dlkenny

Well, I don't know what the outcome to this would be. I suppose it would be an amalgamation of the left of centre parties, much like the Reform/Alliance and the PC Party did. This may be good for them, it would give the liberals a monopoly on the left of centre vote (except the Bloc Quebecois) and they'd likely get another majority government. As for the state of politics in this country I think it would be a bad thing because I feel that we need a Conservative mandate for a long enough time to force positive changes in the liberal ranks, some housecleaning and a new platform. Further, the Conservatives have some very progressive ideas that we should maybe look at...sometimes change is good.

Well, I think the other side of the story would be a good idea but judging by what we know the soldier was attacked from behind. This is absolutely unacceptable. This is an act of cowardice upon one of our country's bravest and I find it not only embarrassing to him but embarrassing to everything our country stands for. Had this person confronted the soldier I can pretty much assure a different outcome, the soldier undoubtedly has supreme self-confidence and the situation wouldn't have escalated to violence in the first place. Even if it had the coward is dealing with someone who is trained to handle situations of extreme violence and duress and the soldier is capable of defusing the situation without seriously injuring the other person. In any case, I agree that this was a cowardly act and this individual should be facing serious time for his crime. Whether a person agrees with the war or not we should be thankful to our armed forces people for their willingness to stand up for what we believe in. I think it's true that we take for granted what we have here in Canada, if the cold is the biggest thing we have to complain about on a day to day basis we're doing pretty well. Thank a vet or a soldier, don't disrespect them.

If you can grudgingly admit that perhaps the IPCC, A UN sponsored organization, might be a little biased - then you would be interested in looking at a parallel Independent Summary done by the Fraser Institute. My intent is not to trigger a whole bunch of "they are tied to the Oil industry posts" but simply to show that there are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in between. In any event, as usual, it's interesting reading for those who care. I don't have to admit that the IPCC is biased, I agree that it is. It's a leftward leaning body, I try not to look at things either from the left or the right on any of these issues but try to understand the relevance of both sides and then form an opinion. My predictions aren't necessarily based on my personal bias, I'm a conservative supporter here because I don't feel that a capitalist society can work under socialist rule, I simply see the world moving in a leftward direction whether we like it or not. Furthermore, with a combination of environmental pressures due to capitalism and socialist rule the world may someday fall to an alternative to capitalism. Maybe it's not communism and a new wing has yet to be invented but something is going to change. That said, I've read the Fraser Institute website and read their report on climate change. I think a more moderate approach to the issue is exactly what we need and the Fraser Institute definitely is that. I think a more moderate approach to many things is in order. We seem to get calls from the left and calls from the right and nobody can just get real scientific evidence in order, both sides are slated in bias. Keep it simple has it right that retired scientists maybe hold the most viable opinions because they're not biased. The truth is that the oceans aren't going to rise 26 feet in the next 50 years as Al Gore would like us to think...the polar bears aren't going extinct, they're migrating and the world isn't going to warm by 10 degrees in the next 100 years, it's going to warm between 2 and 3 degrees. You see, it's not the point that climate change is happening, it's the calls from the far left that changes are going to be swift and dramatic and the calls from the far right saying that climate change isn't happening or that it's not impacted by human activity. The truth is somewhere in the middle and from what some of these moderate scientists are telling us the climate is indeed changing and it's likely the culmination of many factors; these being increased solar activity, a changing geomagnetic field, and an increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The earth naturally goes through cycles of increased CO2 in the atmosphere (due to periods of greater volcanic activity) and plantlife is the system to remove the excess. We cannot argue however that humans have increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere; we know that, and we cannot argue that the world is warming up, we know that too. The question is to what extent are these facts related? What we may or may not know is the natural rate of warming versus the increased rate of warming due to human involvement in CO2 emissions. All we can conclude is that CO2 is by definition a greenhouse gas and so we must be having some impact and perhaps accelerating what is already happening.

Just a question, do you not think that terrorists would strike Canada? You are aware that Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the USA right? Would you rather take the fight to them over in Afghanistan or in our own streets? The way I see it, it's one or the other and I'd much rather take the fight to them.

