Wild Bill

You know, this idea that more education leads to a liberal or leftist political persuasion is a relatively new thing, Molly. I can't help but wonder what has changed! People in previous generations were often very well educated but did not show this leaning. Conservative intellectuals were as common as liberals. The only thing I can think of is that there must be something different going on in how young folks are educated. Young folks are traditionally very easy to "brainwash". The young brain tends to be incredibly efficient at absorbing data, whether by reading or the spoken word, as from a teacher. However, it takes more years for that brain to evolve critical and skeptical skills. In other words, what goes into the brain of a young person tends to be accepted as gospel. Political philosophy is accepted as if it was a fact like the capital of a province or the binomial theorem. It is only later in life that an individual might question what he has been taught. Moreover, every parent knows that it can be almost impossible to CHANGE the adolescent mind once a "fact" has been accepted into it! Get YOUR ideas into it and the odds are that nothing will ever dislodge them! Politicians and religious leaders have always known this, of course. Not meaning to invoke Godwin's Law, but the Hitler Youth is a prime example. I forget offhand which religious leader once said "Give me a child until he is 7 years old and he is mine forever!" By this he meant that if he could have a free rein with a child's education with religious instruction at an early age that child will likely believe what he has been taught for the rest of his life. Hence "catholic guilt". When you think a bit more about it, isn't the idea that more educated people are liberals rather arrogant? Consider that the only reasons given to support that argument tend to be ad hominem. First off, formal education is taken as a synonym for intelligence, which is a fallacy in itself. There are always intelligent people that are highly self-educated, often having rather little formal schooling. I've known older people with only a Grade 8 formal education who could tie many of the posters on MLW into debating knots with the depth of their knowledge and experience. My own Italian immigrant father-in-law had only a Grade 6 formal education but in many arguments you took him on at your peril! I was going to introduce a small sidebar here about how many folks assume that people without post-secondary schooling don't buy and read books to continue their education on their own when the thought struck me, I know very few younger folks today that read ANY books not required for school! Once they get their degree you see only a pitiful library in their homes, mostly of old school textbooks they never sold to a frosh student after they no longer needed them! Then there is almost always some reference to conservative thinkers as some kind of lowbrow, "Joe Lunchbucket", bible thumping type. It is a tactic similar to using the word "progressive", to describe leftist thought. It's then obvious that non-leftist thought must be NON-progressive! Shades of George Orwell! Control the language and the brain will lack the very terms to think heretical thoughts against the State. Doubleplusungood! It's a very universal notion today with a great deal of power and influence. To me however, to expound such a premise shows an appalling lack of character and frankly, an aspect of social engineering that is rather frightening...

And I base my opinions on a long lifetime of personal observation and experience. I guess by your lights I wasted my time. All I had to do was to take my wishes and the results of some polls at a given point in time and presto! I would have all my answers! Successful parties have long had people who can walk through a riding, talk to a few people in stores, coffee shops and parks and come up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of their level of voter support. I cannot give you a cite for their names but I can tell you that they exist. I have talked to some face to face. Although you no doubt will dismiss them as anecdotal (which seems to some folks to be a synonym for imaginary) if you take the trouble to ask party riding workers they will confirm that such people DO exist and their "opinions" are considered valuable! Joe Lunchbucket exists! In large numbers! He is an allegory for the mainstream electorate. It is his votes that add up and determine a party's fortunes at the polls. If you dismiss him so easily I sincerely hope that you be given a powerful position as a campaign advisor to any of the opposition parties.

What else is a prediction but an opinion? By definition, a prediction CANNOT be a fact unless and until it comes true! Are you saying that your prediction of a big Liberal upsurge, based on your observations of mistakes on behalf of Harper and his party, is a fact? Or that your belief that release of some Liberal party platform will cause a miraculous surge in their fortunes is a fact? Why is it that my opinions are unsubstantiated and your opinions are to be considered as gospels? Again, arrogance. Unnecessarily rude as well. More worthy of "rubble.com" than MLW. Also, the fact that you still refer to me as a Conservative tells me you really don't understand at all. I have voted Liberal before and could do so again, if they decided to act like real Liberals. Frankly, you seem blindly partisan to me. Whatever, takes all kinds to make a world.

