Black Dog

No one is talking about unanimous support, but the simple fact that it's pretty screwed up that a "majority" government can take power with the support of a minority of the population (especially since, in this country, a majority government has near-absolute power). Well, shit, if it's streamlined, efficient government we want, let's dispense with this pluralistic democracy nonsense altogether. And where can one aquire such a public? Seriously: voter turnout is a major issue. How representative is a government that is elected by 40 per cent of the 60 per cent of the population who turn out to vote? It's not at all. AN I would argue that declining voter turnout is tied to the distortions manifest under FPTP (see my Alberta example above). It's weird that opponenents of PR seems so much more uncomfortable with "back room horse trading"-compromise, in other words-than they do with the supreme power wielded by a "majority" government. But I digress. The "problem" (such as it is) with the proliferation of fringe parties can simply be addressed by a requrement for a minimum level of support (Germany, for example requires parties receive 5 per cent of all second votes or carry three electoral districts to enter the Bundestag). But even without it, the problem of fringe parties is grossly overstated: no party representing a fringe or perpetual minority view would ever have the support to make a significant impact. But there's many ways to pt PR into practice. Again, Germany uses a mixed system where by every voter casts a ballot for a local candidate and a vote for a party. About half of the seats are filled with the local candidates. The remaining seats are topped up from party lists to ensure proportionality. In fact, most countries with PR (75 versus the handful still using FPTP) have some form of hybrid system. The other flaw in your argument is that if parties continually nominate the same candidates for the party list, people can simply choose not to endorse that party.

As editors of what? Try to back up your statements for once. Wow, more ad hominems. You're terrible, just terrible at this. Well, as much as I hate to disparage the few, the proud and the incredibly wealthy who sat at home while other did the fighting, I'm just gonna go ahead and do it anyway. And yeah, if one uses is family influence to avoid combat service (as Bush did when he vaulted over 500 better qualified candidates) you're a draft dodger. I know how much it pains you to hear such things about your Dear Leader, but there it is. Oops my mistake. So she was in full possession of her faculties when she ran her ex-boyfriend down. My bad. As for the rest, I'm starting to believe you are illeterate, given I have not spoken in defense of Kennedy at all. Furthermore, I challenge to present a single example of me defending Castro or Hussein. In fact, I dare you. The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things (methinks abortion wasn't a common concern in 17-freaking-76). But then the Constitution was simply a list of what the federal government could and could not do. The right to privacy is considered a basic right, and as such is protected by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, which makes clear that the listing of individual rights is not intended to be comprehensive, and that "the people" have other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

So the leader of a right-wing provincial political party endorses the leader of a right-wing federal political party and this somehow qualifies as news? And the ADQ has five whole seats? Wow. Colour me underwhelmed. Maybe the next hard-hitting expose will be on who Alberta Alliance leader and sole seat holder Randy Thorsteinson plans to cast his ballot for (not to play spoiler, but I suspect it'll be for teh Harper Cons. Shhhh.)

And why would we? What possible good would it do?

Uh. This thread started with a conservative bringing up Chappaquiddick. I haven't seen John Kerry post here. Wrong. Both Democrats and Republicans receive money from Abramoff's clients, only Republicans received personal donations from Abramoff himself. He used his family's wealth and influence to join the ANG's "Champagne Unit" in order to avoid real service. It's not quite running to Canada, but it's still technicalaly draft dodging. And cowardly. No, but Laura "accidentally" killed her ex-boyfriend. Oops. Yup: both illegal and unjustified. Go to the thread on the subject. This, I suppose, is what passes for "compassionate conservativism" these days. Thanks for proving my point about ethics.