That's okay, many of the points in my post are still being discussed and disputed...the peak oil and even the concept of climate change itself are still being debated. I was simply using these as a way to describe what I see happening in our world. It may not be climate change or oil, maybe it's fresh water, or depleted natural gas reserves or cement (for making concrete, this is becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain)...all of these things are there to be used but they are finite. Fresh water is renewable but is becoming scarce in some parts of the world (even Phoenix Arizona's elevation has dropped 16 feet in the past century because of groundwater consumption), the Colorado River sometimes doesn't reach the Ocean anymore because of consumption. Bangladesh suffers from chronic water shortages...clearly the answer here is to desalinate ocean water but that's too expensive for developing countries. The point I was trying to make is that globalization, including entities like the EU and the forthcoming NAU (European Union and North American Union) are symptoms of a need for increased trade between global regions to sustain capitalism. I simply ask the question about what happens after capitalism collapses? All great civilizations collapse and we are in one of those...and history repeats itself. The pressures facing the world today, the volatile markets, the environment, wars, the depletion of resources and the increasing difficulty of resource extraction makes me think that we are facing drastic changes in the not so far off future. Maybe it's not ideological communism, I simply suggest that it could work. All I know is that it can't be both ways and something has to be done.

You guys are missing the point. In the small picture capitalism works because it allows freedom, the freedom to choose where you work, what kind of car you drive, what kind of steak you'll make for supper tonight. The trouble is that the capitalist system is indeed like a runaway freight train, it requires constant growth and constant increases in production to sustain it. I liken it to the yeast when you brew beer. The maximum amount of alcohol in beer is around 18% because yeast cannot survive in an environment with an alcohol content greater than 18%. The alcohol is actually the waste matter from the yeast and when you brew alcohol the yeast population grows exponentially (just like the human race is doing, but faster) and so the alcohol content increases exponentially over time until it reaches 18% and the yeast die. That's what capitalism does to the planet, we take more and more oil, more and more steel, more and more forest products, more and more of everything but the planet is finite and cannot sustain this growth forever. Furthermore the waste (read environmental impact) eventually will kill us, maybe not today, maybe not a hundred years from now but if we keep increasing our waste it will catch up to us. The example facing us today is with oil, it is reported that people have officially used 1/2 of the earths usable oil reserves and we've already had to deal with problems of smog, respiratory problems (mexico city for example), and greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue and use up the other half, how brown is our air going to be? How many people are going to die because of respiratory failure? We'll wind up switching over to nuclear power and that'll be wonderful until the nuclear fuel reserves start to run out and then people will start fighting over what's left...maybe it's war that'll end our society. The socialist alternative that Corky Evans talks about is ideological communism. Ideological communism is a democracy with elected leaders. It's an enterprise free system where the state owns everything. It takes whatever it needs from one sector to support another sector and the whole thing interconnects; healthcare is free, education is free, people work in a chosen profession and help to support the country's needs and everyone gets a good quality of life in return. You'd finish work and go to a market owned and stocked by the state and you'd take what you need to support your family. The socialist system is a finite system and doesn't require constant growth to work. Environmentally it would work as well because without the pressures of capitalism, resources could be extracted in the most environmentally sensitive way possible. The trouble with ideological communism is that people are by nature greedy and this system gives the leaders absolute power over the people. It therefore becomes totalitarian and militaristic to insulate the leadership from coup. This is what happened in the Eastern Block countries, they were originally supposed to be ideological communist but became totalitarian communist countries and in a capitalist world they were unable to survive. I'm unsure as to the answer, I think Canadians overall have it better than most countries. We are a centrist society, we work in a capitalism but we are kept in check by a socialist movement and I think that will slow the exhaustion of our society. I personally think this left-right struggle will someday end in a worldwide revolutionary war over resources and the world may eventually fall into ideological communism. Communism would only work on a worldwide scale (it would have to because how many bananas do you trade for a barrel of oil? In a communism you'd send only as much oil as was needed to grow and ship the bananas to you.). It's already starting to shift that way, the European Union and Globalization are leftward movements, the USA is running short on energy and resources, wars are happening in the middle east to topple totalitarianism and create partnerships for resource extraction and trade. One last thing, I'm a Conservative supporter in our country. While I understand these philosophies, I also understand that we are currently living in capitalist society. I believe that if we are going to work in this way then we need to work with what we've got and make the best of it. In a capitalist society the markets are the driving force and we need to allow them to work...the more government we have the slower our economy will become. That's why the NDP in BC is credited with destroying the economy, they are a socialist party and bigger government means a slower economy. This is my opinion.

I agree, these expenditures are ones that seem to be necessary. I do also agree however that Harper has been forced to move toward the left and spend money because otherwise he'd be voted out in the next election. Dion is playing politics and so is Harper, he knows he has to appeal to the voters and give in to some spending because he wants a majority. I would suggest that if he had a majority that he wouldn't be spending money like he is now, he's a conservative and I would think that he'd like nothing more than to give people tax cuts instead...but people would rather have him spend it on transit and environment, etc. so that's exactly what he's doing. I would suspect though that there's something in the budget that might trip the opposition into forcing an election, that's why he's spending all of this money, it's an attempt to get public opinion on his side and perhaps gain enough votes in the House of Commons to keep his government alive. If he can appeal to another party's pet policy maybe they will choose to support him and allow some movement on other issues.

