Wild Bill

Molly, have you forgotten those times? The PCs may have 'suicided' by merging with the Alliance but they were a starved, emaciated, nearly dead Party by that time! The only people left supporting them were a few diehard old Maritimers! How much longer could they have kept the PCs alive? It was obvious that the chances for a PC comeback against the Alliance were less than zero! Hell, I was a scrutineer one election in Stoney Creek and at my poll not only did the Alliance totally whump the PCs but even the Yogic Flyers got more votes than the PC candidate did!

What would complicate things today is that we still have almost ruthless party solidarity. There would be no problem with Senators having party affiliations as long as they were free to vote their constituents wishes and not those of their Party. Harper has shown no sign so far that he supports that old Reform principle. To be fair, while he was in a minority situation he had to make all his MPs toe the party line or have his government fall. Now that he's in a majority, we'll have to wait and see if his backbenchers are allowed to be anything more than trained seals. If Senators were still bound by party solidarity then they would indeed be nothing more than just a rubber stamp, like they always have been up till now. We would have no positive change for any efforts.

Of course they are! Mind you, there are differences of opinion amongst conservative supporters like anywhere else. Still, only those who support a woman's right to choose dare to open their mouths. Any MP Tory or other who opens his mouth against abortion will instantly have the wrath of the media and just about every leftwing tv commentator in the country come crashing down on his head! Much as some folks (perhaps yourself) would find this to be great fun you really shouldn't be surprised that Tories don't volunteer to be the butt of your joke. I myself have always supported a woman's right to choose, due to my Libertarian, classic Liberal values of the rights of the individual. Still, I have some sympathy for those who feel otherwise. Leftists in this country just don't seem to understand the right of others to disagree with them.

Yeah, right! Good joke! Remember the first Liberal Bill for gay marriage? Many liberals with religious or moral objections had promised to vote against it according to their conscience. Then their Whip told them to vote with the Party or be forever damned! I can still see the tears on the faces of some of the Liberal MPs as they toed the line. They had been under great pressure from their constituents and had been forced to betray them. This was perhaps the most obvious example of one of Reform's strongest criticisms of the old parties, that they would force their MPs to vote the Party line over the wishes of the people in their riding who had voted for them! It was only one straw on the whole pile but still, I've not doubt that it helped in some way to eventually cause the collapse of Liberal support we saw last election.

Punked, the goal is not just to slow things down! The purpose of an Upper House is to provide regional representation, as opposed to the "rep by pop" of a House of Commons. The American Senate is a good example. Every state gets an equal number of Senators. The idea is that little Rhode Island can stand up to any bullying by California. Or PEI against Ontario or Quebec. Like it or lump it, Canada runs by regions. The Maritimes couldn't give a damn if something is overwhelmingly supported in the national popular vote if it all comes from Ontario and Quebec. This is why so many PR systems get little support. They all tend to ignore regions in favour of the national vote in total. Central Canadians never think that this might be unfair to smaller provinces, especially on their own. If its pointed out to them they seem to have a hard time understanding the situation. After all, "they're all right, Jack!" Historically, since our Senate has been essentially nothing more than a delay chamber it has poorly served as a defender of regional interests. Electing Senators is not going to change that, either. However, it is a step towards "Equal" and "Effective", the other two "E's" championed by Reform years ago.

I agree with you Angus that vigilantism should not be allowed. That being said, a judicial system should not allow itself to lose so much respect that vigilantism becomes more attractive! For a long time now it seems people of more liberal persuasion than the typical mainstream Canadian have successfully softened the system with lighter sentences, earlier paroles and whatnot. They have accomplished this not by political appeals for public support but rather by achieving positions of power within the system and by keeping their changes gradual and often unannounced to the world at large. The end result is that many people today no longer trust the system to deliver an appropriate sentence to even the more horrific crimes. When that happens vigilantism is almost inevitable. Surely a more positive solution would be to make the system more accurately reflect the values of mainstream Canadians, rather than imposing harsher sentences on vigilantes than on the perps themselves! This only sends the message that the "system" will go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that perps do not receive any harsher punishment from any other source than the court system itself. More simply, if a system breeds disrespect for itself then counter-reactions are inevitable.