Fair enough: I just think that without having both aspects clearly defined and sufficiently funded, you risk "mission creep" where the organization is given too many tasks and ends up being unable to perform any of them effectively. We need a plan for our military before we buy any new toys for it. Put me in the latter camp. It's one thing to pay lip service to an idea and to wrap yourself in past acomplishments, another entirely to actually figure out if an enterprise like peacekeeping is worth continuing. That's the most important part of the whole debate (figring out what role we want the military to play) and also the one that gets the least amount of attention. Precisely my point. Using the military as a status symbol or to garner respect is a mug's game. And an expensive one.

You clearly have a broad definition of rascism. You're racist. The choice is not between throwing money at band chiefs and Nazi-style social engineering (which I'm sure would appall anyone with an ounce of regard for civil liberties). That's a classic false dilemna. Creepy, too. Your solution is the kind of heavy handed, top-down approach that has failed miserably throughout the history of Canada/native relations. I think Argus is onto something. Most reservations were established in areas where were no resources or opportunities. There need to give Canada's natives a choice: join Canadian society (which means urbanization) or move towards effective self-government. The former should be supported by government programs to establish affordable housing and job training (Canada's natives are a hugely underutilized labour force); the latter option would see a corresponding decrease in the level of support from the government for Aboriginal tribes as they learn to stand on their own. The two strategies can even work together: imagine young natives moving to the city, receiving training and skills and then taking those skills back to their own communities. So there: a third option that i sneither teh status quo or something out of Dr. Mengele's dreams.

It's "Alito". And, as a party, you know you can't get any lower when you look down and see Republicans looking up. It's "Chappaquiddick", and I never said Kenedy was a saint. But if the Republicans are going to contantly dredge up an incident from almost 40 years ago, it seems fair to be able to bring up past Republican misdeeds such as George W. Bush's own drinking and driving (Laura's too, for that matter) and draft dodging. Or Cheney's drunk driving and draft dodging. Or Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (they were "concerned" with women and blacks getting into the school) and draft dodging (anyone seeing a pattern?). But why bother dredging up old sins when there's Jack Abramoff, warrantless spying, legalized torture, the ongoing boondoggle that is Iraq and so many other fresh bones to knaw on.

That's one way to look at it. Of course the other way is that they were created to destroy native culture. Which they were. Argus: Why that's...that's racist! I'd like to hear Sparhawk's solution to Aboriginal poverty. Oh wait: you can't say Aboriginal poverty, because that implies that there's different kinds of poverty among different populations and that the requiring different apporaches to solve. Which, again, is racist.

Pfft. When it comes to integrity, the Republican mafia doesn't have a leg to stand on (coughAbramoffcough).

And what "turth" is that, o wise one?

But none of those solutions would address the main issue, which is the majority of Canadian voters are unrepresented in Parliment simply because their votes don't count. And people wonder why most peple don't vote.

So there's no reason another agency can't do the job. In fact, I'd rather have an agency devoted specifically to the task of emergency preparedness, with the necessary funding and training to do the job. The way some people done on about the importance of Canada's military to ensuring our status in the world, I can't help but wonder if that's how people see the military. Oh, do shut up. Iraq was a bad idea from the get go. Not going was just good policy.

Let's just pull some numbers out of the air: We'll give the Cons 34 per cent of the popular vote, the Liberals 30 per cent, the NDP 17 per cent, the Bloc 14 per cent, and the Greens 5 per cent. Under PR, then, Parliament would consist of 105 Cons, 92 Liberals, 52 New Democrats, 43 Bloc and 15 Greens (in a 307-seat House). No because the fundamental problem is the winner take all system ensures the majority of people are wasting their votes. Elected Senates and fixed electon dates are nothing but band aid solutions. What of those European countries with PR who's economies are doing just fine (think Ireland, Norway etc.)? It seems to be the potential damage to economic growth is a pretty poor reason to retain a system as outdated and undemocratic as FPTP. Uh no. In case you haven't noticed, FPTP has produced more than its fair share of regional parties. Look at the last election: you had basically three regions: The Conservative West, Bloc Quebec and Liberal Ontario. Unde rthe current system, a party with voter support concentrated in one region of the country will gain far more seats than another party with the same number of supporters spread across the country. PR would guard against regional blocs by ensuring parties would have to have broad-based support. For example, under PR, the 50 per cent of Quebecers who vote for federalist parties would recieve representation that they wouldn't under a Bloc-takes all system.