I was listening to the Dave Rutherford show last week and he had one of the scientists from the IPCC on his program. He's actually had two, one from Germany and one from the University of Victoria. I find it interesting the variation from what the scientists say and what the media is reporting. I'm not saying that the media is wrong, there is without a doubt a kernel of truth in what they're saying but the fellow from Germany said point blank that if we did nothing that the earth would warm by between 2 and 4 degrees in the next century. The sea levels would rise about 3 inches and the polar bears would likely move northward. He also said that there is growing evidence that the antarctic ice mass is actually increasing and that although it is been shown calving off on the eastern slopes, it is growing in other areas. Sometimes I wonder about the left-leaning media, even the IPCC itself is an entity of the United Nations which itself is a left-leaning body. I really think this thing is being blown way out of proportion and they are trying to scare us into paying carbon taxes and spending billions on carbon credits. I agree that there is a problem, I think most people are willing to accept that human activity has increased the rate at which climate change is happening but I think most of this is the "chicken little syndrome" and is just to get people worked up. Kyoto is not an answer!!! All that happens if you send money to china for them to build windmills is that they build windmills and their coal fired plants! This in my opinion is just a way to spread the wealth and help china's economy. (Same for russia) It does absolutely nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions. I would much rather a made in Canada solution where we set real targets with real timelines and get something done. Instead of exporting dollars we should be investing in technology and alternative fuels and exporting those instead. Canada has a huge landmass and in recent years the farmers have been complaining that they're not getting the quality they used to and because of the draught that they're getting smaller crops. Bio-diesel can be made from virtually anything, right from lard to canola oil and even compost. I think a good economic opportunity is right there for us to invest in. Ethanol too, in Brazil they already use pure ethanol in their cars...why are we still only blending 5%? We could invest in this, and our auto industry could build cars designed for this purpose. If we lead the way on this we'd wean ourselves off of fossil fuel dependance and perhaps the rest of the world would follow. What about nuclear power? Why are people so offended by the suggestion of using nuclear for generating electricity? Sure, we'd have to drill wells to dispose of nuclear waste but that creates jobs right? Nuclear waste is no problem, radioactive isotopes exist all over the world (and universe), we just need to dispose of it deep into the earths crust where it won't harm life. Instead of building 20, 600 watt nuclear reactors to power the oilsands, why not build those to replace our need for coal? There's more Uranium in Canada than anywhere in the world (australia is second) and one candu reactor bundle (10 centimetres by 50 centimetres) can produce as much energy as 1800 barrels of oil or 350 tonnes of coal. What's stopping us? How about using the methane that our waste processing plants and landfills produce for using our homes? Methane is 10x more potent than CO2 so by burning it we'd be reducing the climate change footprint by 10 fold. These are all things we can do and these are all technologies that we can export; the cars, the bio-diesel, the ethanol, the candu reactor. Why aren't we? When we say the word "nuclear" people think "bomb" and that's not what we're talking about, Canada has no nuclear weapons but we've already got 6 nuclear reactors in Ontario. The US is already so proliferated that selling them Uranium and reactors isn't going to make the problem worse. China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, India...already proliferated so it makes no difference. I say sell this technology more. Maybe the Harper conservatives will see the light and do some of this, I hope they do.

First, I'm not an American but I'm a conservative Canadian and I'll give you my opinion as an outsider (although we have a fairly large contingent of soldiers in Afghanistan.) Iran is a country quite a bit bigger than iraq and I don't see the US military having any more luck there than in either of iraq or afghanistan. Both countries are in absolute chaos (iraq is worse) although strategically it may make sense for the US forces to take Iran as well because it would give the US forces a regional presence (Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan in Asia are akin to Mexico, USA, and Canada in North America). The reason that these wars are failing is the same reason other invasion type wars have failed in the past. Invasions rarely work because when threatended average citizens become willing to come to the defense of their country and it's relatively easy to push the occupying forces out compared to how difficult it is to weed out armed average citizens dressed in plain clothing and surging defense forces. Remember what happened in WW2, Hitler took over Europe in a matter of weeks but were pushed out back to Germany. In Korea, the communists were pushed back to the North. In Vietnam the Americans wound up pulling out, and in Kuwait Saddam's army was fairly easily pushed out. It is much easier to defend a country than to invade one. Another problem the US has is that its soldiers aren't trained in peace keeping...they are combat soldiers. Notice in Afghanistan there are NATO soldiers keeping the peace and the numbers of casualties has slowly been reduced, there have been quite a few Canadian soldiers killed there but it's hard to not notice that recently the numbers of casualties is falling. Another example of this is in Iraq where the British soldiers are concentrated, these are areas of relative peace. I find this interesting, because the British signed up for a war and are keeping the peace...I actually heard on CNN about a year ago that Bush asked Blair for more soldiers because of this training. He bluntly said "they're doing a fine job but there aren't enough of them." In closing, you're right the loss of american life would be too great and it would cost your economy too. I don't think it's prudent for your government to consider attacking another country, your forces are too stressed already and it would be political suicide for whoever sends the soldiers in there.

