Michael Hardner

If your kid has to walk to a national park to play, he/she will indeed be fit !

It all comes down to fear, Gost. I'm more afraid of a proven and tangible threat that exists here and now than this: With all due respect, your fears seem to be rooted in fiction, fantasy and 'what ifs'. My fears are rational, and have been realized in New York, London, and Madrid. Unfortunately, there are enough people who are afraid of these abstractions that you may actually win out in the political arena. As much as I enjoyed that book, sometimes I really wish Orwell hadn't written it.

66% is 2/3. Sure, it's arbitratory but so is 60%. I think 60% is too low.

It's comparing apples and oranges, but it's an interesting exercise nonetheless. You would probably have to add health insurance costs to even it up, then account for the high number of uninsured in California. It's quite an exercise if you're up to it.

Because this change could be huge and almost irreversable, and the public is likely more susceptible to fads than the entire governing party.

Leafless, It sounds like you're ready to welcome enough Green Party MPPs to keep the Liberals and NDP in power forever...

I think that this reform issue is a fad. In order to pass, I would think that a 2/3 majority should be demanded. Our system may have flaws, but major changes such as some of the ones proposed can be difficult to roll back so we need to be sure what we're doing is supported. The other thing to take into account is the rate of turnout. A 50% pass rate would mean that a small minority of Ontarians came out to the polls in favour of the proposed change. 2/3 - 66.67 % - should be the threshold.

FTA Lawyer, Thanks for your input... I didn't mean to come down too hard on Gost. I knee jerk with the best of them, I guess. Good for him for starting a thread on such an important topic. My reaction was mostly based on the superficial articles I read in mainstream newspapers that use the same hoary cliches from Orwells novel over and over again. I know that police behave badly, but the nature of the crimes being investigated leads me to think that this is less of a threat. We're not sending 'beat cops' after international terrorists, after all. We presumably have special teams whose sole mandate is to monitor for terrorist activity. Although government agencies are capable of pretty stupid things, I can't think of examples of abuse that would outweigh the advantages of these types of surveillance. Can you ?

Yes, I find it not alarmed, ie. I'm not alarmed All that's being monitored is your web activity. The urls that you visit, presumably if they're on a watch list. YOU are not being monitored. What freedom is this ? Freedom to download detailed instructions on how to build explosives without anybody knowing ? I'm willing to forgo that freedom for more security. If you walk in a major urban area, you're being videotaped constantly as you pass by store windows and banks. Do you feel violated knowing that ? I don't. If there's a security advantage in putting cameras in public, and I think there is, then we should do it. Terms like 'big brother' and so forth evoke strong feelings about a police state, but we're nowhere near such a thing happening, and if it did eventually happen it wouldn't matter anyway. People have to let go of these knee-jerk reactions to security and surveillance and think about the real advantages that these technologies bring. Would you give up the person you love the most for the knowledge that you can walk down the street without being videotaped, or the knowledge that the police can't trace your calls (if they wanted to) ? It seems like a pretty easy question to me.

Charles: Excellent example. It's important to note that the source data for both surveys was correct, but the implied conclusions were misleading.

If he was caught selling drugs, but nobody had died, should the penalty be the same as if somebody had died ?

Yes, Charles, I think there's something to that. And it goes with what Auguste said about changing our refugee policy so that applicants submit before coming over. Ok, well, the borders are dissolving under us as we speak and I appreciate the Brave New World reference.

Charles: I think that's one of the reasons that people do support daycare for infants - that there are parents out there like this. That being said, there are other people culpable for what happened here.

JMH: You're one to talk. You come in here and start jamming threads with blue language and add nothing to the conversation. Dear theloniusfleabag: Are you saying that getting rid of all borders would dehumanize the planet ? The idea of fences keeping the filthy immigrants out seems less than human to me. Anyway, if you look around you'll see that the erasure of borders has been well under way for about 18 years now. The results are mixed, but some proponents of the new order are: companies that love paying lower wages for more work, and liberals whose jobs will never be threatened by immigrants because they're in protected labour markets. Those against it include: people who have seen their careers evaporate due to lower demand for their services, reactionaries who have relocated their dislike for Irish, Quebeckers, and Italians to Blacks, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Auguste, thanks for starting this thread, I've been following it and it's been interesting.

