theloniusfleabag

Back when I was head chef at a Calgary restaurant, and I hired a Native (or Original) line cook. Good guy, and my wife (she was my 'sous chef') and we really liked him as a person, which is a bit rare in the industry. We were sad to see him go, but he explained his situation...he left the reserve to be a chef, and owed a bunch of tax dollars as a result. He was already working another part time cooking job, and could make more money (to pay his back taxes with) at a golf course than at our place. As to other situations, my wife and I have been on almost every reserve in Southern Alberta (south of Edmonton) including the 4 around Hobbema (Louis Bull, Samson, Ermineskin and Montana), Sunchild (near Rocky Mountain House), Morley (Stoney), Sarcee (Tsuu T'ina), Piikani (or Peigan, at Brockett), the Blood (from near Lethbridge to Cardston, I believe it is the largest in Canada), and Siksika. Met a bunch of really nice people, and a couple of jerks.

Dear Riverwind, Nail on the head. (You didn't really need to edit it.)Charles Anthony once asked me (in regards to anarchy) "What do I fear?" (I couldn't find that post later, it got snowed under) and I can only think to reply... "The other me."

Dear Figleaf, I also urge you to give it a read, lengthy though it may be. I 'battled it out' with Hugo over this and a couple of other topics, so my urging may have a bit of 'self-serving egoism' to it, but Hugo was one of the most well-studied people I have ever encountered on the subject. Most of the veteran posters here would agree, he was a towering (if somewhat inflexible) intellect.

Dear Argus, Not really, (and the US did control Liberia, supporting a 'brutal dictatorship' to protect their economic interests there) the problem lies in 'the opposing force'. It used to be communists, such as the decades old imbroglio over the resources of Angola. If there is something there worth having, chances are someone else wants it too, so they do the same things you do...hire mercs, (or the gov't, if possible) and your costs skyrocket. On the plus side, (just to be cheeky) it is almost always just the locals that have to do all the dying.

Dear geoffrey, Not really, for I work near the 'Chateau Drop-Out' centre in Downtown Calgary, and they, along with many other services, provide daily handouts to the addicts, the lazy, and in some cases, the mentally ill. Regardless of race. They spent 15 million bucks on that building, and it has become a beacon for the 'homeless' across the nation. From Newfoundland to Vancouver (and I hear them talk about it all the time), word on the street is that 'Calgary is the place to be' for free handouts. gc1765, I am all in favour of this. The mentally ill, for whom this might be too much, comprise (in my estimation) about 5-25% of those people getting gov't assistance, when really they should make up 100%. Communist Russia used to do this, and they had a very low unemployment rate. One of my brothers was there years ago, and saw battalions of older ladies sweeping the streets with home-made brooms. Still, it was a job.

Dear Charles Anthony, That may be so, but it speaks to your suggestion... which is the part I must call out as fantasy.

Dear Canuck E Stan, I would think that the decision over the buildings lies with the Chief and Council. I am not positive, But I also believe that the Chief (and council) have the right to distribute land and monies as they see fit. Families will get a tract of land, and then they divide it up and build houses on it, while some may choose to farm. We met a couple of ranchers, and a couple of farmers that were doing very well, and we also met some people who just wanted to live off the system. Oddest of all, probably, was an old German woman (well, a 'Sudetenland Czech' who lost her home when the Brits signed it over to Hitler), a widow of a former chief. She made us some traditional bannock, and talked our ears off. Wonderful and interesting lady. He doesn't show much concern over a million dollars, either.

Dear Argus, Firstly, there has to be the desire to stop the abuse, and it isn't there. The problem is that your view... is unrealistic, for those that 'appoint and annoint' are bought by corporations that have a vested interest in what decisions are taken, what contracts are awarded and to whom, etc. Graft, really.While I like your ideas, gov't reformation would likely be a one-shot deal, sliding back to corruption in a very short period of time. If greed greases the wheels of 'the market', how could it be expected to be any different in gov't? As jbg opines, you do get what you pay for, and most of the 'good business people' are in the private sector, with philanthropy as a choice and not as a career. The problem with increasing their salaries is that they still wouldn't be held to any 'production standards' as in the private sector. How many companies would keep the staff that were in charge of, say product registration, given a 2 million dollar budget and then see it balloon to a billion dollars with no progress being made? Not a single one, and none would remain in business.

Dear geoffrey, from your link... ( My wife and I have been on the Eden Valley Reserve too, it is part of the Stoney Tribe and it is administered out of Morley). My wife and I have been on Tsu'u T'ina (or Sarcee), perhaps a hundred or more times. Once, we found ourselves trying to catch some stray dogs, and wound up on the old DND weapons range...a bit harrowing! There seems to be some unexplained things here, like why does the gov't want them back in that particular housing? Why is it any of the government's business where they live? How did Health Canada get there? If it was old gov't property, I suppose the gov't must take some responsibility to hand over a non-fatal building, but was that ever negotiated when the lease was signed?

