Wild Bill

I'm really not sure of the context behind your question. Are you simply asking if there is an imminent threat at the moment or is the implication that this ties to our need for a capable military defense structure? If you are simply asking about a threat TODAY then of course the answer would be no. However, if this has to do with our military then the question seems rather silly! If a threat does occur and we have no military capacity to speak of, what are we supposed to do? Do we expect that any invader must give reasonable notice? How much notice would be necessary for us to "arm up"? We are years behind now! The days of having a couple of years to build a military from scratch, as we did in WWI and WWII, are long gone. Forget about a couple of years to set up Commonwealth Flying Training Schools and enlisting/training infantry. With the technology of today, wars are "come as you are" wars. You can be surprised with an attack and you defend with what you have. Likely it will be all over in a few days or at most weeks. If you didn't have enough resources, too bad. So sad. You lose! There is also a truism of human nature that those who look like they can be safely pushed around usually are! This is true in the schoolyard and also true between nations. We may not actually be invaded but we could lose oil or fishing areas in the north or even some land area that another nation wants to develop. The idea of "soft diplomacy" sounds nice but in the world of realpolitik it can mean little or nothing when push comes to shove. If another nation has a dispute with us and knows that it can take what it wants with no fear of retaliation then it very well might! Or if there is retaliation, it would be diplomatic rather than military. A country might very well think that diplomatic repercussions are cheap at the price! If someone wants to make the argument that we don't need a robust military, now or ever in the future, I can understand that. I don't agree with it but I can understand it! However, if they are speaking with the assumption that we can always "arm up" if we ever have to then we part company. I just don't see how that would be possible today.

Topaz, I clicked on your link when I first saw it. It brought me to The News from New Glasgow but I couldn't see anything on lighthouses. I tried again this morning and I tried again just now. I tried the paper's 'search' option but again, nothing. Am I doing something wrong?

Actually TB, some of the most partisan people on this board are also the most polite! However, it seems to me that whenever we do get someone who has the manners of a pig he or she tends to be leftwing. There are some exceptions, as I had said. Still, the numbers seem to favour the left. Perhaps this is because the left always appeals most strongly to the younger set, who have great wit but lack life experience and wisdom. Adolescents tend to rant and bray, as if the intensity of their passion somehow has a correlation with the validity of their arguement. Whatever, JMHO! I'm just saying that we seem to have some new posters that frankly, strike me as rude.

There is an important difference between the two scenarios, TB. In the UK the coalition is between the party that did win the most seats and one of the opposition "losers". Here at home the situation is likely to be a coalition of two "losers" to upseat the winner! Surely that will have an effect on popular opinion!

My personal observations show that with one or two exception it is the lefties who are the rudest and totally lack manners. I enjoy someone having a different opinion but I have no time for a boor.

Well, your argument satisfies the technicalities and legalities very well. However, any party would be a fool to rely only on those factors! What's the point of winning power for one term and then losing it for the next 3 or 4? Any party strategist worth his salt is going to look at all the factors and decide if IN THE LONG TERM the consequences will be negative or positive! Essentially, your scenario is saying "We can legally take power today but we will likely lose the next several elections due to mainstream Canadian disapproval!" Bet your boots TB that the Libs, NDP and even the Bloc have their own polls about this issue. They'd be fools if they didn't. If the polls said that Canadians would approve or at least not care the Opposition parties would have already formed their coalition! I know myself that if any coalition of parties came to power that did NOT include the one party who won the most seats I would hold a grudge against those parties for a LONG, LONG time! Yes, and even ESPECIALLY if one was the Tory party! The polls have consistently shown that there are at least enough other voters who feel as I do to make the opposition parties reluctant to go down that path.

You seem to be sliding all around the point! You make a strong claim that the Sea Kings are a great helicopter and undeserving of all the criticism. Then when you face detailed criticism you say "well, yes that's true but still, some pilots like them and I happen to know a few of them!" Hey, I know some fabulous guitar players but don't ask me to play like them myself! We're not talking about British Sea Kings here, or American, or those of any other country. We're talking about CANADIAN Sea Kings! What's the difference? Canadian Sea Kings are nearly 50 years old! I'm sure they were great to fly when they were new! So what? We have to deal with what we have and what we have is old and obsolete! It was Sea king Canadian Forces pilots themselves who came up with that satirical song, produced a version where they sang and played their own instruments and released it to the media. Perhaps you knew them all too?

