarriff thing that made some sense. Not sure who said it, Bush or just one of his beureucrats, but apperently the tarriff will stay in place long enough for the yank companies to diversify their business to avoid going bankrupt. Seeing that they believe they will not be able to compete with lower EU prices, I would have to agree that this is a responsible way to deal with it. Your own companies and the jobs of your own citizens are what truly matters. Why would you immediately drop the tarriffs and let all these companies go belly up while watching thousands lose their jobs? As long as it is not an indefinite stalling tactic, I see no harm in this.

The way reality tv shows are popping up, I'm really suprised CBC came up with it first.

The guy can turn out to be guilty as hell for all I care. That's an 'after the fact' kind of thing. The entire point is that the US sent a Canadian citizen to a country where he would likely be tortured. The man could be guilty of more crimes against humanity than Hitler, and still, he should not have been sent there. What we need to find out is what role, if any, the Canadian Gov't played.

Here you go Craig! Those damn lefty socialists at CBC aired an interview with Irshad Manji today on Tapestry. She was talking about her new book: 'The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change' I was really impressed with her and definitely plan on picking up her book (when exams are over). Can probably find some reviews on her thesis online or listen to the interview at http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives.html when they get the show posted (probably in the next day or two)

Totally agree with that last statement, Black Dog. There is an argument that by allowing in non-democratic nations, we can somewhat influence them, and over time they may bring in democratic change and what not. I think however that the United Nations should be the United Democratic Nations. You can liken it to clubs like Kiwanis or the Kinsmen, they don't want members that beat their children or are not good citizens. As for the UNSC, the idea of veto is about power. Power to enforce your will upon the rest of the members. Majority support for resolutions should not be able to be cancelled out by one member country, be it the US or France.

You know, a personal attack is a personal attack, no matter who's making it. And, yes, it is distasteful.

Am I mistaken, or didn't you say you were a History major? Listening to you criticize someone like that, I've got to question how successfull you are. The amount of posts, as well as their length, at all hours of the day makes me wonder if a) you're unemployed or have no life or c) you're wasting your employers time by surfing the net while at work. Probably an unfair assumption to make, but if it's ok for one person to do it then hey.....

Is there not an international law that prohibits a government from deporting a person to a country where it is likely he will be tortured? Forget about all the little details of this case. This is the one fact that is clear cut. The US deported a 'suspect' to a country where he would be tortured.

I tried to find the show where I heard it, but no luck. It was in the past year I heard on CBC RadioOne's news show 'The Current' an article about a conspiracy similiar to the events of 9-11. I believe the project was called 'the Woodlands'. It was a plan proposed to JFK, in where a commercial airliner was to be 'hijacked' by 'Cuban terrorists' and crashed into some buildings. Of course it was to be set up by the CIA. It was believed that this would generate such popular outrage that there would be nothing to do but go in and take over Cuba. JFK wasn't remotely receptive to the idea. Fast forward this idea 40-50 yrs. I'm not saying I believe this but it's worth looking at. For a group of men who would do anything for their country, that believe that committing no crime or sin is too great to ensure the exsistance, safety, and prosperity of their beloved nation. What is the lives of a couple of thousand people compared to the 'new american century'? Like I said, sorry about not finding the source on this. If anyone has heard of this or finds a link, let me know.

Morgan, you make a good point about Guilliani. He did good by New Yorkers and the entire country got to see him shine during disaster. Why was it that he left the political arena, though? Didn't he say he felt he had enough?

Broad strokes there my friend. I would call myself socially progressive, and yet I stand for none of that crap. If we play like that I guess it would be fair to say "conservatives" stand for selfishness, greed, and lining up to kiss the Americans Ass. Is that you Hugo? Are you in line puckering up?