Live From China

geoffrey, you've hit the nail on the head! If anyone thinks that burning down a bridge, etc. is doing "work on your own property", then they must think we were born yesterday. If the ownership is in question, you settle it in court and you don't go around committing acts of thuggery! I, like you, am not going to trust oral tradition to settle this. There is just too much at stake.

Agreed! We have groups who were never the victims of so-called - and very old - wrongdoings asking to be compensated, and they are asking people who never committed them to pay.

Yes, you would. And, at the same time, every PC'er and protester would be calling you a racist bastard. I'll say it again: such people (color does NOT matter) are not brave, but they will only become bolder and more dangerous until the government steps in and does something.

??????????? Just following the methods you have taught us!

Thanks, OV. PC is a disease that is infecting this country. The oral history question has always made me a bit suspect. I think that if any group with an oral tradition stood to obtain huge areas of land and make millions of dollars, I don't think they would be above altering the so-called facts. Especially, if anger and vengeance were fuelling them. In some circles (usually among those who aren't PC) this is known as lying. Or perhaps even perjury, if you follow my drift! Funny, I think I have noticed this banned poster as well.

So why are your "facts" accurate to the nth degree, and everyone else's just prejudices? You have not just presented them, you have put your own spin on them! I remember when I worked in law enforcement, and we were listening to person's side of a dispute, we listened for buzzwords and phrases: always, never, only, con/conned, conspiracy (or implications thereof), open minded, etc. As soon as a person hears those, I also noticed that you tried to sidestep the issue about video analysis/interpretation. I am going to ask all posters the following two questions: 1. Does anyone get the impression Posit has only looked at one side of the question? 2. Does Posit's writing style seem similar to that of someone else who got booted off this forum for simply and continually naysaying and being inflammatory? Can't remember the name but it just seems too coincidental. (My LE training kicking in here). I think the real issue here is (and this applies to any protest or group of protesters) the more unwilling we are to stand up to those who use violence as a tool of protest, the more dangerous they will become. Let me use an analogy: at one time bullying was not a big issue in schools. Bullies were often dealt with harshly by both the students and the "authorities." I remember one year in my school district two punks took to harrassing and assaulting students from other schools. Eventually, one student stood up to them. He was weaker and smaller, and yes, he got bloodied, but he sent one bully to hospital and the other one was sent packing. When the other one arrived at school, he was met by the principal and the local constabulary. He was summarily marched out of school in handcuffs. Those were the days when the police and administrators couldn't have given a hoot about self-esteem or being politically correct. I don't know what happened to this guy, but rumor has it that it took longer than usual to get to the station. But, voila, bullying ceased to be an issue in the district for many years. Over the years, because of political correctness, bullying has become a serious issue. To the point where each year, several students in Canada are not just beaten up but are murdered. And, no, I don't support violence and thuggery as a means of quelling protest. Discussion and peaceful debate should always be the avenue used to settle issues. I am only saying that when protesters use violence to attempt to get "their way", then the state should not be afraid to step in.

Here we go again. Yes, we know the Mohawk warriors are immortal, etc., etc., etc. Threats of this kind of violence are just an attempt to hold people at ransom. This is a sickening equivalent of the "heckler's veto" And, bloody hell, Lundy's Lane took place 200 years ago. Before the days of tanks, airpower, napalm, the Archer artillery gun, satellite and infrared surveillance, UAV's, etc. So, when the day comes, we can use their techniques against them. I'm with you Ontario Voter, a group of so-called "warriors" (who tries to speak for the people who want every settled peacefully) are nothing more than a group that wants violence and revenge. You can see it in Posit's posts: the more we won't bend, the angier and more hostile and threatening he becomes.

The onus isn't upon me to do so. You made the initial statements, thus, the onus is upon you. But, I will indulge you a bit here: I used to own an American rifle that was quite capable of firing Russian rounds. Interesting, isn't it? I might accept your argument if I knew you were an expert on video analysis, but something tells me your not. As well, how do we know what spin you are putting on what you saw, or even if it presents a complete and continuous portrayal of events? Propagandists regularly use film as a way of advancing their cause, if you get my meaning! It seems to me that you approached this with the view to prove that "the establishment" were the "bad guys." Bad approach. Shouldn't you view it neutrally, and then see what arises?