More simply, in the immortal words of Bill & Ted (Esquire): "Be excellent to each other!"

They DID all start at the same level, Topaz. They all started with nothing! Reform pioneered the way of soliciting donations from ordinary joes and the CPC inherited their system. The Liberals and the NDP are suffering because they can no longer accept huge payments from big business or unions. They have never learned how to get money from ordinary folks and now have to play catch up.

I agree with you, August. Harper may not be able to make it constitutional but if a precedent is set that proves popular with the voting public then any premier or PM that tries to take it away would face a negative reaction at the polls. I'm betting that once Harper's changes are implemented the only way they would ever be removed is if for some reason Canadians hated them! Then some politician could remove them and claim to be some kind of savior. As for Quebec, what basis indeed? Particularly when Quebec has not signed the Constitution. How can they use it as a defense? I guess there's nothing more two-faced than a politician, anglo ou francais!

I agree with you about "arguments by authority". It always amazes me how the average citizen will believe any unscientific claptrap if it's delivered to him by someone in a white lab coat! Like how CFL's will save you money on your electricity bill. I just bought my own home and got some appliances. I insisted on getting a gas stove and dryer. McGuinty can say whatever he likes but the very structure of his approach to electricity in Ontario means that the price to the consumer HAS to go up, by a LOT! However, there is a commonality of thinking in certain age ranges that can't be denied. Younger people usually are more than smart enough to ingest a huge amount of data but they lack the life experience to qualify much of it. This can't help but make their input in many areas kind of "samey" to someone older. It's not because age brings any more innate intelligence. Sadly, usually it's the opposite. It's just that over the years we inevitably see many of our premises accepted in our youth actually tested in the real world and fail! That's why often people of very little formal education can actually be very wise. I'm not defending the "attack by authority", Michael. Just pointing out that there is some justification for it. When you've read a few "Watch Tower" magazines and seen the logic of their arguments, is it reasonable to demand that you give every and all new issues of that magazine the benefit of the doubt? You would be forced to waste your time forever! Where do you draw the line? Is it not reasonable to discount constant arguments that are all so very similar?