Yes, you did! You referred to "Like with most of your posts, most of this is garbage." You did not just say that my particular take on your argument was garbage, you said that most of my posts contain mostly garbage! You are insulting my reasoning and logic, in an ad hominem manner. We obviously disagree on how we think the mainstream electorate thinks and reacts. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I would brand not just your present argument but ALMOST ALL of your previous posts as garbage! You were rude and arrogant, Nicky. That cheapens your arguments. Do not turn to the "Dark Side" or you will end up like CR!

Sorry if I upset you enough to make you start insulting me. I get that a lot from Liberal supporters. I think it just has something to do with their typical level of courtesy. As for your posts, despite the fact that we obviously disagree I see no need to insult you for your POV. We only have to wait and see what happens. Perhaps time will show us who has the most realistic picture of how things work out. If you prove out right, then good for you!

And there's the difference between us, Betsy! At times I envy those with faith. I recognize how it can be a comfort and a powerful tool to motivate and to cope with adversity. Still, when all is said and done it still looks to me like someone fooling themselves! For that reason I have never been able to accept it. The idea makes me feel like a hypocrite. My coping mechanism consists of some old blues LPs and my harmonica!

How many is a couple? 2-3 max, to most folks. I stand by it because many ridings were close wins and it won't take much of an incumbent bounce to give them to the CPC. As for the liberals, I really think you are placing too much hope about the release of their platform. First of all, Liberal platforms have ALWAYS been more "sizzle" than "steak"! Besides, I don't believe that most voters study platforms that closely. Only political weenies like us do that! I mean, you make a big deal out of Ignatieff's bus tour. If you did a "man on the street" type poll I doubt if you'd find very man folks who even knew he went! As I said, the average Canadian just doesn't care. I would class ALL the points you made about the Liberals as "political weenie" stuff! Our electorate is like a huge ocean liner with a 2 square foot rudder! It can take forever to get the ship to change course. As I had said earlier, a scandal or one big issue seizing the mind of the public can do it but that's not likely. Party handlers are just too careful to let that happen, unless they're very inexperienced like those who worked for Stephane Dion. So far neither Harper or Ignatieff has shown any real guts in taking a stand on a hot button issue. They seem very careful to walk down the middle of the road. The big majorities and political upsets have come from leaders who seized what was truly popular and not what was "safe". Trudeau tweaked his nose at the entire political establishment. Mulroney appeared as a rebel who would shake up Ottawa and knock off the Liberal "fat cats". Harris saw that the average Ontarioan saw government as a bunch of politically correct power hungry types who wasted our tax money and ignored our problems. By adopting the persona of the common man who would "damn the torpedoes" and actually do what he promised he rode a wave of anti-establishment feeling! You don't seem to understand that the average man doesn't understand politics and he doesn't trust politicians anyway, Nicky! It may not be fair but I'm sure that "Joe Lunchbucket" would be surprised if he was told the CPC stole taxpayers money, even if he didn't like them anyway! However, AdScam was not that long ago. Tell him the LIBERALS stole money and he might get angry but NOT surprised! Once you've broken a trust it can take a LONG time to regain it! If you break it again you'll be crucified for generations. I'm sure that even though he's a provincial Liberal their federal party is not to happy about Charest's latest scandal. Neither Harper or Ignatieff is a Trudeau, Mulroney or Harris! They don't inspire a parade - they find one to jump in front! Still, it's very early yet and anything can happen. I just think that you are putting too much stock in things that really only reassure the party faithful and not voters at large.

You're quite right! That leads to another question: What is it about so many folks that they need to accept something simple that's likely wrong, since they are apparently unable to just admit they don't know enough to grasp the REAL explanation? There's a LOT I don't understand but I see no shame in admitting it. Swallowing some lowbrow hokum instead DOES seem shameful, as far as I'm concerned!

I think you all are just stretching the crap out of your point, trying to manufacture a cheap laugh at someone you don't like anyway. Seems kinda "high school", if you ask me!

That's it???

