Wild Bill

You are just a basket of non sequiturs, aren't you? Because traffic controls make sense then ALL controls make sense? Governments are perfect with all laws and systems? Gee, if you think they're so infallible you must be a Democrat! If drugs were legal why on earth would you assume that doctors would imbibe before operating? Do they pound back a mickey of rum before brain surgery right now? As for my kids, the oldest partakes maybe every few weeks at a party, when she's home from school. At school, she's just too busy getting straight A's in HARD courses like physics and calculus! I have explicit faith in her judgement and am very, very proud of her!

This is a very good point. Believe it or not, I could very easily drop my support for the Tories and vote Liberal! The present party is starting more and more to attack some of my core Libertarian values, particularly with their stand on justice reform. They don't seem to have a reasoned approach at all, particularly with what they did to Marc Emery, or the issue itself of marijuana. They seem to think that all they need is a bigger hammer and they can bash a populace into submission! This might fly in some evangelical corner of the prairies but I guarantee that if they are so foolish as to allow it to become a major issue it could and likely would cost them any hope of a majority in Ontario and Quebec. People here simply don't feel that way towards pot! You can put up any poll results you like saying otherwise and I just couldn't buy it. It would be asking me to disregard what a lifetime of living here in both personal and professional circles has shown me. To us, it just looks like evangelical bullying. Ontarioans have a hefty fear of religion gaining power in politics and of ANY social engineering group being able to use the law to bully us into their own idea of a proper lifestyle! Also, there is the matter of Harper apparently finding more in common with style with Chretien than Manning, as far as stifling independence from his caucus and the general anti-populism of the new merged CPC and it would take very little for my vote to be gone! Right now, it's hanging by a thread and that thread is named Ignatieff! The man has zero political experience and it plainly shows! So far, as Leader of the Loyal Opposition he has given us nothing but ad hominem attacks on Harper and the Tories. I haven't heard one PRACTICAL alternative approach from the Liberals on anything the Tories have been doing! Ignatieff seems to be simply marking time, waiting for some parade to start up that he can ride to put his party back into power. This hasn't surprised me. After Adscam, I expected that the Liberals would realize that it would be some years before they had a strong shot at the brass ring again and would tick along with caretaker leaders. Adscam was exposed in 2004. That's 6 years ago! Long enough to start thinking about a fresh start. It would take a new, more charismatic leader. It would also take some ideas that seemed practical to more Canadians. If the Liberals accepted that it is no longer the "touchy-feely" world of 1985 Liberalism and went back more to their Classic Liberal roots they might be a better fit to that "magical middle". Other countries went that way during those years but Canada seemed to miss it all, being in stasis with a fractured Opposition, so that Chretien and his crew had no need to change with the times. Afterwards, they found themselves out of step, like a disco chick who gets to the dance only to find that a Metalica cover band is playing and everyone is "slam dancing"! The strategy I'm painting is for the Liberals to directly attack much of the support for Harper that has not really been comfortable with him, by moving away from the far Left. They have far more opportunity to gain votes from Harper than they do from the NDP! I'm not saying at all that this will happen, just that it is a practical scenario. Such scenarios could easily pull my vote away from Harper. The only question is whether I am unique or if there is an attractive number of voters who feel the same way!

I might have a slight bit of respect for Deputy Dawg if he got off his ass and helped at the source for the problem of all the American guns and hard drugs that flood into Canada. Deputy Dawg is quick to demand the cooperation of Canada for pot going south yet he seems to have done Sweet Fanny Apples to return the favour. Obviously, he's just a self-centred thug on this issue.

Actually AW, the law DID single Emery out! You must understand that Emory was NOT the only one selling seeds by mail! There are lots of others! Emery was unique in that he struck a high profile. He paid over $500,000 in sales taxes to the Canadian provincial and federal governments. He made no secret that he supported legalization. It's obvious that "Deputy Dawg" saw a highly visible target that would make a good example of how tough the law could be! If Emery had stayed under the radar, not paying taxes and not being highly visible he would still be selling today! After all, lots of others still are doing the same thing! To my knowledge only Emery has been charged. As for "we must obey ALL laws", I thought that was dealt with at Nuremberg! Anti-pot laws are not founded in good logic or reason. For that reason they encourage disrespect for the law as a whole! Politicians make laws. Politicians are flawed. The idea of giving carte blanche approval and respect to ALL laws died with Mulroney's government! Governments are simply not moral or competent enough to deserve such obedience. Government may have big cops with big clubs but those you should treat like any other set of bullies. You nod your head and say "Yowsuh!" while they are around and as soon as they leave go back to doing what you want! Respect must be earned. If you have to demand it you no longer deserve it! It is Prohibition, pure and simple. There are serious rumours that Miami drug lords have local and state politicians on the take to keep drugs ILLEGAL! This preserves the ridiculously high profit margins! Personally, I can well believe it! Right now, a drug lord is rarely caught and he makes ZILLIONS! Why on earth would he ever want drugs legalized? For such reasons, I am seriously suspicious of the motives behind many who are in favour of limiting their neighbour's choices. Some of it is simple "militant do-gooder" tactics, a la "Hawaiian missionaries". Perhaps most falls into this category. There is nothing more popular than telling your neighbour what he has to do, after all. Still, when it comes to money the idea of such "shills" makes sense.