ScottSA, I like your posts; they are well though out and well presented. The historical revisionist angle has always bothered me. Unfortunately, I think much of this is started by New Agers who are feeling some kind of angst and guilt. I remember a teacher of mine who often said that it is an exercise in futility to judge the actions of people in the past by today's values; especially those long past. I don't like the idea of gladiatorial games but I don't feel any anger or guilt that my ancestors found them an exciting form of entertainment. The growth of democracy in the West had its origins in the Enlightenment and not because the Iroquois Confederacy created it. We need to get rid of the paternalistic approach to this problem. Throwing money at it will not make it better, only worse.

I'm with you, betsy! And speaking of propaganda, Posit's post sounds exactly like that: The bus was only being driven to help an old man.... An American weapon that can only fire American rounds... You have been conned by the media... There were only 25 old people, women and children... Despite the findings of the inquiry... The Mohawks have always settled their disputes peacefully... All the above to be said with your hand on your heart, and staring toward Heaven with round and pleading eyes.

So why are we so afraid to stand up to such groups when they start shooting at someone? Furthermore, I think we set a bad precedent. Such groups are only brave because no will shoot back. They really have no more courage or cachet than high school punks strolling the streets on a Friday night looking for a fight. The less we stand up, the "braver" and therefore the more dangerous they will become.

It's just an expression. I did not use it in the literal sense. It is just time for them to pay taxes no matter where they live.

I have heard stories on both sides of the First-Nations-and-taxation-issue. Yes, they are only exempt from taxes when they earn money on the reserve. No, there not. And on and on it goes. I did meet a FN oil worker last year. He made good money and he claimed he worked off reserve and yet paid no taxes. He joked about manipulating the system. Of course, he could having just been lying to see what kind of reaction he would get. What I am wondering about is the proud dream forwarded by FN leaders that they wanted federal paternalism to end, that they wanted self-determination, that they wanted to become contributing members of Canadian society, and, yes, they wanted to pay taxes. Give us ten years, they said, or something akin to that. Well, it's been ten years and I still don't see it. I have a feeling when full taxation does become a reality for the FN's, many of them will be hauled kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.

Hmm, I wonder! I, and I am sure many others, regard peace protesters as pretty ineffective. Just as those protesting the 2010 Winter Olympics (although not peace protesters), will not stop them from taking place. Native protesters are just protesters, i.e. not "the enemy", until they start using firearms. Then it doesn't matter that they are natives. Anyone who does this, be they white, black, yellow, red or purple with green polka dots, should be regarded as "the enemy." I have to wonder this: if I drew a gun in the commission of a crime, the RCMP would have no hesitation (given that bystanders would not be killed in doing so) in shooting me. So let's assume that a protest escalates to this level. Why should the skin color of this deadly protester (who is a direct and immediate threat to human life) matter?

I have always been curious about this. I am certain that groups like the Mohawk "warriors" are "brave" because no one is allowed to fight back. The Romans used to have a saying (which I am sure can be adapted to situations like Oka): "Bravery increases with distance." That said, I am further wondering about a scenario. Let's say another Gustafson Lake or Oka or whatever occurs and weapons are fired by protesters. Police are wounded. And so on. In short, the protesters and the protest gets out of control. The army, and possibly the air force, are called in. Use of deadly force is authorized. And it is used. For obvious reasons, the protesters are defeated. What would actually happen in the end? The PM, the Minister of Defence, the Chiefs of Staff, etc. might be unpopular for awhile. And with how many people? I wonder how many people would be behind them. And how many "brave warriors" would be so brave next time? Of course, I know this is so politically incorrect! Army Guy, I am sorry to hear the military now has to be PC.