Dave, if this was a more normal situation I would agree with you 100%! The difference is, the Liberals have been no more successful at being perceived as a good choice than Harper. Just as Chretien had the advantage of a fractured Opposition, Harper has the advantage of Ignatieff! The Liberals still look weak at governance and the opinion polls consistently show that. Personally, I think both leaders have made a mistake by not fostering the image of a strong team. Harper looks like a one-man show just because of his personality. Ignatieff looks the same but only because he HAS NO OTHER strong personalities to show off in his caucus! Due to the last couple of electoral setbacks he has too many new faces that haven't yet had a chance to show their mettle. Having a strong team can go a long way to get people to forgive some misgivings about a specific party leader. As I've said, neither leader seems to have that advantage, with the possible exception of Jim Flaherty. Unfortunately for Jim, it's all too easy to visualize Harper's lips moving while Jim sits on his knee... Failing any strong issue seizing the mind of the electorate or any scandal among the higher placed players I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. This next election will be boring! I predict that the CPC will pick up a couple of seats but not quite enough to reach a majority. The Liberals will also pick up a few extra. I don't expect many to agree with me but I think those few Liberal wins will be in Quebec! I think the trend in Quebec is that as younger voters get more active they will turn to the Liberals. The Bloc is an old man's party, fighting a stereotype of Quebec's relationship to Canada that hasn't been true for decades. The loser will be the NDP! The few seats each of the other two gain will come from them. Like the Bloc, they too have been slowly looking more and more old-fashioned. The Greens stole the sense of "now" away from the NDP, yet the Greens also don't have enough support in any specific riding to yet win some seats. So I see them as a spoiler in some ridings for Jack and his crew. They will increase their share of the popular vote, of course. If by the next election they get some experienced people and a leader that doesn't appear to be a flake they may well reach the magic threshold and send a few members to Ottawa. So they'll be a few trends to gnaw over on MLW but essentially as I said, the election will end up with still no real change - a yawner.

This was on my Net provider's home page today: http://sync.sympatico.ca/news/scientist_stephen_hawking_asserts_that_god_not_needed_to_create_the_universe/0b46edd2 "British physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking says no, arguing in his new book that there need not be a God behind the creation of the universe."

Just by coincidence, this was in my emailbox this morning" "Doctors vs. Gun Owners Doctors (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is 700,000. ( Accidental deaths caused by Physicians Per year are 120,000. © Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now think about this: Guns (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. Is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million) ( The number of accidental gun deaths Per year, all age groups, Is 1,500. © The number of accidental deaths Per gun owner Is .000188. Statistics courtesy of FBI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT Almost everyone has at least one doctor. This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please alert your friends To this Alarming threat. We must ban doctors Before this gets completely out of hand!!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on Lawyers For fear the shock would cause People to panic and seek medical attention!"

Only if you had never seen more than one election! Or paid attention to what always seems to happen. Polls are just a snapshot of public opinion. They are NOT any mathematical guarantee! When the campaign starts, things ALWAYS change! Between elections it's easy to say that you will vote Green or "strike a blow against those arrogant incumbents!" You can intend to do whatever you want because it is just a wish and a dream. Things are different when you actually have to decide where to cast your vote. You don't think just about how much the incumbent has disappointed you. You also have to think about if the "other guy" is any better! Historically speaking, for reasons like those mentioned it always seems that the incumbent party gets a bump of a few percentage points as soon as the election is called. Fringe parties also lose some points, since they are considered a waste of a vote. Also, it is still summer! Pollsters have a hard time getting people away from the BBQ and their beer to answer dumbass political questions! Harper's public image is just not that of a likable fellow but polls have consistently shown that when the question is "Who would do the better job of PM" he consistently blows Ignatieff away! Unless the Liberals can dramatically change that perception, they haven't a prayer next election! It's gonna take another month or two before the polls really become significant.

How is it funny? I saw a man on a horse,obviously from a rural area, giving his reasoning as to why we need to ensure the gun registry is scrapped. Someone had added some puerile, condescending giggles to the audio track. Big deal. Where's the humour?

I felt the same way when I first heard it. However, there was no denying that it was a perfect song to attract a Top 40 audience and propel them into a big career. Thankfully, the band got through that preliminary stage very quickly. It's a certainty that back in those days no record label would have supported them on the basis of their LATER work! The 'suits' like schlock! It's what they understand! They have to be forced to support better material. When the money is rolling in there's no way they can stop it.

And this is the reason I suspect those who follow Betsy's beliefs will always be disappointed. It is possible that someday we may find some proof of a God. Not likely, but possible. However, it is NOT likely that ANY of the biblical explanations of how the Universe was created or how it works will ever be proven! Evolution, quantum physics and the like are all far better explanations of the world around us than anything found in the Bible. When the Bible talks about matters of science, it will forever be just a collection of myths and allegories written by the ignorant and primitive.