7.4 Million ? My God, I didn't realize. I think the time has come to rename it just 'The Horseshoe', after all it is brown... [edit] The air, that is...

Welcome. You're probably as informed about Canada as many of us Canadians here.

Well, that's certainly a better question. This: sounded like rationalization but maybe not.Here are some possibles reasons why "we" are not trying to find the answer. 1 ) Everybody who has the resources to look into this has a vested interest in the outcome. 2 ) It would be almost impossible to set up an experiment to measure such a thing. 3 ) Nobody cares about facts anyway. I proved 3 ) myself by falling for the initial study, even though I pretty much minored in statistics, and even took a course on methodology and common abuses. I'd say 3 ) is the strongest reason. People don't demand facts, they trust advocates of various types to do that for them.

I think you're right. The story may or may not be true, but it was picked up by the AP when it happened, then disappeared. I hate conspiracy theories, but this seems like a much better candidate for one.

So you advocate fighting lies with lies then ? I hope we haven't really fallen that far. I would submit that it's time for people to start thinking more critically on both sides of the great centre line.

I can't believe I'm rating them higher than Leafless is, but .... 3/5 stars.

Charles: Fair enough... but look at the first post. Some excerpts: The headline: False. Very misleading. Just look at the posts in this thread. Most people, me included, assumed that this study showed something real. We trusted the information posted, and accepted it. I dropped my guard, and was fooled by the official look and impartial language of the site. I didn't read the actual report, because it was subscription only. Only when I found a critique of the report did I realize how much I'd been fooled. These types of Trojan horses are worse than political advertising - much harder to spot. The NBER clearly has some kind of agenda, or they wouldn't stoop to deceive as they did here.

The NBER study seems to be deeply flawed. Exactly, Auguste. Link: Scroll Down to the Second Story... If this point, and the others made in the article are true then the study should be rejected outright.

I'm cringing at the definitions of 'left' and 'right' as they get flung around on these forums. Often, it seems to come down to things posted on those cartoon right-and-left bookends - Rabble and FreeDominion. Good forums posters tend to develop nuanced, intelligent, and fully independent views over time. MLW is the best of these forums, IMO, and there are many posters whose political foundations I can't even label. So why do we contantly have to tie ourselves to the embarassments at Rabble, and Free Dominion ? Or, more accurately, why do we have to tie our political opponents to those forums ? Auguste: Yes, and he had a reasonable response. Threats to public safety should be dealt with, and there's no need to play 'CNN Crossfire' and bring up tangential issues. Mr. Rae got it right, and he's a leftist. BD: Wrong. The left is always tying conservatives to the most extreme conservative views out there just as the right does the same to liberals. I'd like to see us stop talking about those lousy boards, and the closed-minded posters there. Argus: And has our prime minister made any admonishments to the Muslim world ? I don't remember any such thing. This is an example of the reverse - the right is here given CREDIT for hard line views of their extreme cousins. There was a threat made to public security, and the RCMP and CSIS dealt with it. It sounds like the Liberals sensibly left this alone as there's no politics to be played here. If some people on Rabble want to write that this shows we're a police state, etc. etc. etc. they should represent no one but themselves. Kimmy: The cooler heads on both sides are marginalized in a sensationalized news world, IMO. I read that 28% of NDP voters approve of Harper's government, so it seems there are still some people who have open minds out there.

The other stories I saw at the time provided more detail. For example, 'Alaska' refers to an island off the mainline that is within the territory of the state. I'll see if I can find more...

As I said, the story was picked up by AP so it can't be too far out there. It was also reported in other outlets as well. I honestly think this was just missed.