Not expecting you to swallow just the one link, BM! I do think the second is stronger with the argument. Whatever, my point is simply that there IS an argument! The research cited that I first responded to was based on opinions and not concrete factors.

You are making the same old mistake that anti-Harperites constantly make! It is not enough to point out Harper's flaws. Lord knows he has a LOT of them! Any brand-new salesman knows from his first week's training that it is not enough to knock your competitor's product down. You have to also find a way to boost your own product UP! People need a REASON to change their preferences! They may become dissatisfied with their present product but they will continue to use it as long as they haven't seen something BETTER! Hence the old folksaying "Better the devil you know...". It's simple human nature. Ignatieff does NOT look like a better alternative! Neither does the Liberal brand. If you truly believe that a majority of Canadians would cheerfully give him a chance I would submit that you are only looking at the situation in your own backyard in Quebec, August. And I'm not so sure that Quebec has totally forgiven the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal. Harper may be slowly pissing off more and more Canadians but right now they would change their preference to the Liberals only at the point of desperation! If you are not drowning, why would you let go of a rope that hasn't worked too well for a rope that is all ragged and torn? If the Liberals can't come up with a charismatic leader and some inspirational campaign planks then it will be a LONG time before they are back in power!

Sounds like the way some of the threads have been going on this board, these past few months! It's like we're slowly being invaded by posters from "rubble.com". Rude, lewd and crude! Perhaps Baird is a secret "Rubble.com" poster! I wonder what he uses for an alias...

You have incredibly minimized the situation with the Sea kings! It reminds me of the old joke about how an ad company can claim that "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Aspirin!" If you have a big enough sample, as long as you can find 4 doctors that support your premise you can just add any one of the MILLIONS that do not prefer Aspirin! Those 4 doctors might be the only ones on the planet who prefer Aspirin but your statement is true and legal, even though viewed in context it is an advertising con. Here's just one of many links: http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/H-3_Sea_King/ "The Canadian Navy purchased 41 Sea Kings in 1963. The helicopters at that time were state of the art and served well, being well liked by crews. The Canadian forces developed a technique for landing the huge helicopters on small ship decks, using a 'hauldown' winch, that earned them them nickname of 'Crazy Canucks'. As the Sea Kings have aged, however, they have become increasingly unreliable and hard to maintain. Twelve have crashed, killing ten people. Each Sea King now requires over 30 manhours of maintenance for every hour flying, a figure described by the Canadian Naval Officers Association as "grossly disproportionate" [1]. They are unavailable for operations 40% of the time. The Sea Kings are now widely perceived as unreliable, outdated and expensive to maintain, both inside and outside the service. In late 2003 the entire fleet was grounded (except for essential operations) for a few weeks after two aircraft lost power within a few days of each other. Efforts to replace the helicopters have been hampered by political considerations. In 1992 the Tory government announced the purchase of EH-101 helicopters to replace them. However on a change of government in 1993 the incoming Liberals immediately cancelled the order (paying cancellation fees of $500 million Canadian). When it subsequently became clear that new helicopters were still desperately needed, the Liberal government began a procurement process that critics have accused of being deliberately tailored to prevent the EH-101 from being chosen as a candidate. It was only after the retirement of Prime Minister Jean Chretien at the end of 2003 that the competition was finally opened." The history became so bad that the Canadian PILOTS composed a satirical Sea King theme song, sung to the tune of the old Terry Jacks tune "Seasons in the Sun". http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-21-2002-30759.asp "Sea Kings in the Sun (Sung to the tune of Seasons in the Sun) Goodbye papa please pray for me My helicopter's crashing in the sea I honestly don't mean to pout, but my future is in doubt, My co-pilot just fell out. Goodbye papa it's hard to fly, When my airframe’s cracking in the sky, For every hour in the air, it takes them 30 to repair, We fly these things on a dare. We've had joy, we've had fun, We've had Sea Kings in the sun, But the engines are on fire, and the Sea Kings must retire, Goodbye Chrétien my stingy one, You could have bought the EH-101, Instead you blew 500 mil, Just to cancel out the bill, Now I need an airsick pill. We've had joy, we've had fun, We've had Sea Kings in the sun We'll be lucky if we reach, a crash landing on the beach." Your post might have been true in 1970, when the Sea Kings were relatively new. It is definitely NOT true today! "4 out of 5 Canadian Forces pilots like Sea Kings!", indeed!

