Wild Bill

People who study human behavior have a category for such folks, Dre. Perhaps you've studied this yourself. They're described as those who are "good in groups" and there are some distinctive characteristics. The usual model is any group of humans with a common task set, such as a business office, a factory, a farm or whatever. There are always those who are hard workers and those who have high individual skills at the necessary tasks of the group. At the same time, there are almost always individuals who are not very skilled and whose productivity is rather below the bar. Yet they quite often are successful in getting promotions, or at least never receiving negative attention. The reason is that their personalities are such that they are "good in groups". They are always friendly and have no trouble getting other people to do portions of their work for them. Their social skills are such that everybody likes them, to the point where no one pays attention to their poor work output. If they add any survival value to a group it may be that they help make a more pleasant work environmnent but there are always dangers. Sometimes productive workers may notice what's going on and become resentful. They begin to notice that productivity and better skills are actually a detriment to promotion! They will never be "taken off the line" because it will mean less production so the group insteand will promote someone "good in groups". Also, too many people that are "good in groups" means that the overall productivity takes a significant hit, being greater than the group can afford. Unless your're a total hermit, most folks who take the time to look around them will recognize such types in their own group.

Hey, there's no white hood in my closet but I'm getting rather suspicious about yours! You seem so fanatic about believing that any native protester is always 100% right about EVERYTHING that I truly think you lack the ability to recognize any evil or error on your own side! Canadians will never voluntarily accept your arguments. You argue like an old style communist, who needs a gun to get others to voluntarily stay in his country.

Hey, most of the time as individuals we are ALL ineffectual! The important point is that TimG is not the only Canadian with his POV. MANY other Canadians share it! What's more, quite often poorly thought out protest tactics often add to those numbers. The native protesters can actually lose more than they gain. Where this matters is at the ballot box. If the numbers add up to enough to sway a ballot then an elected member had best pay attention or he will lose his seat! It is very short sighted for natives to think that they are only fighting a government. Politicians need popular support to acquire power and if giving in to native demands on an issue is perceived as wrong or unfair by the rest of Canadians then it would be stupid to expect a politician to commit political suicide just to make some protesters happy. Even if the law was clearly in the natives' favour no politician worth his salt would then give in. Instead, he would make sure that the issue would be stalled and never resolved for generations, long past the time when he need worry about winning an election! Without the support of mainstream Canadians protesters like those at Six Nations will never get what they want. Meanwhile, they still persist in using their neighbours as cannon fodder in their war with governments and seemingly totally bewildered at why they don't get more support! I realize that most of the militant protesters are leftists and anti-business but it might do them some good to take some salesmanship courses. They could easily have won their demands in Caledonia AND won the support of the townsfolk at the same time! A child with a lemonade stand could have done a better job. No, the natives there chose a different path. So be it. Reap the whirlwind! As ye have done so shall ye receive. Pity!

I have never claimed that natives don't have valid arguments about historical treaties and agreements. We've had a legal framework for such to do with corporations and nations for centuries. My beef is solely and only with the TACTICS of some natives! If natives choose to terrorize some 'white man's' house bordering a disputed area they can't claim that he was personally someone who had wronged them. They are harassing him simply because they are angry at white men and any white man who's handy will do! When native protesters stop a VIA railway line or the QEW, they are not targetting the specific people who historically wronged them. They are not even targeting a 'white' government! They are targeting people who virtually all have never done them any harm and who probably USED TO be supportive of native claims! If I had a beef with the provincial government I would target my protests against my MPP, Queen's Park and if I felt really militant I might blockade McGUINTY'S street! If I was enraged enough I might even try to knock out the electrical power to his home, as the protesters did in Caledonia! I would never pick out at random anybody who's name had some of the same letters as in McGuinty's name and target THEM! As far as I'm concerned, I see little difference between many (not all!) native protesters and the KKK.