Too much overparenting! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620793/ The above article is general but very enlightening. Almost humorous at times. I just can't imagine a parent phoning a professor (not a high school teacher!) and complaining about their "child's" grade. If this wasn't so pathetic, it would actually be hilarious.

Me too! There is another side to this: parents are becoming way too concerned about protecting their children. The is an article in a recent MacLean's entitled "Bubble Wrapping Your Children." Now it has nothing to do with spanking, but it discusses how parents are soooooooooo concern about protecting their children from any kind of risk. The result seems to be the raising of coddled children who are afraid of their own shadow! The result will be coddled adults who are afraid of their own shadow, and incapable of evaluating risk taking behaviors. I am wondering if 25 years from now, before people have children they will required to hire a lawyer and an entire social services department to protect their kids. Then their is school where the words competition, winner, loser and (gasp!) failure, are almost forbidden by law. And the buzzword is self-esteem.

I wish the article had been on the National Post website. To a certain extent this is new. The article went on to explain that human resources people, many with considerable experience, are encountering more self-absorbed people with a far greater sense of entitlement than in the past. Yes, those individuals have always existed, but according to this article, not in the masses present today. I don't how this movement started so many years ago, but competition has become a word feared among many younger people and educators today.

In last Saturday's (Mar. 3) National Post there was an article entitled A Generation of 'Special' Kids Comes of Age. (Sorry, tried to find it on line but couldn't, so I can't post a link). Essentially, it indicated that psychologists, educators, etc. are being asked to review the concept of self-esteem. "After nearly three decades of 'Me Museums' and 'All About Me' time for pre-schoolers, trophies for every child who simply shows up for a soccer game and childhoods punctuated by endless refrains of 'You are special,' experts are beginning to rethink the emphasis on self-esteem." The article went on to indicate that we are now faced with an entire generation of self-absorbed young people, people who think they are better than anyone else. A generation who feels they should be given jobs and promotions without hard work. I remember a sickeningly politically correct article that indicated every child who simply paints a picture deserves to have it in a higher end art display. Why? Because it's valid! Whatever the hell that means. I, for one, am tired of seeing people being given accolades for merely existing. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't think we should go out of our way to denigrate people for its own sake, but I don't think anyone should be constantly praised either.

Suppose their claims are ruled invalid by the courts? Will they shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, we tried", or will they say, "Gee, I guess that's OK; afterall, we have already received millions, even billions in government money"?

Yes, silly you for making such a silly comment. And totally off topic! The article in last week's Vancouver Sun did not refer to beatings and imprisonment. And anti-government sentiment is not what I speaking of. I was talking about internet addictions. Another aside: I doubt the US is a dying country, but I would agree with Fishman. It's economy is now strongly linked to China's.

One question I do have to ask is how much money has been put into caring for/acquiescing to the demands of the First Nations people of Canada. And how much additional money is this going to cost? What if some claims are simply proven to be invalid? And what if the money is simply not available?

Just watched the CNN Business Report. Author Ted Fishman who wrote China Inc., had some interesting points. The Chinese and American economies are now strongly intertwined. No surprise there. There are a huge number of protests each day, most of which are actually environmentally motivated, e.g., toxins in the water. China is under a great deal of environmental stress, which of course translates into social and political pressure. Water is the main issue in this large country. Some people think the Olympics will benefit China, what Fishman calls a "fantastic coming out party." But one million people will be displaced and factories will close. Fishman feels that there will be a huge cooling internationally toward China before the Olympics in 2008. An aside: China has huge and apparently very successful programs in combatting internet addictions. Of course, some of their methods would be very unpopular in the oh-so-politically-correct West.

The first sentence is irrelevant and apparently false anyway. The second sentence . . . ? I think this is just plain and simply made up. Sometimes this is known as a lie. I'm with you, scriblett! Often the truth is politically incorrect.

Why does this article put everything to rest? Why, when someone else presents a legal argument that doesn't favor the Six Nations, is it legal misrepresentation? Why is your argument accurate to the nth degree? And I don't see any slander here.