Maybe, Michael. Still, the public and private sectors are far from equivalent. In most private companies, workers would be caught falsifying lab results and fired. In very few would political connections save them. As public sector workers would not Stan and Frank have been CUPE members? Somehow, I've never seen that mentioned but if so, it may have been almost impossible to fire them. Anyone who has a spouse like I did that belonged to CUPE or a close friend has seen this with their own eyes, perhaps multiple times. I've worked in the private sector for companies that had quality control measures. None of them would have considered it cost-effective to cascade workers checking on workers. Rather, they used statistical methods of sampling finished product, information feedback loops to pertinent points along the line of process and QUICK AND STRONG corrective measures if necessary, including more training or if necessary, replacement of workers who make too many mistakes. Walkerton could have been prevented rather cheaply. You just have a few roving inspectors who work for the provincial government, travelling from time to time and taking their own samples, with their arrivals unannounced to the local municipality. The cost of a few salaries to do this function would be mice nuts. However, such a thing has never happened and likely never will. Why? Because it's illegal! If one government agency wants to inspect another, it's provincial law that they must arrange an appointment ahead of time. No surprise inspection raids allowed! I witnessed this here in Hamilton some years ago. A good friend worked for the provincial OHIP department at an office building downtown. The staff often had breathing problems brought about by poor and even absent ventilation. Some were even diagnosed by their doctor and given notes to excuse them from work, on regular occasions. After some years of snooping observation it was discovered that the ventilation system was often deliberately turned off, so that hot or cold fresh outside air couldn't be drawn in, increasing A/C or heating costs. In this particular building this meant the air would become stale very quickly. So several of the workers informed the Labour Board, citing the situation as an obvious health issue. Sadly, it proved to be a total waste of time. Why? Because the Labour/Safety Board was not allowed to pull a suprise inspection on a fellow government department! They would call and arrange an appointment and a couple of days before they were to appear to take their tests the ventilation system would be turned on. The inspectors would come in, take their tests and of course, find nothing wrong. It went on like that for nearly another decade until that particular department was moved to another building, for reasons that had nothing to do with air quality. As I keep saying Michael, there is always what seems logical and what is actually going on. Assuming that the official rationale is the true one is usually false, especially with government functions. Goverenment safety boards are there first and foremost to APPEAR to be protecting us! If they actually do that once in a while that's just a bonus. If at any time that function might embarrass another part of the government the goal of worker protection is sacrificed at the drop of a hat. When I was courting my ex-wife back in the early 80's I was surprised one day to hear that she wasn't sure if she would get a coming long weekend. "Of course you will!" I had said. "It's a statutory holiday!" "Doesn't apply to me!" she replied. "I'm a dental health worker and specifically exempt from receiving stat holidays under the Labour Act." I found it hard to believe her so a few days later when we met for lunch she had brought a copy of the Labour act from her work. There, on the very first page, I read with my own eyes how employees of professionals such as lawyers, doctors, engineers and yes, dentists were specifically NOT covered by the Act! So it was totally up to her boss's discretion as to her having the day off. Fortunately for her she got the holiday. Employees of other dentists weren't so luck. My point with both these examples Michael is that in both cases we see that commonly held premises are false. Systems allegedly put in place for the benefit of citizens are often full of unspoken loopholes that actually benefit the people putting such systems in place. This has been going on for far longer than the terms of Mike Harris. It is the natural way that governments of any party function. It only appears to surface as a problem when a particular party attacks the ruling party while they are in Opposition, only to have something similar eventually happen to themselves when they take power, such as McGuinty with Caledonia after crucifying Harris over Dudley George. Call me cynical but I do believe I'm accurate! It's a rigged game. Still, although we little folk will never likely have the power to change it we can at least be aware of it and not be fooled.

I'm still laughing on seeing Jack's head on one of the tallest!

Not many of us. Still, I predicted a Tory majority and also a terrible showing for the Liberals. This implied gains for the NDP but I admit I never saw 100+ seats and Official Opposition status coming! So I was right on the first and right on the second, only a bit too timid on just how much better the NDP would fare.

You can keep rolling the bones forever Star but the most important factor is that virtually ALL of the NDP's gains came from Quebec! Extra seats were few in the rest of Canada. This makes predictions much harder. It's obvious that most of the Quebec voters knew little or nothing about the NDP. You don't elect MP's that can't speak french and who campaign while on vacation, or who have never even visited the riding (!) because of an intellectual epiphany. It was pretty much an emotional reaction. The Quebecois were sick of the PQ, disgusted with the Liberals, unsure about the Tories but desperate for an alternative. So desperate that they took a leap in the dark for a party they knew almost nothing about. THESE are the true factors! It is how well the other parties react to them in forming their campaign strategy during the NEXT election that will tell the tale! I think a huge number of Canadians everywhere are sick of the incumbents and as desperate as Quebec was to have a better alternative. Bad enough for the Tories but especially bad for the Liberals when an electorate would rather vote for a total unknown than for a party that has been a strong leader since Confederation! The parties involved had better spend the next 4-5 years doing some serious thinking, especially the Liberals!

It's been my life experience of 58 years that says when you've asked a question by posing a premise and Mr. Radical dodges you for an answer, your premise is most likely correct!

Max, lying on a beach is not just a consequence of becoming a Senator. It's a method of campaigning to become an NDP Quebec MP!