Well, I can't speak for your area of the country but it's a safe bet that a lot of people will have to grow very old and die off before the NDP will ever get many seats from Ontario! You can believe whatever you want and you can make all the claims you want. It just doesn't matter! Ontarioans got burned by Bob Rae's NDP government very badly. Some of the criticism may have been unfair but again, it doesn't matter. Perception in politics is everything and that's what the overwhelming majority of Ontarioans believe. You would have a better chance at bringing Mulroney back than getting Ontario to contribute more than a smidgen of seats to give the NDP the federal government. I suspect they would actually LOSE incumbent seats if people here were worried it would mean an NDP government in Ottawa! You just have to live here and know people to understand this. It's a fact of life like the sun coming up in the morning and NOTHING but a LONG time is going to change it!

Well, it's your own fault! That indeed is the inevitable result of your premise! Simple math shows that there are so many Chinese, Indian and Third World country people who are trying to achieve a modern living standard that we could reduce our energy consumption here in Canada to ZERO and it would have "mice nuts" effect on the global demand for energy! A far more logical approach would be to concentrate our efforts on technical solutions to drastically INCREASE our supplies of available energy! That way there will be enough for every one. Conservation is a fool's errand. You cannot conserve more than you produce in total. All you can do is improve your efficiency of use. You can have a plot of farmland that is perfectly efficient in feeding 100 people but if you start adding new babies into the group you will all start to get hungry. We have barely begun to use the energy available to us. And it will not be Arts majors or poli-sci graduates who figure out how to achieve what we need. Anyone with hair in their ears and a copy of "Science for Dummies!" can beat the drum for conservation and reduced use as our salvation. That's as far as their wit can take them in understanding the possibilities! If engineers and hard scientists were given a free rein all our energy problems would have been solved long ago. Instead, we listen to the yammerheads who read their horoscope every day...

Every election we see many independent candidates in many ridings. When you look at your ballot there are often names listed that are not affiliated with any party. If they happened to receive the majority of the votes in your riding they would become the member for your riding and would take their seat in Parliament. It is a very rare thing in Canadian politics, not because there is anything that legally stops an independent from becoming your MP or MLA. It's just that Canadians tend to vote for party members and few independents ever win the riding. Usually we see independent MP's because after winning their seat something happened and they got kicked out of the party caucus! The party leader cannot take away their seat but he can throw them out of his party. So they continue to sit as an independent. That's how it works.

Well, the expected has happened! http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/Home/ContentPosting?feedname=CBC-TOPSTOIRES-V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=senate-budget-bill "The Senate voted to pass the omnibus budget implementation bill late Monday, avoiding an election showdown over the issue. Senators voted 48-44 against the changes made by opposition members of its finance committee to Bill C-9 and passed the legislation without amendments." "PukPukPuk Pugawk!PukPukPuk Pugawk!" Chicken! Chicken! The Liberals once again 'wussed out"! All the brave talk! All the rhetoric! All the so-called concern for being an effective Opposition! What crap! They are a bunch of cowardly losers and deserve to stay in the electoral cellar! It's obvious that unless they feel they can win they refuse to even play! It's not about the country or fulfilling their role in Parliament. It's simply all about them and their own fortunes. They are supposed to be offering us an alternative BETTER than Harper! Instead, we get Barney Fife!

Sometimes the 'deal' was created by the 'white man". Sometimes it was the natives. It doesn't matter to someone looking to make a deal such as leasing a cottage lot today. Events have proven that you can't trust the deal and who you are dealing with. Many native supporters seem to feel that because it was likely a 'white man' or a 'white man government who had originally exploited them centuries ago that this is justification for similar retribution against any 'white man' today. This is just more racism, by simple definition! Anytime you take revenge against an innocent simply because of his race you are committing racism. Anytime you try to lump all members of any race into some 'collectively guilty' group you are also guilty of racism! We are all individuals, responsible solely and only for our own actions. None of us are responsible for the sins of our fathers. However, that being said we also should not accept a "sins of your father" argument for someone from some group today wronging us, whether it is with some obvious crime or some protest that involves our property or our lives and family. People wrong each other as individuals and as individuals we should expect some retaliation. As I've said before, the concept of "Don't get mad at me for punching you! Your government made me do it so you should take revenge against THEM!" is simply absurd.

