Lost in Manitoba

I find the posts on this thread really interesting. Even Hugo's beliefs, which run contrary to mine, are very persuasive and have to be given merit. RT, you got some great points as well. Mentioning the CA's stance on the Native issue reminds me on how Stockwell Day almost got my vote. As I've said earlier, being on the prairies this topic has much importance in my life.

OK Hugo. You say it is unfair to scrap the treaty and leave nothing in it's place. What about the social net thats been in place along side the treaties? This wasn't around when the treaties were signed. This has a large monetary value. This looks after and promotes the well-being of the Native people. When you said I propose to leave nothing in the place of the treaties, you're wrong, there already is something in place that fulfills our obligation to the Natives.

The thing about this is that the younger generation of natives, reservation or urban, has no desire to return to the past. You just try to take away their tv, dvd, cars, designer jeans, and so forth, and see what type of response you'd get. The idea of this segregation to return to their roots is BS as well. Chinese, Jews, Irish, Itallians, you name it, all have many peoples who are capable and willing to live in this society without giving up their traditions. What is the difference? It is total revisionist thinking to think they were better off before indoor heating, medicine, or even hunting rifles. Don't want that? See how you like the -40C Manitoba winter, or how it feels to have close to a 50% infant mortallity rate. It's about time that the spoiled child lost his allowance, and took on some responsibillity.

All Right, I'll agree with your analogy. That doesn't really cover everything though. Like I said, health, education, EI, Policing, Welfare, Pension, Child Tax benifits, Public Housing, and on and on are things that weren't existing at the turn of the 20th century. They exist now though, and every person in Canada is entitled to them. Was the treaties based on money or on a gaurantee of preservation of culture and quality of life? Or let's suppose, for an argument, that we are permenantly leasing this land from the native tribes. And being such a wonderful and strong country we will still be around in 100 or so years. The native population, if the trends continue, will have grown to 20% (large figure, I know, but for arguments sake) of the total population. Will it be at all possible to give tax breaks, free college education, unlimited hunting privelages, and so on, to such a large % of the population, without undermining the economy of Canada and without axing the social programs we cherish? Using whatever time frame you wish, this is the reality. It is unsustainable. Just as welfare is, if it is treated as a hand-out, not a hand-up. Why not use that $7.5billion to increase social programs that will help everyone, including the native people. Or subsidise college tuition for everyone. Or create better housing, or medicare, or national defense, or a million other things, that will increase the prosperity of our country. (for everyone)

Hugo, Neither me, my father, or my grandfather were born when those treaties were signed. To think that a contract (with no sunset clause, as you put it) may never be altered or even completely reneged, is at best naive. Times change. There was no universal healthcare or social net back then. Nor student loans or EI grants for college. What do natives need that the government doesn't offer to every citizen. Also, if terms of payment can be changed (as you said, $2 or a quanity of tools) then why can't the entire contract? As for corruption; I heard on radio one the other day, a MB chief complaining that the province is paying a third-party auditing company $1mill/yr to look after the finances of 4 or 5 reserves(can't remember which). The complaint was answered with the response that these reserves couldn't account for several times this amount, every year, for the last decade.

Living on the prairies, I'm awfully sensitive to this issue. Just one point I'd like to bring up though. That's the idiocy of this program. Treaty funding is not limited by anything: It has no time frame, no stated goal to meet, and no requirement to get it except race. The Native population is the fastest growing in MB + SK, this will mean that more and more money will have to be spent on this program because of this. How long will this program last? Will it be 100yrs? When, say, the native population is about 6times what it is now? So would that be $7.5billion times 6, to see the amount of money we would spend on treaties that were made before I was born. Sure, if they want to spend a whack of money on social programs (like health and housing) good on them, but don't spend our money on racial programs that accomplish very little except promote racism.