Good intentions? In the real world, is it true or not true that people go back to prison for trivial charges, under the 3 strike rule? Intentions are irrelevant. If California is indeed re-incarcerating people for trivial misdemeanors instead of major felonies then again, they are causing their own prison overcrowding problem. Hey, when have I ever claimed California had a monopoly on being stupid? Canada has been a bonehead as to lifestyle laws like drugs, too. People should be allowed to go to hell their own way. If drugs were legal, why would there be any drug trafficking? I thought organized crime was only interested in making money. If we legalized drugs why would there be any "destructive enterprizes" at all? Where would be the incentive? When I substitute any other vice and I don't see any silliness. If it hurts only the one engaging in the vice then why should anyone else care? Again, there's no monopoly on stupidity. If idiots let people with violent priors wander around loose then we have a problem. If we KEEP doing it then we deserve any negative consequences.

Topaz, what are you suggesting? If two wrongs don't make a right, then why should a tie go to the Liberals? That's what your words seem to mean. If our choices are Liberal and Conservative but the Tories make some of the same sins as the Liberals, what are we supposed to do? You seem to be saying that we should not vote for Harper because he's done something bad that the Liberals did so therefore we should vote Liberal! Frankly, that seems nuts! If both parties make the same sins then those sins cancel each other out. We don't automatically forgive the Liberals! We are forced to make our choices based on other issues.

Most civilized societies have degrees of crime, making a distinction between stealing a loaf of bread and 1st degree murder. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the California 3 strikes rule make no such distinctions? I've read MSM reports of jaywalking landing someone back in prison. As for the other crimes you mention, while felons in general do such crimes individuals likely have a more limited rap sheet. Or are you suggesting that we consider them to all be one amorphous mass and convict them all for each other's collective crimes? As for the last you mentioned, namely "drug traffickin' ", California made its own bed when it instituted a lifestyle law like the Prohibition of drugs. Virtually all of the negative aspects of drug laws against society come from society making such drugs illegal in the first place. No doubt Al Capone is laughing in his grave! By themselves, drugs hurt no one but their users. Users commit crimes to pay for drugs, which they can't afford because criminalization made them so expensive! The adverse health effects are solely born by the user. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn for his health! Just keep him from breaking into my house! Protecting him from himself by making ME his target seems simply stupid and unfair, TO ME! Again, California's approaches made overcrowded prisons inevitable. If their government was that stupid then they deserve whatever happens.

Well, speaking just for myself Michael, I think that California has caused its own problem as a result of poor logic and downright loopy thinking! Significant numbers of prisoners are there as a result of drug laws. It's Prohibition all over again. Those who are there as a result of the "three strike" rule are often there because of minor crimes, committed out of desperation or a sense of disbelief that the State would incarcerate someone for things so trivial. California people seem to be strong examples of "liberal" thinking at its cliched worst! They have caused their own prison problem by implementing ideas that were a result of poor and shallow thinking, like a chess player who can only see one move ahead. Such a player has no hope of winning a game against all but a rank beginner and so too has California's approach to its prison problem had no hope of success. This was obvious from the beginning by any clear thinker but clear thinkers apparently have had little or no influence int California's government for some time now. So they asked for it and now they're paying for it. Looks good on them!

You've got it wrong, Rick. People here do NOT have to grow a thicker skin! This board has standards. It is not YOUR board! Someone else is paying for it and he who pays the piper calls the tunes. Duly appointed moderators have the right to punish you for your behavior or even to ban you outright. Instead of everyone else having to "grow a thicker skin" perhaps YOU should be made to follow the rules of this board. If you don't like the way things are here perhaps you would be more comfortable on a board like "rubble.com" where there appear to be no rules or even any sense of manners at all. Unless of course you are actually a major donor of finances to this board, a fact I may not have been aware. In which case, my apologies.

Not sure if I follow your logic, Jack. Are you saying that a Tory leader should NOT look like a Tory? Wouldn't that make him just like a Liberal? Why bother having a Tory party if they're all the same? Why bother having elections?

Dave, you're right but it still doesn't change anything. Since they BOTH did it then it becomes irrelevant to choosing between them!

I wouldn't have considered it a joke even if it was against Jack Layton! Perhaps that is where we are different.

Interesting. The highway signs all over Ontario are in both English and French. Not so in Montreal. Yet in Quebec a Tim Hortons can be closed for the sake of an apostrophe! Who treats who the same?