Wild Bill

Funny, it's not obvious visible minority faces that make me feel that way. It's accents and dress that do it! I guess it comes from being an old hippy. If a hippy met another hippy-looking person on the street he was instantly comfortable with him. Obvious foreign dress and heavily accented English (or no English at all!) make me feel like I'm no longer in Canada. Sometimes I don't mind, such as an October Fest party! The waitresses wear those odd dresses, holding up those "things", like the "things" Dr. Tongue showed us in "3D House of Stewardesses" on SCTV years ago. They may be foreign but damn, they look comfortable!

Good point! We just had a dairy business move from my neighbourhood to Quebec, this last year. One of the reasons was an ENORMOUS difference in the price of electricity!

Exactly! And Fantino is one of the reasons WHY!

The idea that economies are driven solely by consumption is really just old socialistic marxist-leninism. It may be expressed in a weaker or stronger fashion but in essence that's what it is. There's not really any success stories in the world for such a viewpoint. Suppose we have a hundred people living on a big farm. The farm grows enough food to feed everybody and the system has a comfortable status quo. One day someone opens up the gates and adds 10 people. (Let's put aside normal population growth for the purpose of argument). Those 10 people have to be fed! Now some would say that because the market for cooks has increased the farm economy will grow! Unfortunately, it doesn't really work like that. All jobs are NOT the same! That again is another Marxian idea. All industries are NOT the same! There are primary industries, where wealth comes from digging up and refining something, or manufacturing, or growing food or anything that generates something we didn't have before. It may come from being found or from improving something from a raw form. Service jobs are secondary or even tertiary industries. They are inherently parasitical, in that they rely on being paid from the wealth generated by primary industries. Raising a beef cow is a primary industry. Flipping a burger doesn't in itself give us more cows. We can create jobs with more cooks on our farm. We will need another sheap shearer for wool and someone to spin it into yarn and make some denim. However, as I said before, these are secondary. The primary problem will be that we need more food and more sheep! If we don't increase the crop yield or breed another couple of sheep then the extra cooks will have no more food to prepare. There will be no more yarn, no matter how many weaver jobs we create. At first we can likely improve our farming methods and enlarge the sheep pen to accommodate some more ewes. After all, we just got 10 more workers! Oh wait, some of them are grandparents and some have medical problems. There are only 4 workers. Still, that's more available labour, right? However, our farm is of a particular size. Sooner or later we will run out of room and resources. We will need to expand outside our existing system, buying or somehow acquiring more good farmland. In a national economy, this means finding export markets. More people flipping burgers for each other is not going to cut it. Everything stems from those primary industries and we have been letting a lot of that industry die here in Canada. It gets moved to other countries or it peters out due to technological change and we don't change with the times to come up with replacements. The world today wants cell phones and iPods! How many are made in the Pacific Rim? How many in Canada? Everybody is quick to name Research In Motion. That's great! We always stop there and everyone tries to ignore the fact that they can't name another such manufacturer. If an economy doesn't expand its primary base then what happens as demand increases due to population growth or whatever is that the GNP gets diluted among more people. There are more cooks but less food. We might produce more cars but the price goes up. Or people's incomes drop because fewer had good paying primary jobs. A car is a bigger bite for a burger flipper than a steel worker or someone working the oilsands out on the Prairies. So consumption alone is rather simplistic. Equating all jobs as the same is simplistic as well. If an economy is to grow it needs more steel mills and aluminum smelters, more oil production, more farms, more fishing, more NEW stuff for others to process and consume! As Argus pointed out, letting immigrants purchase or rent a home with money our government gave them from our taxes is NOT a way to grow the economy! It only dilutes the wealth that the rest of us created. The error Canada seems to have made is to assume that losing primary jobs in favour of service jobs is essentially a "wash". It's not. The numbers may look the same and politicians may use them to make things look good at voting time but a nation with only service jobs just can't maintain as high an average living standard. It's not that service jobs aren't essential. Rather, a healthy economy needs a good ratio between primary and secondary industry jobs. If 100% of us are flipping burgers then admitting 250,000 new immigrants per year will not help us afford to buy a car!

Vancouver over 60% Asian? Maybe, but I'll bet most of them have been here since MacDonald built the TransCanada Railroad! They are likely of a longer Canadian heritage than 80% of the Asians in Toronto.

I stand corrected on the rubber stamp! Once in a while an old codger can be mistaken. I don't mind being virtually the only one one this board who will admit to it! I notice however that no one has responded to my point about $300 to write a written driver's test for someone who can't read English. As I said, I was offered repeatedly. I have no reason to believe that its not still happening.

I'm not at all surprised! This case has achieved national attention. It now has political aspects, forcing police to respond. Call it the "Fantino Legacy".