You all probably know that I'm not a die-hard conservative supporter (fiscally yes, socially no), but I have to recognize the fact that with everything that's on the go, this has to be a very exciting time for those right wingers out there. Even I have been caught up with any and all news of the merger talks, and it's not a 'know your enemy' kind of thing either. Depending on the leader and the platform, or as long as the party is relatively socially progressive and is not going to bend over and take it from the US, then this boy may just buy himself a membership.

Wow! Well done, Gugsy.

Well, After I voted I was definitely surprised to see the majority going for Harris. I voted for him primarily because of his determination to right some of the inequallities in the system. The work for welfare, and welfare fraud hotline, to name a few were, in my mind, policies that should be adopted in every province. I think Brison would bring in votes from the other side of the spectrum, and to take votes from the libs is neccesary. I don't think I have a problem with anything he's said or done so far. Talking about the unproven or even the questionable leadership skills of say Prentice or McKay, I would have to say that right now, the new party needs something more. Stockwell had some very good policies out there, I heartily supported his promise to end inequallity in regards to Native funding. Will he ever be able to get passed the image of right-wing, bible thumping, ultra-social conservative, though(weather it's true or not)? Harper, as I've said before, has no place at the federal level. If he wants to do some good, Premier is is best shot, and that's only if King Ralph steps aside. All in all, I myself would vote United Right, as long as the social policies were progessive, not traditionall(in which I mean bible thumping). Fiscally, I can't imagine anyone messing up worse than Chretien's Liberals.

I, for one, am eager to see accountabillity put into politics. In another thread, I put forth the idea of elected reps being held to stricter codes of conduct, such as millitary personell are held to the Uniform Code of Millitary Justice. Why are soldiers subject to higher standards. One reason is that they are placed in positions of trust and power. What is different about that position and the position of Governor? And I find it sad that no politcian is willing to run with this on his platform. If one person or party did, who could legitimately question it? If a candidate opposed such a change, wouldn't voters question his integretey? 'What, is he planning on lining his pockets or giving all contracts to his friends?' Another comment I'd make is one on nationalism vs. capitalism. The fact is capitalism is about making money, not necesarilly bettering your fellow citizens or your country. There is little heart to this. I'm not advocating national zealotry, or anything, but shouldn't commerce and trade laws be such that they benifit the country.

After high school, I found out that two of my best teachers were members of the legalization of mj leauge (can't remember if this is the actual name of it). They were discreet with this fact because they were teachers, but I guess their peers all knew of it. Then in University, I would say, a good half of all my proff's smoked pot, if only in the past or just on a casual basis. Now these were good teachers, they inspired and cared about their students. What a loss it would have been if they had been sentenced jail time or refused the job because of a criminal record. As for only lazy low-life welfare kind of people...... if they couldn't find weed, they would just find another drug or chemical to meet their needs. In my city, you see the trash buying whiskey, cigs, and puffing on reefers on welfare day and the following week. After that you see them buying little bottles of listerine or aftershave, and picking up cigarette butts and putting them in a empty bread bag so they can reroll them later. (This is completely true, I see it all the time!)

You said it better than I did TFB.

Thanks for that post Scotch. I found that truly interesting. Going to look it up.

Useless to discuss this any further I suppose. Just an opinion formed from my experience in the navy.

Not really important but the crew for the Abrams, thats their job (or weapon system that I mentioned), so of course they should know the in's and out's. What I was just saying, and by all means I may be mistaken, was that a Canadian soldier in that tank (I don't think we have any but whatever) would probably know how to change the tracks, fix a fuel leak, and hell, probably repair the leaky roof on the motor pool as well. Where as the US has other people to do those jobs. I met a guy from CFB Shilo, here in MB, who worked in an IT field. He had a University education and all that. Anyhoo he had to drive a 4ton truck every morning, dropping artillery guys off at the ranges. Why? They had no one else that was available. This is the norm, in the US this would be the exception.