Dear August1991, We in the West truly don't know what it is like to be faced with poverty, famine, etc, but that doesn't mean we can't see or understand oppression. One of my brothers worked in Africa for some years, and he told me "Never send aid money or food to Africa". The reason? The local militias or crooked gov'ts skim at least 50% of all donations, and they are usually the ones creating the 'oppression'. Then they shoot anyone who dares oppose them. The other 50% of their income comes from 'western' (or European or Asian) conglomerates who covet the resources of that country.

Dear Drea, It was technically Reagan, though crookedly. Reagan, along with GHW Bush, former Director of the CIA-cum-VP, along with Campaign Manager-cum-Director of the CIA William Casey agreed to sell weapons to Iran to free the hostages. Carter's attempt to release them by force resulted in a 'curious mishap' and failure, while coincidentally, (and behind his back) some of the up-and-coming 'Neo-Cons' negotiated with 'state-sponsored terrorism' and funneled the profits to enable 'state-sponsored terrorism', for their own ends, elsewhere and 'saved the day'. As to the Panama Canal, well...I don't have time to give you a history lesson on it, but I have read an awful lot about it. Carter did sign the treaty to return control to Panama (Gen Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama, and the other signatory died in a plane crash, oddly), and eventually the US invaded it to abrogate that treaty.

Dear jdobbin, It depends on what they want to happen. Do they want to win, or just get some practice? They shoudn't continue as they have, there should be no questioning that. If they aim to 'democratize Iraq', they better send enough troops in to secure the country, at least 100,000. Proxy gov't (UN [or a new, improved model, the present one sucks] or NATO controlled) for a period of at least 5-10 years, and martial law superceding any religious or other concerns. Just to be nice, though, a velvet glove on the iron fist.One must have a winning strategy to go on the offensive. Otherwise, one should be playing defence. I can't believe these clowns haven't read Sun Tzu!

Dear Charles Anthony, I must admit that I am not familiar with 'Judge Judy', though I remember a television show called "The People's Court' with a 'Judge Wapner'. I assume Judy is just a rip-off of this. However,... Hilarious. This type of 'punishment by ostracism' might work if 100% of all the other people had no interest in personal gain. Which is pure fantasy. Like believing that anarcho-syndicalism could be accepted and practiced tomorrow. Or 'pure, voluntary communism'.

Dear geoffrey, Mr. Geriatric couldn't care less about any answers, nor could he be annoyed...he is what is known as 'a forum troll'. Rather than reply, I suggest the 'ignore' button.

Dear Figleaf, Indeed, I would likely be willing to take arms to keep Alberta from seceding.

Dear Wilber, I agree, I think Kyoto is terribly flawed. Emissions should be cut, pollution should be lessened, to zero if we can, but Kyoto isn't a good way to go about it.

Dear geoffrey, Don't you hate having wackos on your side? The 'left' has them too...I generally don't paint everyone with the same bruch, and I also ignore B. Max and all the strange thing he posts, except perhaps for a chuckle. Creationism is a theory too, like evolution, but one of them is based on logic, fact, reason and evidence.

Shall we bump this until we get an answer too?

Dear Charles Anthony, That would be law, then... As Figleaf points out, you must be referring to 'A', since you are talking about principle and not practicality. Because, really, 'A' can not exist without 'B'. 'Rights' are bestowed by those with the overwhelming force to make whatever happens, happen.

Hopefully that status is a place at the top of 'the must remove soon' list. Care to explain this delusional status? (and why it can't get an answer to your question?...coudn't just PM Greg?) Otherwise, time to go. Then again, I bet you can't.

Dear Charles Anthony, Yes, in a "Robbin' Hood" [sic] sort of way. Taxation is the lesser of two evils, for it is a bulwark against anarchy. To clarify, (as I know that one of your pet peeves is the 'mis'-definition of 'anarchy') I am talking about the 'chaotic anarchy' and not the utopian 'libertarian anarchy'. If you are to argue that taxation is wrong, so too must you argue that laws are wrong.

You mean 'you're the troll with a million IP addresses'?

Dear Wilber, Most of the time this forum is great, with reasonable and thoughtful debate from every part of the political spectrum. However, on occasion, it sinks into the gutter. Questions such as this... are really nothing more than 'flamebait' and do nothing to elevate the decorum on this forum. I personally strongly dislike Bush, and 'Americanism' (if there is such a word), but I don't think such a 'leading, disingenuous question' belongs on this forum. Perhaps in a 'Hillbilly Honky-Tonk' when you're bored and looking to chuck some knuckles, but not on a forum where debate is supposed to be taken seriously.

No, the question was partisan garbage, and doesn't belong on this forum. Neither does the poster.

Dear KrustyKid, If that is the case, why did they invade Iraq? Certainly Saddam provided stability, if nothing else. He was in no position to 'destabilize the region', as he was 'kept in his box'. He wasn't even trying (for the last 10 years or so). It wasn't about 9/11, though you do make the point that things did chang after that incident, and it wasn't about WMDs, nor the WOT. So, what was the real reason? (I don't believe it was a warning to Saudi Arabia, they could have done that over lunch)