Well, I don't share your political leanings. The last thing I want to see is another leftwing mayor running Toronto! It would only mean they'd waste more money and bleed it out of the taxes of those of us who live in the rest of the province. I'd be happiest if Toronto just disappeared! That being said, I loved your parody! I make my living from musicians and have been immersed in that aspect of society since I was very young. You did a nice job! Just a cheer for the wrong team, as far as I'm concerned.

Excellent logic, GH! Sadly, most supporters of the Liberal gun registry don't seem to be logical! There's a certain world view that seems to say "At least we're doing SOMETHING!" And "SOMETHING" is enough! People of this persuasion are comforted by a law being enacted. They never actually audit the law to make sure that it does what it's supposed to or that it gives good value for the money. It's enough that the law was passed. These people are also the ones who will try to "childproof" the entire world to protect teenagers from the consequences of drinking and driving. They ban drugs because a small percentage of people abuse them. They seek to close casinos because a small percentage of people get addicted to gambling. I don't know about you but I am getting very tired of being told I can't do something because SOMEONE ELSE has a problem! Anyhow, these folks have a right to vote too and it is pointless to try to sway them with logic. They won't care about wasted tax dollars unless they themselves are feeling the pinch. They won't care about something being illegal if it's something they don't partake themselves. They won't even care if a law does nothing to address the problem for which it was created! Look at the folks in Quebec! After the Marc LePine massacre they overwhelmingly supported the creation of the Liberal gun registry. Yet that registry simply added costs and paperwork to law-abiding gun owners. It never added ONE DAY of sentencing for some monkeyshines illegally using a gun to hold up a variety store! Yet where is the highest support AGAINST longer sentences? You guessed it! In Quebec! If the goal was truly to deter illegal use of firearms, then that has to be the ultimate example of people thinking illogically! I've come to think that we are born thinking logically or we are not. Perhaps schooling could also be a factor but lately it doesn't seem to be an effective one. We've ended up with percentages either way and it seems pointless to try logical argument with someone who leads with their heart and not with their head. If the political numbers and the power is there then I say just scrap it and move on. Trying to convince those who supported that particular bureaucratic ball of loopiness with logic is just a waste of time.

Well, that's your view and you're entitled to it! Me, I could never be anything BUT an agnostic! After all, the theist has no more proof than the atheist! You cite opinion, such as someone finding some issue like an aspect of quantum physics difficult to understand or so profound and impressive that it prompts that someone to assume there must be a God. That is not proof at all. It is simply a limit to someone's knowledge. I've seen this so often that years ago I gave it a name - "The Jehovah Witness Way of Arguing", after reading a stack of their magazines someone had left at a cottage my family had rented. Every issue had what was purported to be a "science" article. Even as a 12 year old I could see the absurdity of their reasoning. All the articles seemed to use the same "trick" to try to snare the reader. They would start with a statement like "The Moon goes around the Earth". This is something almost everyone knows so it would get their head to nod in agreement. Next would come "The Earth goes around the Sun", "The Sun goes around in the Milky Way galaxy" and so on, each statement getting the reader to agree and nod but the chain of argument getting "higher and higher" in its science until eventually the reader is beyond what he really knows but has been conditioned to just accept and keep nodding. Then WHAM! Once he's at that point the article writer hits him with a total non sequitur like "Therefore Jesus Christ MUST be our personal Savior!" See the fallacy? The articles didn't actually PROVE anything! They simply gave the reader scientific point after point that he would agree with until they went beyond his level of understanding but because they had lulled him into being confident that the writer had been correct so far he would grant them his agreement from then on. By the time he was hit with a non sequitur he was likely to swallow anything! Really, how the universe began and how it works really doesn't need any God or Intelligent Designer. It is what it is and it really doesn't matter how well any individual understands it. The concept of some Divine Principle taking an active interest in our personal welfare is a matter of faith. Faith needs no proof! So far, trying to come up with proof has only caused Faith problems.