You didn't quote it properly. Who said it? When? What msg number? Is it a post in this thread or from the Arkansas Medieval Marching Society? Whatever, it does appear to be simply unsubstantiated "reefer madness" opinion.

Some alternative! You rail against "canuckleheads" and then suggest Elizabeth May as an alternative?

Is that not what has happened with the Douglas Creek Estates property in Caledonia? Perhaps not, if you consider the Crown to be the federal government. DCE was given by McGuinty of the province. More confusion!

I think some folks here are making the mistake of assuming that because SOME of a poster's premises are illogical and biased that ALL of his premises must be false! Not only is this illogical itself, it allows a very lazy way of treating anything critical of bias as equivalent to a reasoned rebuttal. Just because Mr. Lic offends you sometimes doesn't mean that immigrant crime only comes from poverty. It also doesn't mean that all poor immmigrants are highly educated. Nor does it mean that EVERY country's educational standards are equal to our own! In the quote I've cited, are you claiming that it is the immigrant doctors driving cabs that commit the crimes, Nicky? Even with incumbent citizens the idea that crime predominantly springs from poverty is subject to much debate. Paul Bernardo came from a home of reasonably well-off working class. Before I can consider your premises you would first have to cite some proof that the crime is mostly being committed by the poor immigrants and that their level of education is indeed as high as you are claiming.

Perhaps you're right. I do tend to be a bit harsh towards academia. It's based solely on my own experience. I remember a certain poli-sci prof at McMaster way back when. It was obvious that he was an extreme socialist and unless you agreed with him you would fail, pure and simple! The rest comes from my work experience. I worked in the high tech field and during the early 80's we saw the birth of the MBA, or Master of Business Arts. Two of the companies I worked for hired a bunch of these graduates and they promptly put the companies into bankruptcy! I watched it happen and noted the commonalities. These fellows really thought that their academic experience was superior to any real world experience of incumbent employees. In some areas this was actually true! The problem was that every business has its own details and these guys failed to recognize that. They leaned on examples and models from their textbooks. Most of these came from the automotive industry. However, much of what these models promoted was dead wrong for our electronic parts distribution industry! It cost our profitability dearly and eventually we all had to find jobs somewhere else. It got so that it became SOP for those of us working in that industry to take note if our companies hired an excessive number of these MBA's and start sending out our resumes. I'm NOT exaggerating! I have some good friends who are profs who bucked the "establishment" of their universities. They seemed to be very "real world" to me and VERY good at explaining many concepts! All of them had problems getting along with their superiors and two of them were denied tenure. I don't maintain that ALL academics are not "real world" but I do maintain that there is a high percentage. It's human nature to believe that just because you are intelligent, articulate AND you've read the book you are if not an expert, very close! When you actually have to DO a task is when you discover the details virtually always negate many of your preconceptions!

Well, I guess you're right, assuming you believe that Ignatieff living and teaching in an ivory tower university to be "experiencing the world and its people." I will agree that most ivory tower academics believe that they DO know a lot about the world and its people but I've never found one yet that actually seemed to, once I got a chance to talk and listen to them.

Maybe yes,maybe no, BM! Depends on how you define a liberal. Classic Liberalism is all about the rights of the individual, laissez-faire capitalism, individual responsibility and initiative and a BUNCH more stuff! However, MODERN Liberalism hasn't stood for any of those things since the days of Mike Pearson, here in Canada! If you go by actions and not words modern liberalism is now known for brokerage politics, where as many people as possible are receiving government money, with a ruling (liberal) party controlling the flow and receiving the benefit of votes. By classic definitions, the closest political philosophy today to classic liberalism might be the Libertarians. Certainly, the modern Liberal party of the past half century or so just doesn't fit the definition.