Guyser, what part of "he came back an hour later and ADMITTED IN COURT THAT HE INTENDED TO STEAL SOME MORE!" escapes YOU? This is the sticking point. I'll concede that you are correct from a strictly technical viewpoint. The problem is, that viewpoint is exactly why so many people have lost or are losing respect for the justice system! It seems as if the system is there so that lawyers can run up billable hours debating how many technical loopholes can dance on the head of a pin. To the common man, it looks as if justice has become irrelevant compared to those technical details. IOW, it depends on if you expect the Law to be a tool to achieve Justice or if you think that the system is there solely to satisfy technicalities. Like the old joke about the statistician, who thinks that if a man has one foot on ice and one foot in a fire he should be comfortable!

No doubt he'll be running in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, which contains the city of Caledonia.

This seems very simplistic. Why should we assume that paying for profit automatically means we're paying MORE? This is the same tired old crapola we hear whenever someone talks about privatizing some government service. Let's look at it realistically. If a service is provided by a private firm as a result of a competitive bid there are obvious pressures for those companies to keep their prices down. When a government delivers a service, who's to say if the cost is not more than that of a private service, no matter how high a profit margin is involved? Government waste and inefficiency can easily add up to far more than a private company's costs and profit margin! So why should we as taxpayers care about a profit margin, no matter how high it might be? If the cost to us is still lower then we are better off! Please note that I am not implying that government workers are lazy or do not have to work hard. Quite the contrary. They can be slaving their little butts off every day and that doesn't mean we are given good value. If their efforts are not focused in a manner that makes sense then they are like the old joke about being in the army as a private, where some of you fill holes that others have just dug. The work is hard but the result is valueless. No, government is NOT a business! That doesn't mean it must be inefficient. It just means that it can get away with it!

Exactly! Mind you, there's always some liberal type who will get all defensive and say "Here's a guy driving a Vic and he's NOT a cop and he's NOT old!" Such people completely miss the point. Of course such generalizations are not 100%. They don't have to be! What's important is if they are true often enough to make them a statistical risk worth avoiding. The name of the game is to avoid being involved in an accident, not avoiding accusations of being politically incorrect.

If simple consumption was all it took to grow an economy, we should all be able to get rich by cooking rice for each other...

And a merry "Nyah! Nyah! Narlathotep! to us all!

Interesting. You genuinely can't see it! As Spock would say, "Fascinating!"

I think that the culture you learned to drive in IS a factor, BD! I was a salesman driving around Metro Toronto for years. If you saw two Asian ladies in a car near you it was only prudent to give them a wide berth. Invariably they would talk and look at each other instead of the road. Mind you, it didn't make much difference when both of them were too small to see over the dashboard anyway! It's not that they were inherently any less intelligent or talented than anyone else. It was just a habit of their culture - a habit that would never be corrected on its own. Those that think such a cultural habit doesn't exist and is only some kind of racism are welcome to drive around Markham for a few days and see for themselves. Hopefully, they know of a good body shop. They'll need one afterwards! One should understand that most immigrants are granted a Canadian provincial driving licence with the smack of a rubber stamp! There's no re-test! As for those like the Asian ladies I described who may have grown up here but did not learn the language, there's no problem. They simply get someone else to do the written test for them! I myself was offered money on three occasions to do this. This was the late 90's and the rate for this fraud was $300. I have no idea what the rate is now but I'm sure the practice is still blatantly going on. (BTW, I refused!) We could start another thread about why drivers everywhere seem so terrible today. Toronto is so bad simply because it is the most congested city, highlighting bad driving to a far greater extent. I would make a quick point that the approach to enforcement has changed over the years. Up until the 70's and early 80's it was quite common for a driver to be pulled over by a cop on patrol. Often there was no ticket but merely a warning for having made some 'newbie' mistake. It served to correct bad habits and helped maintain a higher baseline of good driving on the roads. After that time it became virtually unknown to EVER have a cop do such a thing! The only times you see a cop in a big city these days is when he's giving out radar tickets or when he's been called to an accident. People get their licence and receive absolutely no correction to any bad driving habits unless and until they have an accident. If they are still alive then hopefully they learned from their mistake! In my younger days being stopped by a cop was so common that we never remarked about it but I would say that each of us would have been pulled over at least 3-4 times a year. Rarely did we get a ticket. We actually appreciated the instruction! I asked my daughters and their friends about the situation today. NONE of them had ever been stopped or even heard about someone being stopped by a cop on patrol for bad driving! Actually, they were surprised to hear that once cops actually patrolled! I'm not sure they all believed me that it used to happen! So yes, if you get large numbers of people who learned to drive in a third world country being allowed to instantly hit the roads of Toronto, with virtually no patrolling to weed out bad mistakes, then the ridiculous situation we have today is only inevitable...

You've put your finger on the zillion dollar question, TB! Les separatistes have always tried to ignore their aboriginals. It makes it much easier to plot and scheme for their goal of becoming a sovereign nation, preferably still with some kind of preferential deal with TROC. The Aboriginals have been quite clear over the years. They have no wish to follow the separatistes and if necessary they will use arms to protect their choice! For a newly separated Quebec trying to get recognition on the world stage this would be a disaster of epic proportions! There is no real easy option for separatistes on this issue. Parizeau revealed that they hope they can buy off the aboriginals with some kind of deal but that is unlikely. Aboriginals have historically shown that in the main they hold principles higher than money. Sometimes one might differ with them about the validity of some of their principles but that doesn't change the fact that they have principles, nonetheless. They would no doubt insist that they and their lands stay with Canada, which for Quebec would likely be all but unworkable. it would be similar to the Elijah Harper situation, where one aboriginal exercising their constitutional rights could completely derail a dramatic change in the country's status, a la Meech Lake.