And I'm truly mystified by how you constantly try to redefine the issue being debated to justify a faux pas or simply being proven wrong! First off, I likely will vote for the Tories next time, for lack of any better choice. So what? How does that mean that I or any other Tory voter totally agrees with some loopy caricature of typical Tory beliefs, AS DEFINED BY YOU??? I vote for a party for a NUMBER of issues, sorted according to my OWN priorities! It IS my vote, after all! Everyone should make up their own mind, not just vote because some self-appointed pundit claims he knows the truth about every party. I'm truly mystified how someone could believe that one particular political party or philosophy stands for the state "regulating and criminalizing individual morality or behavior" and expect that his belief is actually a universal definition with which everyone else agrees! IOW, just because YOU believe it doesn't mean anyone else does! Or believes it is happening to the same degree that YOU do! Strip it all down and what you're really saying is "I'm mystified how anyone could believe differently than I do!" I could say that I'm mystified how anyone could vote Liberal, considering past behavior has proven that party to be full of crooks who rip us off by stealing our taxes for their own use. That too would be just as loopy. My belief also would be simply my belief, not some universal definition. If you're going to write your own dictionary Mr. Eyeball, perhaps you should first check out the word "arrogance" and see if your picture is there...

I assume you can give us a cite or two that will show how the percentage of such people is high enough to make your premise true... Just because a few folks can make a big show doesn't mean they are anywhere near a political majority.

Just because you're an agnostic doesn't mean that your alternative is to believe fundamentalist Christianity, or even Christianity at all! An agnostic is not sure if there is a God, period. If there is, what sort of being is God is a totally different question. He may be some Christian God that takes an active interest in each of us as individuals or he may be some Divine Principle so far advanced from us that as individuals we are not important. You can believe in God while believing in evolution and/or all aspects of science. The only problem is when someone lets their faith come in conflict with what science discovers about the Universe. In effect, if there is a God scientists are slowly discovering HOW he created everything and how it all works. It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians have already made up their minds about all of that and in effect are telling GOD how he did everything! What cheek! As Firesign Theater called them "The Church of the Presumptuous Assumption".

Absolutely right, TB! I too get frustrated with people who look at people in other eras only by the standards of today. It is ignorance at its best! As a sidebar to the Civil War and race issue, you or others may be familiar with a book by Harry Turtledove, called "The Guns of the South". At first glance it appears to be a scifi/fantasy novel. Midway through the Civil War South African racists steal a time machine and use it to arm the South with AK-47s! This might seem hokey and simplistic to some but actually it is merely a literary pretense to make a damn fine book on the actual history of the Civil War and the social values of the peoples involved! Turtledove is an american History professor. He uses characters in his book to bring home a clearer picture of how people on both sides of the war likely thought and reveals many things that are rarely mentioned today. For instance, many southerners, including Robert E Lee, were abolitionists! The whole issue of freedom for the black man was not the main reason for the war. Rather, it was over an individual state having the right to choose or being subservient to Washington, DC. Although Lee himself did not agree with slavery he did agree more with state rights and in fact, very nearly accepted a military command for the North, turning it down at the last minute to follow his conscience south. Even southern bigotry had its nuances. A Southerner might own slaves but hold no respect for his neighbour if his neighbour treated his slaves cruelly. There were limits based on simple human decency and Southerners were no more united all on one side of the fence than anyone in the North! Obviously, the AK47s were more than enough to turn the tide for the South and allow them to win the war and stave off Northern rule but before the book can end the South is forced to confront the issue of slavery and make changes. The book is way deeper than the average scifi novel and certainly serves as an excellent historical primer on the REAL issues and social values of Civil War times! Even if you don't care for fantasy but appreciate the history this book is a must read! Turtledove knows his military and political history cold and his extrapolations of the way things changed after the supply of better rifles than the North are both intelligent and sensible. He seems to fully understand how people of the time actually thought, showing us both the differences and similarities with people today. If Army Guy hasn't yet read this book, he would no doubt be delighted at the realistic depiction of the life of the Southern infantryman! Well worth the money!

Give me a break, eyeball! I'm the Libertarian guy, remember? Time after time I've come out AGAINST Prohibition-style laws!!! If you're gonna prop me up and treat me like some "spokesman for the right" then I reserve the right to do the same to you, in a similar manner! I frankly don't care what some right wing folks say or believe. I care only about what I believe and certainly not some caricature of my beliefs that someone like YOU happens to paint! Are we actually talking here or are you just preaching with your posts to the thin air in general?