No, Alberta. He was in Edmonton today to announce $150 million into the development of a pipeline for carbon sequestration for reducing greenhouse gases. This is a good idea because it makes use of the ground which used to house oil and gas, the ground specifically that used to house natural gas is perfect for this because it simply takes the place of the gas. For anyone who doesn't know, natural gas is made up of 80% methane and methane is a greenhouse gas 10 times more potent than CO2 so by using the Natural gas and replacing it with CO2 the climate change footprint left by seepage is 10x less. I think to an extent Harper is politicking and making promises to get votes...but who cares if he's willing to actually live up to the promises? Remember that Harper is a former Reform Party member and believes in listening to the people and reacting to the concerns of the majority. That's one of the principles the Reform/Alliance was built on. In a different light though, I think he's moved the party toward the centre and I don't think he's the scary guy that people made him out to be. Of course he wants a majority just like the liberals do so that he can actually get some things done. I doubt that he wants a majority to impose a "secret agenda" it's just that the current government is stalled and it would be a good thing to get some progress in the house of commons again.

Okay, let's look at this. We have a pair of Iranian nationals who tried to jump the queue to get into Canada. They claimed refugee status, used God only knows how much of our money through various appeals, and were ultimately told their case had no merit and to get out. While they were here, because people like you make it almost impossible to deport anyone quickly, they had a kid - an Iranian kid - born to Iranian parents. They went back to Iran when he was 2. Now they tried again to get here through trickery, using a false passport, and were caught. And they're trying to use the excuse that their kid was born here to justify us ignoring the long process they lost and let them in anyway. Exactly what responsibility do we have towards these people? None. In my view the child is no more Canadian than any other child born to foreign parents raised abroad. We should change the rules on citizenship in recognition of how small the world has become, so as to exempt children born to foreign parents who are then raised abroad. So are you saying the law should change and ALL people , whose parents were born else where should leave?? I guess the First Nation would love this law, they finally get their land back!! That's not at all what they are saying. They are saying that if someone comes here just to have a baby for the purpose of getting it citizenship, and then taking it elsewhere to be raised with no canadian background then that child shouldn't have a canadian citizenship. If the parents are legal, landed immigrants or canadian citizens then yes the canadian government should stand up for these people. However, if they were here illegally and booted out they're cheaters and we shouldn't allow them to take advantage of us.

I don't think a GST cut is a bad thing. Just think of when you buy a vehicle or a house or any other big ticket item, the GST could be thousands of dollars. Supposedly the idea from the Conservatives is to cut the GST again to 5% and then eliminate it completely because they say its costs would outweigh the benefits if it were cut beyond 5% and not eliminated. That said, I also agree that Canadians in general would rather see income tax cuts. Before voting Liberal though I'm anxious to see what the Conservatives are going to put forth in the budget, I've heard some whispers from the Conservative caucus about reforming taxation on income trusts (incrementally increasing the taxes to 10% over 7-10 years) instead of Stephen Harpers hardcore plan to tax them like corporations. Also, if they ever get around to income splitting that would mean some serious income tax relief for average Canadians. I doubt this will be in the upcoming budget. I somehow don't trust Dion, he's too left wing and bigger government means more taxes and I have a hard time to believe that over the course of a mandate he wouldn't raise taxes. I'd bet the first thing he'd do is to restore the GST to 7%. I think his promise is simply Dion playing politics.

True, they said last week that even Jean Cretien knew it wasn't do-able he just "wanted to set a precedent." I wonder then why he opted to sign Canada on for 6% instead of the 5% mandated in the actual protocol...isn't that counterproductive? If you want to look good on the world stage and set a precedent, you don't voluntarily increase the target while knowing full well you can't even meet the original target.