As usual, you completely miss my point! You have given a modern definition of 'common law' as a PROCESS! I was referring to the very origin of common law, as it began in medieval Britain centuries ago. I find the fact that you instantly took it to mean a process rather revealing...

You just negated the very concept of "common law"! The jury serves as a "panel of peers" and represents the People. I don't know for sure if you are right or wrong but if you are right we have drifted so far from the idea of "justice for the people" that juries have become mere accountants, trained to stamp Yea or Nay on what a judge would have decided anyway!

I always thought that a Red Tory was really just another Liberal! What would be the point? At least today, for the first time in decades we have more clear cut choices. Having one really conservative party and a half a dozen that are really just different shades of Liberal just muddies the waters.

How incredibly cruel...

Only a Canadian could ask for such a thing! In other words, someone who believes that there must be rules for everything and wants to "back seat drive" soldiers in a combat zone from the safety of his armchair! Then if it becomes an issue the soldier in question is tried by an officer who has ZERO combat experience, a mere political appointee... For thousands of years, Eyeball, no one but perhaps Canadian liberals like yourself have even thought they needed to pass such rules! My point still stands. If I were to die in agony because of the cruel inaction of such a liberal philosophy I swear if I was able I would haunt those who supported such rules to their dying day! I'd make 'Poltergeist' look like a picnic...

Obviously, you didn't know much about the situation BEFORE the CBC interview! If you did, you would have instantly known that he was deliberately talking through his hat! This man knows the truth and yet he deliberately twisted things to take advantage of the typical Canadian viewer's ignorance to make the Tories look bad! I watched the interview myself and wondered why Simon never mentioned how the Liberals had committed us with some millions of dollars towards the development of the new jets, so that we would have a better price when the time came to place an order. Simon never mentioned that the buy was sole-source because no other company in the world makes a plane that comes close to the specs of this fighter! Simon also never mentioned that the money the Liberals had spent for development would be wasted if we bought some other plane, just like when Chretien cancelled the EH101 helicopter deal to spite Mulroney and cost us $500 MILLION DOLLARS in cancellation fees! The Liberals will twist anything for a political advantage, even if it means having to ignore something they themselves began! They have no morals or ethics at all! I don't think Harper's boys are the greatest but I'd vote for a skunk before I'd vote for this Liberal team!

We have a totally different idea of why we consent to be governed, Guyser! My understanding is that centuries ago in Britain arose the idea that justice belonged to the King! Before that it was an individual affair of personal duels, vigilante justice and clan wars. A fair trial was an unknown concept! By putting justice in the realm of the Crown citizens could no longer take the law into their own hands. Courts and lawyers were established. Sheriffs and later police were established. Instead of blood feuds we had civil torts. The people accepted this system because the Crown had far greater resources than most ordinary people. True, the rich sometimes get away with more over the poor but still, the poor had a far greater chance than ever before. What was most important was that justice was public! Criminals were seen to be apprehended, convicted and sentenced to terms that appeared appropriate to the mores of the common man. The concept spread from Britain to other democracies, to the point where in some countries citizens voluntarily accepted giving up the bearing of arms for their personal defense to the State, who again with its greater resources could be expected to do a better job. No system is perfect but if a country's system begins to look as if it no longer takes its role of administering justice as seriously as it should then disrespect begins to flower. Many countries make the mistake of taking the cheap shot, of pouncing on the victim if he tries to look after himself in the State's absence. This only furthers disrespect! The concept of "consent to be governed" is one of the oldest in our civilization, Guyser. If it fails then that leads to anarchy! Surely no one wants that!

When I read the reports I saw that the insurgent was so badly wounded that he was expected to die within minutes and was in a great deal of pain. All this talk about helicopters and how the man could have been saved appears to be a fabrication from impractical 'liberals'. Anyone with any experience or even imagination can understand that combat is a bloody business. Often a body is torn open and there's NOTHING that can be done, even IF time was available! That's just reality. In such cases, soldiers have understood the 'coup de grace' for thousands of years. It is a kindness, not a cruelty. Put yourself in that wounded insurgent's position. You know you're going to die and you also know it's gonna HURT very badly before you do! If I were such a wounded soldier I would bless an enemy for the kindness of giving me a quick end. As for those who would deny me such mercy, I would curse them with my dying breath!

For Pete's Sake, guyser! The guy had waited an hour and then returned intending to rob again! He admitted that in open court! Geez, what do you expect? When he came back do you think the shopkeeper should have apologized, kissed the man's ass and then handed him some loot for free?