I can't for the life of me understand why disaster response and SAR are military duties. There should be a seperate civilian agency responsible for domestic and foreign disaster response and recovery, as well as emergency search and rescue. Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead?

Neither FDR or Abe ever went as far as to claim unlimited executive power during wartime (especially during a war against a concept). But that's precisely what Republicans ar eclaiming: The Yoo memo. Which does nothing to dispove the original point.

The "Harper hidden agenda" seem sto be the left-wing version of "the gay agenda". No one knows what it its, but damn if it isn't scary. Thing is, Harper's agenda isn't particularily hidden. It's pretty obvious he wants to move the country to the right, away from the Canada of the hated Liberals and closer to the neoconservativism of the U.S. of A. Fortunately, Canadians don't want that, which has caused Harper to water himself down to the point where the Cons can now advertise themselves as "Just like the Liberals, only 99 per cent scandal free". By gunning for the mushy middle (read:Ontario) Harper has had to set the neocon agenda aside. Once in power, he may pick it up again, but to do so would be to risk the wrath of an electorate taht is currently wiling to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Cheeky Dippers.

No I do not. Native culture worked relatively fine in its own way. It was the conquest and subsequent destruction of that culture that paved the way for today's social problems. The residential schools were designed to destroy native culture. They were not some well-intentioned experiment gone awry.

Well, you're just plan wrong. Despite the Republican notion that the President has absolute power to do pretty much anything he wants in "wartime" (including spying on Americans, holding U.S. citizens without trial or charge indefinitely, torturing captives etc), and the contortions they go through to "prove" that the president is the law, such is not the case. I don't think there has ever been an adminstration as corrupt and as authoritarian in its leanings as the current one. No administration in history (save perhaps one) has embraced unlimited, unchecked Excutive power the way this gang has. That's what makes them scary. Seems like an appopriate appelation for a country run by a millionaire son of a milionaire who's inner circle consists entirely of millionaires. You should try advancing a real argument sometime.

I think that's a facile comparison. As bad as wartime internment camps, head taxes and other discriminatory measures undoubtebly were, there was never the kind of large scale effort to destroy Chinese or Japanese culture in the way Aborginals were targetted through residential schools, reservations, etc. What's more, Asian immigarnts came from societies where both agrarian and urban lifestyles promoted a strong work ethic, not from largely nomadic , tribal societies suddenly plunked into an emerging industrial society.

What's false? the "no-fly" lists exist and it seems like peopel are being placed on it for no reason other than being critical of the Bush administration. Also, may I direct your attention over here to the thread dealing with the N.S.A's warrantless surveillance program. It seems like many Americans are concerned about the effect of the "war on terror" on civil rights. I don't think that makes them unpatriotic.

Do you think that he'd be able to post here if he had something negative to say about the regime ? Not likely, eh?

So in your view, patriotism is about agreeing with everything the current administration says or does?

What's your point? Aboriginals make up less then 5 per cent of the population. Obviously there will be more poor whites than poor aboriginals. But when you have a population, nearly half of whom are in poverty, it would seem to indicate that population has problems specific to them. I'd say the former. Noty to mention the problems those specific communities have, problems that can be traced back to the Canada's histiorical treatment of its native population. What this oils down to is that you are saying Canada's aboriginals hhave a choice (and that they choose to be poor). I'm saying the aborginal population's specific problems limit the awareness of those choices. Put another way, if your dad was a poor alcoholic, and his dad was a por alcoholic and his dad and so on, the chances of you ending up as anything other than a poor alcoholic are pretty slim, simply because those chopices are all you'd know. Which is the problem of poverty everywhere, but it seems to be especialy bad for Canada's natives.