Michael Hardner

Rue, There are plenty of people on this board who dislike immigrants, and might even be racist, but can frame an argument around their beliefs, and are able to discuss. Let's concentrate on these people, and leave the trolls alone. Hopefully, they will become bored and leave.

Keep in mind posters like Leafless and MikeDavid have, in the past, expressed disdain for the use of statistics (otherwise known as facts and evidence). Essentially they are saying - 'I am the source of facts'. You can't argue with such people, and so I am trying not to.

Kengs, Read those sentences together and understand: a Canadian citizen is a Canadian. An immigrant is, by definition, interested in becoming Canadian. Any other snow frosted dreams of lumberjacks and fishermen casting nets are clouding your understanding.

And also... what Auguste said...

You're mistaking a strong culture with a culture full of outspoken zealots. Immigrants come to North America and their culture melts away generation after generation. That's because our culture is stronger. I've been trying for years to get people to disprove that, and they invariably come back with a news clipping of someone being beheaded in Indonesia as proof that our culture is weaker. Not true.

The system works.

How about bigotry ? By the way, I have seen you - Scott - write about your distaste for the infusion of Muslims and Chinese. Is this distaste present for all non-Canadians ? How about Americans ? British ? Scots ? East Indians ?

That might explain the $5000 per flight.

An interesting fact for me is that I don't remember seeing Scott defend Harper since he was elected. I'm wondering if he was at least partly sitting on the fence with the man, given the Liberalish ways of the government since they got elected. As for this 'controversy', the Conservatives don't have a political genius like Chretien to help them navigate through these unfamiliar waters, so they have to use science. Also, keep in mind that these polls and focus groups result in more change than a general election, so try to think of it as a 'more democratic' approach to governing. It helps.

There has been an influx of trolls like this in the board lately. Longtime posters should make a pact not to post to them, however entertaining it may be.

I already talked about your issue in another thread, and I'm not interested in discussing it further. Thanks all the same.

I'm not sure, but honestly I don't really care either. You should have made a bigger fuss about this in 1980, when it was relevant. We've had 27 years of prosperity since, so whatever you're on about - it can't be much.

You need to admit that you're a fringe dweller as a first step. Next, prioritize your issues. Canada seems to have done pretty well for itself. The fact that there's a queen on our money, or Groucho Marx doesn't matter to but one person in ten thousand.

To do what ? Defeat dictatorships ? I understand now. You're a fringe dweller, and I have been wasting my time.

The thing is, you've discovered this difference that will require considerable energy and debate, and in the end it probably wouldn't matter. The US has no queen, and their laws overall are pretty similar to ours.

? This is the type of thing I"m talking about. You're telling us that we should dump the queen and/or adopt the systems of Iraq and Afghanistan based on what exactly ? Do you think that would be something the people of Canada would embrace: Be like Afghanistan and Iraq ! Your plans need a better grounding in reality.

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but is there a much better system on earth ? You'll always have a palace guard, you know.

So, the solution to our problems is a difficult thing to determine. There is nothing with the same scale of complexity as running a government. I would say that the root cause of our problems is that the system of government we designed is not the one being used today. For example, the system of government that was designed had, as it's central nervous system, an informed public that used interactive media and townhalls to debate and discuss issues in order to determine a best solution. It would be impossible for our society to mirror such a thing under the present circumstances. As such, our central nervous system has disappeared, and instead we use the central nervous system that everyone is familiar with: the business marketing system via mass-communications. I wanted to mention the root cause, however I should point out that even if we were able to rectify the slow decline of our governmental communications systems within a quick time frame, it would take a long time for reforms to make their way through the system. --- The specific problems mentioned, with regards to the federal bureaucracy are an extension of the problems that the business world faces all the time. The difference is that the business world has a clear motivation - to make money - and, with some qualifications, if the leaders do not achieve that goal they can lose their positions. With regards to government services, the closest thing to motivation that they have is to get the current government re-elected. This is a more difficult thing for the people at the top to manage. What ends up happening is that the government's appearance in the public eye is of paramount importance. Managing appearances becomes the priority work for top executives at the civil service. So, problems that are highly visible tend to be prioritized, and problems that, while real, do not grab headlines tend to be left to fester. Sleeping dogs lie, and the little things are neglected. The problem, then, is us. The public 'votes' for businesses when it buys things, and therefore poorly managed businesses, lose favour and fail. But the government won't pay attention to anything that we, the voters, don't pay attention to. On another forum, I did some research into how much data on healthcare system performance exists on the web for public consumption. There is precious little, and what is there is hard to find, and hard to analyze when it is found. How, then, are we supposed to evaluate our healthcare systems ? I think the solution to the problem is to design the complexity of these systems to match the ability of the public to evaluate and direct the delivery of services, and vice versa. For example, Service Canada should separate the delivery of services - say, EI or tax services - from the political arm of government and make it independent. They should have an appointed CEO who is in charge of expenses and service delivery, who reports to all all-party commons committee. The minister can still enact change within the department, but the department needs to be focussed on service delivery, and not on helping the boss (i.e. the minister) get re-elected. Is it really the fault of the current sitting minister - a politician - if there's a problem with the income tax system this year ? Probably not. Please note that I have many years of experience with large organizations, and I understand how the cultures of such entities work from the top down. I realize that I haven't sourced my opinions (no time) on certain things here, but I sincerely believe that my solution is better than some of the gambits I have read on these boards, including: - PR (Having 10 green party MPs in the house, and perpetual minority governments will save Canada, don't you know ?) - Getting rid of the constitution, rewriting it, becoming a republic (minor changes) - Electing, or (even better) getting rid of the senate - Eliminating all income tax

They are required to arbitrate the interests of the whole of the population. They are another from of advocacy - geographical advocacy. There was a day when they weren't needed, and such a day may indeed come again.

If you insist on using that analogy... The man in this case is significantly wealthy, and will collect only part of the value of the house. Moreover, there's a chance he won't collect at all. Moreover, he derives significant income from his record of being 'fireproof', so he damages his reputation for security by burning down his own house. The reward doesn't warrant the risk.

Colonial America was different though. The government was selected and populated with members of the public, but not masses.

My point being that a 9/11 type disaster isn't the only motivation required to generate support for military initiatives.

But, you're talking about planned mass slaughter of your own people, not neglect. If I felt that my government truly murdered its own citizens in that way, I think I would have to leave my country. Then why wasn't it necessary the first time ?

I would call that link a 'rant'. Canada doesn't need to re-open constitutional discussions.

Well, ok. But how hard would it have been otherwise to generate support for it, in the way that was used in those other examples ? Surely, it wouldn't be necessary to kill 3000 of one's own citizens to make it happen. Keep in mind what this thread, and sub-topic are about: The shadowy conspiracy of 9/11 is supposed to involve the shadowy hand of power attacking ITSELF, to generate this support.