This is generalization, of course. I would say that Canadian intelligence (because of public education) on average is higher than American intelligence, but.... The Americans have far more economic and technological resources to draw from. So an enlisted high school graduate from Kentucky will get better training with more sophisticated technology than the enlisted high school graduate from Newfoundland. Does this mean that the American is a better soldier? I don't think so. What it means is that he has access to better resources. As to versatillity; Americans are specialists, meaning they are taught(in general) to be terribly efficient at one job or one weapon system. Sure they may have general knowledge of other things, but if there weapon system goes down, there tank busts, or the chain of command is removed (or in other words, if things aren't running smoothly) they are not nearly as well trained as you may think. I have only a limited experience with the Canadian millitary, but seeing that they are underfunded and grossly undermanned, I would think that this would lead to that greater versatillity. From what I've heard, you really have to be a jack-of-all-trades and be motivated just so that things run, not even talking run smoothly. Just my opinion.....

Pigheaded Idiots, hmmm? Would that be like a person who would tolerate no leader other than Harper, no way no how?

BD, thats an extreme way of looking at it, though there is some merit to the argument. I see it in a different way. The international community must stand firm on democracy. If we don't recognize that democracy is a 'god-given right' (or however you prefer to put it) than we are saying the regimes of dictators and despots are legitimate governments. We have international standards of human rights (many countries don't follow them) but we don't enforce, millitarily or economically, the right of people to choose their own gov't. Why are we, the democratic countries of the world, doing business with unelected royal families, or non-democratic communist countries? If the citizens of a country wish to have a communist gov't, and vote them in, then and only then is it legitimate. Same goes for royal families, or millitary rulers. And that these countries are allowed to be a part of the UN, seriously troubles me. Also, I find this is the part of capitalism that is hard to swallow: the greed factor. Why isn't there an economic sanction plan against China until it shows a move, no matter how slow, towards a democratic society? Is it because of the billion consumers of western products? hmm...

Go against the school policy- buy you're own lock and buy a knock-off pair of pants. When you are reprimanded, contact any or all of the following: media (especially the CBC or any I-team), MP, MLA (or equivalent), school board trustees. I would make sure to get a note 'for your parents' on why they are sending you home, to show it later as proof. I would also ensure that you have real proof, not just witnesses, that they cut the locks no matter what. CBC and I-Team news crews love little stories like this. Also, if the political reps in your area don't have time for you go to the local NDP office (activists and bleeding hearts get off on this kinda thing)

Give up, pulease! AA is discrimination at its best. Anytime a young, white, male loses a placement at work or at a college to a racial minority of equal or less qualification, that spreads racism. How many times will race be thrown at this kid as an excuse before, instead of blaming the inane social program, he starts blaming the minority itself? There is no justice or equallity in AA.

I would say both sides overstated themselves Craig. The Left said it would be a disaster and the sky would fall, while the Right led the media (and the populace) to believe it would be a quick program to go in and rebuild. What we are seeing isn't absolute success nor is it abyssmal failure. It's going to be several years, I believe, before anyone can say the mission is complete. That's what I said in high school.... The truth is, however, that the more countries involved means the more vested interest in success. The more countries involved also brings more resources to see the job through.

Anyone got a link to give? Not up on this topic at all, although I got to admit I used to watch Rush's show and even bought a book (The way things should be???) by him. I was a teenager when he impressed me, as I grew up I realized what a moron he was. Funny how so many US conservatives still adore him. Says something I think.

This is a really good thread so far. All I gotta say is, it's a matter of your own perspective and your own prejudices. I wasn't for the non-UN war on Iraq, but it's done, and now every major country needs to step up and help stabilize and rebuild.

And I'm of the opposite thought BD. Afghanistan is such a poor, down-trodden country (if you can call it that), that I would much rather see more troops and more action taken there. To pull out now is to create a permenant enemy.

Your choice Craig, though I understand you feel it's the lesser of the evils, is still suprising. Much of the things you complain about (socialized medicine, subsidised power, and other feel good programs) are core principals of the NDP. In fact, they are usually the ones pushing to increase these programs. How can you swallow that decision? You got me so damn curious, I got to check out the Ont.NDP website...