Agreed! If it wasn't for the fact that it was a science fiction movie Ricardo Montalbon should have been nominated for an Oscar! I never knew he was that good an actor! That death scene of his, where he hurls his spite at Kirk, was a classic!

This is a good point! The recent coalition in Britain is between the winning party and one of the "losers". This is the usual assumption as to what sort of coalition would occur. What is being proposed here in Canada is a coalition of only the parties that did NOT win the most seats! Surely this would look very wrong to the average Canadian! It can't help but look like a "loser power grab" when the ruling party specifically excludes the party that won the most seats. It would also be a slap in the face to all the people who had voted for the winning party! Nit-pickers can come up with all the rationalizations they want as to how a "coalition of losers" is still legal under our laws. So what? The average citizen would not care. The popular opinion of lawyers has never been very high. Polls consistently have shown that while such a coalition might win the immediate battle they would likely have a pyrrhic victory. They would lose the war for decades at the NEXT election! Many partisans are so hungry for power that they are more than willing to chance it. Myself, I would LOVE to see the premise tested! Go for it, I say! It takes a lot to rouse Canadians. Most of the time we just take our lumps and let the political waves just roll on by. Once in a while an issue comes up where the "powers that be" do something that blatantly takes us for granted and we wake up! Negative billing practices by the cable companies, firing Ron MacLean from Hockey Night in Canada, changing the formula for Coca-Cola and sticking the GST on every purchase we make are examples of things that roused us from our torpor! Every time such a thing happens it always results in negative consequences to the originator. I can envision the election AFTER the coalition had seized power! The coalition partners are brought down in a Kim Campbell-like rout! Afterwards, MLW is filled with angry posts calling mainstream Canadians names - "You stupid people! Didn't I show you how everything was perfectly legal! How dare you vote this way!" I really think some folks need to get away from their computer and go out and interact with their fellow citizens a lot more.

Perhaps the research was biased, Dre! There's the issue of "feminization" of boys to consider. Many pundits are starting to question whether the preponderance of female teachers and the promoting of only females to principal positions has resulted in boys that do not have many of the traditional male attributes. How did this research measure success in child rearing? It specifically mentions fewer behavioral problems. This might be a success to some more (forgive me!) leftist, touchy feely observers but others might point out that boys are SUPPOSED to have some degree of aggression! It provides strength needed to handle adult life. Many parents of boys are starting to believe that the real problem is that many female teachers believe that boys are supposed to be the same as girls and act in the same manner. They also teach them in the same fashion. I'm old enough to remember how there was a disparity in the percentages between boys and girls in subjects like maths and hard sciences. The boys did far better than the girls. Today the problem seems to have been over-addressed, to the point where not only have the girls caught up but the boys are lagging far below their former levels! Worse yet, some observers have started to make the claim that the real problem is that most female teachers no longer know how to handle boys and there is a lack of male teaching influence. The policy is to simply declare any boy who shows signs of typical male exuberance "hyperactive" and promptly dose him up with Ritalin! We could argue this of course but my point is that your link's research is rather subjective. The yardsticks are based on opinions of what makes a good parent, as those yardsticks are used to take the measure of the children, as being the result of the process. I'm just saying the debate is not that simple...

It's all very well for us political junkies to be so appalled at the Tories but I wonder if anyone has seen any polls since the committee wars started to happen? We can make all the moral judgements we want but in the final analysis the REAL question of value would be "How low can the Tories go IN THE POLLS?"!

Your points don't apply equally in all case, Dr. Dre! Public and private sector unions are very different animals! I don't believe that ANY public sector union should have the right to strike! The reason is that unlike a private sector union, public sector workers usually enjoy a monopoly on their product or service to the public. If Ford is on strike one can always buy a GM. If the teachers go on strike your kid doesn't get taught! There is no market alternative for garbage pickup, police, firemen and so on. Either take away their monopoly advantage OR their right to strike! It is totally unfair for a public sector union to enjoy both! I do agree with you that there should be another option than arbitration. Since arbitration talks are rarely a big deal in the news media they tend to get ignored. Arbiters tend to favour the unions and politicians don't protest very loudly. Why should they? As long as it doesn't become a negative election factor to them they really couldn't care less about how much it added to the tax burden of us ordinary proles!