August, what we're seeing is the result of the "suits" running the show! You know, those guys with MBA's or poli-sci degrees who were taught that you should sell a person, product or service with appeal to the broadest (and LOWEST!) common denominator! The reasoning is usually illustrated with the following scenario. You have a group of people who all work together car-pooling out for lunch. Some would prefer Chinese or Thai. Some would like Italian or Mexican. Yet they all wind up going to McDonalds. Why? Because it's the only common choice that all will accept. So we all get offered the man in the beige suit and the brown shoes! Everyone is mildly disappointed but the alternative is expected to be a smaller group pleased with a stronger choice. This means fewer votes in total. The sad thing is that this approach actually works! However, it quickly palls. The longer a demographic is faced with such bland choices the more hungry they become for something with a flavour they can actually appreciate! I think this may be why we've seen "mavericks" come out of the woodwork these past few decades and be so hugely successful. The common theme with the majorities of Trudeau, Mulroney and Harris in Ontario is that the electorate were bored out of their trees with the choices they had been given, for a prolonged period of time. Voter participation starts to drop. If EVERY choice is 'beige' it's hard to muster up the energy to bother going down to the polling station! Perhaps I'm off base but I've been voting since Trudeau and also pay attention to what my friends, family and co-workers have to say every election. I truly think I've got a piece of something real here!

Quite logical. Anyone who would enter into a contract that is not truly binding is a fool, whether its with a native band or a corrupt corporation. The problem with the Chippewas was that although they were legally within their rights the cottage owners had been lulled into believing that the leases would be perpetually renewed. So they had BUILT cottages and invested in more improvements! When the leases were ended the cottage owners lost all they had spent on development. The Chippewas acquired not just their own original property but got cottages for free! There is no reason why they couldn't then re-lease the properties for more money to someone else, assuming the market would support it and they could find people willing to sign such a lease. I wonder what is the status of those cottages today. I seriously doubt if the Chippewas razed the lots and returned them to some pre-white man natural state. All quite legal. Someone might argue that over the generations similar things have been done to natives. The problem is that when you take your revenge against people not because they specifically have harmed you but merely because they are of the same race then that is a moral problem.

We have an interesting difference of philosophy, Shwa. My opinion is that if the OMB or any other public department cannot make a decision in a reasonable length of time THEY should be fined! IOW, if the OMB has taken too long (par for the course with any government body, if you'll pardon the pun!) give THEM a 100k fine! We do something similar already with the court system, if a defendant has been waiting an excessive length of time to have a trial. I think this idea is a great addition to the checks and balances of a governing system. A public body must do its job efficiently or face immediate penalties! Man, what a concept! Sure, they pay their fines with OUR money but still, the embarrassment factor is HUGE! Such fines would have to be Career Limiting Moves within the civil service! If they can't do their job, get rid of them!

August, you've missed the point. It doesn't matter if Rae looks better to Quebecers. He still looks AWFUL to those voters in Ontario! Unless the day comes when a party only has to do well in Quebec to form the government the Liberals could never win with Bob Rare. If he got two seats in Ontario I would be amazed! Bless your heart, you remind me of when Charest was still in the PCs, some years ago. I was working as a resident salesman for a big American distributor, answering to a sales office in Pointe Claire, Quebec. One summer week I was at an office party where the rest of the sales staff and I got the chance to drink beer and shoot the breeze. Talk turned to politics and how the PCs had been all but destroyed, with only Charest and another MP left. All the other salesfolk were francophone Quebecers and ALL of them loved Charest! However, NONE of them would vote for him! They saw their choices as Liberal or BQ, seulement! So they figured that all of us in Anglo Canada should vote for him! I love my Quebecois friends deeply but I find that they are so introverted they just are incapable of seeing the big picture across the country, outside of the borders of Quebec. You just did it yourself, thinking in terms of Bob being a more attractive choice for Quebec when the issue was his terrible legacy in Ontario. Your head is more than intelligent enough to understand things when they are pointed out, but your gut just seems to blind you from seeing such things on your own. If Rae becomes the Liberal party leader Harper will treat his caucus to a 3 day shindig, complete with fireworks!

