Michael Hardner

Jerry, 1) What's wrong with pointing out the truth ? Nothing - as long as it's helpful. How often do you go to a party and interrupt the host in the middle of a story to tell her she has bad breath ? 2) There is a conflict in basic values between Islam and the "west". That depends on whether you're talking about Western Islam or not. 3) This conflict will grow over time. I completely disagree. I dont' see any reason why Muslims will adapt differently than any other religion. Give a specific example please. Again, specific example please.

Ole - the commonly quoted 'cut' figure from the Harris government was 20%, not 50%. The government can spend its money better than that, though. For example, they could spend it on getting these people to work and produce something valuable for the economy.

Ok... So you can see why pitting religion against religion is a dumb game ? I'm always arguing against leftists who are trying to say that Christianity is the worst force ever unleashed in history etc. etc. They want to compare the sheer numbers murdered, even if it was in the past. You see, Seinfeld, the framing of the argument is entirely subjective. The factors, as WildBill pointed out in another thread, are entirely cultural.

So CBC is giving to an anti-hunger charity that is also being supported by a Muslim organization that was founded by a guy who believes Muslims should have their own courts ? And the headling is 'CBC partners with Islam Extremists' ? Sorry, there's just no controversy here.

WBill, I don't know what the point of discussing the problems with other cultures would be - except maybe to make ourselves feel better.

Argus, To make such an observation doesn't help us in any way whatsoever because it doesn't tell us what the cause of the intolerance is. It's pretty easy to come up with correlations. For example, I've read that the children of separated parents are far more likely to be involved in petty crimes than children who aren't in that situation. Should we therefore use that principle to decide that such children should never be allowed to be student council treasurers ? Of course, that would be ridiculous. However, the principles at work are the same as if we look at the status of people who belong to a religion and say "there you are !". Do you think a "Christian" who was raised in a poor country with little schooling or literacy would necessarily be better equipped to live in our society ? I'm sure there are plenty of backwards/backwoods "Christians" out there that will belie such a belief.

Rene - Actually, I don't. But I would like to examine this. Welfare Statistics This report seems to indicate that there are hundreds of thousands of able-bodied folks collecting welfare. That's a cost of billions, maybe as many as ten billion. It seems to me that spending one billion dollars could give us 10,000 counselors. If one counselor could get one person a month into a stable, paying job then they would pay for themselves. How does that sound ? With regards to this: I meant that it's enough to know that there is a theoretical 'ideal point' for payouts, in order to determine that a welfare system is worth having. The amount to pay is a different discussion, I think.

How about the crusades ?

Given that the original post has no context whatsoever, and it points to a dead link, I propose that this thread is a pointless rant about nothing.

Ren, It's enough to know that there is a amount of money that will achieve this. It should be somewhere between the absolute minimum to keep people alive, and the lowest of the 'poverty' amount. And, again, I maintain that we should invest in more case workers to help those who are on welfare for the wrong reasons move forward. And further to that, I think welfare recipients should have their financial situations open for review so that they can get financial counseling as well.

If it's wrong, then let the companies die and have something else take their place. I don't think the government should be taking sides to preserve this unhealthy relationship. If the Japanese auto companies are getting on better with their workers, then they should survive. Capitalism is about having the best businesses win, isn't it ?

Jerry, the article points to popular doubts over integration. I don't think many people would argue that there aren't doubts over integration. What you're putting forward isn't the same thing. You simply sow derision over people of the Muslim faith. What exactly is 'ultra tolerance' ? What are you proposing in contrast ?

I think I caught the gist of it - especially the 'screw them' part. Did you think I would re-evaluate and think you ARE a bleeding heart ? I suppose if you want to line up the poor and shoot them... sorry... line up the unqualified and shoot them then you're right. But if you want to live in an unstable and crime-filled society that still has rights, then be prepared to sacrifice a lot of safety and personal freedom and to pay out-of-pocket for personal security. Again, I'm just trying to speak your language here. I'd rather spend the extra money on finding a place for these people in society, rather than looking down at my nose at them as failures. I believe that many who fall by the wayside are as much a victim of their luck as the winners in society. I actually have an acquaintance who was both lucky and unlucky in this regard. As a young man, he fell down and became homeless. He found a place, and then through some luck ended up being a millionaire.

Ok - how about launching wars against other religions because they're unholy ?

Ok, well since you're clearly not the 'bleeding heart' type, I'll frame the problem for you in cold dollars. Paying a very few people a very meagre amount of money is cheaper for you than supporting the type of police infrastructure that you would require to put down a revolution.

Why, though, are you asking for things that are so specific ? You're specifically asking for suicide bombers - why is that ? I can find Christians who have killed others in the name of their faith ? Is that not good enough ?

When you think about it, there is an undercurrent of absurdity to saying 'after elected, I will listen to what Canadians want'. When does a leader 'lead' ? Did Trudeau get his ideas from the electorate ? The ultimate example of this wrong-headed approach to leadership-by-marketing is Dalton McGuinty. I truly despised the government of Mike Harris, but at least he took a stand. If any politician popped his head up from the ground long enough, he would see that there's incredible opportunity for a new direction for Canada by re-engineering our government into an organization that is focused on delivering social services in an efficient manner.

Goalpost: Moved. Now, we've provided you what you asked for - a single example of this type of crime. Before we move on to round 2, which will involve raw numbers, you will have to acknowledge that your challenge in round 1 of the argument was met.

Michael Ignatieff was on CBC Radio's 'The Current' today. The salient bits were: 1) When asked about his 'reservations' about the coalition he replied only that he wanted to ensure that the coalition aligned with two 'Liberal' principles: - National unity - Fiscal responsibility 2) After about 10 minutes of inconsequential questions about the current situation, the host finally asked him about his vision for Canada. His response was the usual cautious "we'll see" approach, saying he'll listen to Canadians (in reality, since he's a Liberal, this means he'll listen to the focus group results that the Montreal marketing firm they hire produces) and that his vision is for a role for government but not "big government". I got the distinct impression that we have, in Harper and Ignatieff, political bookends. In other words, I wouldn't bet on the Liberals challenging in January. I'm interested to know MLW's thoughts on Ignatieff now that he's wearing the crown/dunce cap...

VMG We have a lot of interest in things that are not black and white - for example politics itself. But easy answers like the gold standard solving economic problems are in fact pretty easy to shoot down. Actually, it's likely that speculation had a role in the increase and decrease in prices. Also: Stability is one goal of an economic system but not the only one. Growth itself is instability, and causes losses in some sectors of the economy in return for gains in another sector. The keys to the kingdom are, as they always have been, a mix of intelligence, discussion, analysis, co-operation, restraint, and everything else required to captain our economic ship. There is no easy way to do this, which is why mistakes happen from time to time.

Forcing them to watch the entire run of 'The Trouble With Tracey' might do the trick.

RM, am I wrong or does this also imply that the US needs to stay in Iraq until all civil unrest is gone ?

Actually, Jerry, JB, Rue and Black Dog have made some excellent points. How does our culture condemning other cultures help at all ? And, as usual, I don't understand your criteria for determining which cultures are a problem to you. You seem determined to use individual examples of crimes as evidence, but if we come back with instances of Christian misdeeds (let's say, abortion clinic bombings) are you going to move the goalposts ?

Understood. We're comparing against the other statistic quoted, which was also household income. The thread is drifting though. I'm satisfied that farmers are doing well enough.

The second highest was 169,233. Meaning fully 2/3 of farm families earn more than most Canadians...