Wow! After my post calling the NDP dinosaurs and invoking the name of their "Great Satan" James Laxer I really thought I would spark a host of replies! Instead, the thread appears to have died! I have this mental picture of a number of NDP posters looking at the ground while scuffling their shoes back and forth, at a loss for what to say...

Makes sense, Bryan! When I hear the supporters of a left merger talk I can't help but think that what they really are proposing is a way to get the Left in power by using the Liberals to look like they are a centrist party! Now who's talking up a hidden agenda?

Don't put words in my mouth, Max! I'm not railing against all "socialist" policies and ideas. Just the NDP! I'm serious when I say that the present NDP have no idea of wealth creation. I've read through much of their literature over the years and talked to many of their people. I've never heard an economic CREATION idea from any of them that made any sense! I'm talking federal and Ontario NDP here, I should point out. I recognize that NDP governments have been successful in some other provinces. I also recognize that the other parties, ESPECIALLY the Liberals, have stolen many of their ideas over the years! Although I should also say that it was from a friend in B.C. that I first heard the old joke about how they alternate NDP and Liberal provincial governments because one spends the money and the other has to come up with it! It was the lack of any concept of how wealth must be created before it can be re-distributed that was responsible for the dismal failure of Rae's Ontario provincial NDP government, IMHO. We could fill pages of a thread on the silly things his party did with the money in Ontario. Virtually all of it would be about how he spread it around. I don't believe he ever helped CREATE even a thin dime! I find the federal and Ontario NDP to be full of "dinosaurs". Despite the fact that the Canadian Left has co-opted the word "progressive" like the homosexual community took the word "gay" to mean something other than its dictionary definition, to make their ideas sound more palatable, I find nothing progressive in the present party(s). Back in the 80's the NDP commissioned their own internal report from a Prof. James Laxer on what the party stood for in mainstream eyes, where they were headed and where they SHOULD be headed! He told them straight out that they were 1950's union dinosaurs! He strongly urged them to modernize and "get with it", along the lines of the British Labour Party which successfully succeeded Thatcher's Tories. The NDP reacted with horror and couldn't shy away from him fast enough! He did command considerable support however, so the "powers that be" forced him out of the party. I've no doubt you are quite familiar with Prof. Laxer, Max. Still, for the benefit of others here's a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Laxer Although I am no socialist and didn't agree with much of what he said I always thought that the NDP would have done well to listen to him. It would seem that by ostracizing Laxer they succeeded in remaining dinosaurs to this day! So no, Max! I'm not an anti-socialist. I'm anti-dinosaur, which is why I don't respect the NDP! BTW, perhaps you could provide me with a link to whatever concept of wealth creation the present NDP favours? I haven't checked in a few years. Perhaps they've finally come up with something, even if it's not practical. Since I was a lad, I never heard an NDP'er even acknowledge the need for such a concept!

The NDP are just takers and fakers. They are all about wealth redistribution. They take wealth creation for granted and have no idea how it occurs, assuming that there are just people born who are genetically programmed to create wealth and will do so no matter how much you abuse them. They are just a source of taxation that will always be there. In the children's story of the Little Red Hen, all the barnyard animals that demand bread while never having shared in the effort of making it are members of the NDP.

Bryan, a man explained it best years and years ago: "Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds."---P T Barnum

You're right, Harper hasn't really added to his support. However, Ignatieff has not only failed to increase the Liberals in the polls but has actually lost ground! When neither of the two main parties are successful in increasing their popular support it rather makes the polls a null factor. You can make all the comments you want about the Tory Tent but the Liberal tent is just a "pup".

Who could ever forget the immortal John Lithgow as Dr. Emilio Lizardo in "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai"? "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!"

Well, your link doesn't sound like more than campaign propaganda to me. As I had said, I could believe that Harper paid lip service to the idea of Brian as a mentor simply to solidify support from those PC members still grumpy about the merger. I just can't believe it was sincere! I was there with Reform during those years and heard Harper talk many times. The idea of embracing Mulroney so warmly is just too pat! It goes against everything I had experienced for all those years. I'm sorry, it's just too much of a stretch! I'd need much more before I could ever buy the idea.