Absolutely! If Bob Rae became Liberal party leader, it's entirely possible that Ontario might give Harper his majority!

4 years? You might be right! What an astonishing thing for Canadian politics, to have a minority government last 4 years! Is this one for the record books? Should Harper consider this a feather in his cap?

I would keep in mind that no matter what understanding of your legal position when you lease the property things could change without notice! The developers at Caledonia thought they were within the law when they started the Douglas Creek Estates. The Six Nations protesters thought differently and the situation became a mess for all involved. We have seen that issues can suddenly surface that are a surprise to some of the people involved. We can argue about who was responsible but what earthly good would that do you? You would have gone through all the usual channels. Ordinary citizens do not have the resources or the psychic powers to identify or predict all the possibilities. As we also saw at Six Nations, different political groups can develop that have power within the band at different times. Who's to say that some activist group might arise that has issues with your lease and any property involved? Myself, I would not invest a dime in any such situation. Without the rule of law you would be totally vulnerable! McGuinty showed that if things heat up he will NOT protect the average citizen! Again, it doesn't matter if the natives would be right or wrong in such a situation. If protests occurred over land you had leased you would be "in the soup". Again, McGuinty has shown that legal resolutions would take years, if ever! You have to plan for future possibilities. The political situation over your desired cottage property may seem stable today but what about 20 years from now? I could see if you REALLY loved the property you might drop a mobile home or trailer on a lot. If anything ever happened you could then simply drive away, with no deep losses. Again, my advice is to ignore all the politics and legalities and simply look at the example. If you make any investment it will be at risk. That's the simple truth! There are native spokespeople who claim that natives own ALL of Canada! You want to trust the situation over a cottage lot?

How about the first same sex marriage bill, when the Liberals were still in power before the present Harper regime? During the prior debate many Liberal MPs were against the idea. Many were for it but claimed they would bow to the wishes of their riding constituents and vote against it. However, when the time came to vote the party flatly told them all to vote with it! Is a total party whipping not censorship? I still remember watching the vote on tv. Many Liberals were so upset about being forced to vote the party line that they were openly crying in their seats! Still, not one dared break party ranks! Yet today all anyone talks about is the vote Harper called on the issue! Harper at least let his MPs vote freely, even though it meant a decision with whitch most folks think he personally disagreed. So Harper's the tyrant and the Liberals are the home of the free? Yeah, right! As Garth would say, "And monkeys will fly out of my butt!"

Good Lord! Take off that tinfoil hat! No need for a conspiracy theory! There's a FAR simpler explanation that better fits the facts! Your argument is that Harper is a fanatic about religious fundamentalism who takes a Satanic glee in busting pot users. This is so extreme as to be laughable! No, much more likely is that Harper is just another politician who knows that he has a Christian demographic in his support base. He also knows that if he ever adopted their extreme views it would be a political kiss of death! How do we know this? Because he has been flat out saying this for years! He has to throw them a bone once in a while, however. Most of the time they are disappointed in him for not being extreme enough in his governance. Marijuana is a safe bone to toss to them BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP! Few canadians hold pot legalization as a major card when they pick where to place their vote. There's you and a couple on this board and of course, Mark Emory. After that the pickin's get kinda thin. Ask Canadians if they would want to see pot legalized and perhaps the majority would say yes. Ask them if they really care that much about it or about how harsh the laws are right now and that same percentage would likely say...NO! So you posit religious fanaticism and evil glee. I submit that simple opportunism for a political cheap vote grab makes more sense.