Gee, who would have thought? When she was first found out, she was a Conservative Satan incarnate! Then, after Harper dumps her, the mood suddenly changes and it's "Harper is mean to women!" Tell me again that it's not just partisanship...

Yes, he knowingly broke the law. To millions of citizens both in Canada and the USA, the law is an ass about pot but nonetheless, he broke the law and stood sentence for it. Still, it kinda says something about the law in both countries when Emery gets a harsher sentence for supporting what is really just another intoxicant than Canada has meted out for cold blooded murder. I'm sorry, I just can't respect the people who have set up and championed this situation. That's not what I had thought the law was for! The law is supposed to be there to protect us, not allow fascist social engineers to bully us into living as they feel we should do!

Who cares about Layton? He's not an alternative for my vote so he is not relevant. Harper matters because he is my ONLY choice! Not an inspired choice or even a good fit for my populist leanings. Certainly not representative of my Libertarian, or at least Classic Liberal, tastes. No, he is my only choice because the others are so much worse that I can't even consider them! Still, if I give him my vote I feel the right to criticize him and his party. Oh well, as I keep saying, I'm not dead yet! I may get a chance to vote for someone I APPROVE before I die!

You know, I hardly drink at all anymore. It would be no big deal for me to give it up entirely. Since that's the case, I think I'm going to become a Prohibition supporter! If some folks think they have some God-given right to tell ME what drugs I may or may not take then I want the chance to impose my will on them and return the favour! Do unto others as they have done unto you. Sometimes its the only way to get through to them.

The fact that things have remained stable is cold comfort to any new victims! What's more, what is the timeline? Are things better or worse today than they were in the 70's, or the 60's? Have we gone in a positive or a negative direction?

August, I grant that by living there you may have a better perspective but I have to also wonder about how broad a circle of friends you may have to give you an accurate poll of Quebec society. IOW, to say that the Bloc will ALWAYS have 40-50 seats is your opinion, unless you inherited psychic power from JoJo Savard, the psychic lady who was on TV some years ago.! I'm wondering how well founded is your opinion. Some pundits have stated that the Bloc is an old man's party with an old man's dream. The implication is that there is less new blood to replace what dies off. Do you attend party meetings? Do you see a higher percentage of bald heads and blue-dyed hair? We all saw the quick rise and fall of Mario Dumont. This again is more of a "youth" thing, where something old is abandoned for a new fad but being a fad there is no staying power. Still, a younger demographic has more of a "pop" culture. Are they embracing M Tete Fromage? Does he have a replacement lined up that would revitalize new, youthful votes? Obviously I live too far away and am too much of a geezer to relate anyway. Again, I was hoping you'd have a clearer picture.

Yeah, I'm with you, Muddy! It's bad enough that Harper rules his caucus like a dictator. What makes it worse is that not only does this stifle any free thought but it also means that it's almost impossible to develop a possible future successor candidate! Harper may be leaving his party in bad shape when the day comes that he decides to step down. Meanwhile, I really miss the Rhino Party! If they were still around at least I would have had ONE alternative! I still remember their campaign plan to drop the CN Tower along the ground and use the elevators for rapid transit! At least as practical as Dion's "Green Shift" and much more amusing!

Molly, I think you're going to be unhappy for a LONG time! I sympathize with you over the low level of political education with most of our fellow citizens but I think you don't have a workable idea to help with that. First off, trying to force people to have a better understanding of their individual candidate is only worthwhile if you believe that an individual candidate makes a personal great difference! If you believe that party solidarity has reduced MPs to mere trained seals then who cares about their names? Second, let's look at the situation as if you are RIGHT! The individual candidate IS important! You want to make it more difficult for someone to just vote by party by removing the party name from the ballot. All that would happen is for the first election you would have some very grumpy people who did not share your views and after that those people would make just enough effort to remember the candidate's name for their party and after they voted they would promptly forget it! Trying to force your fellow citizens into doing things your way is usually futile and frankly, a bit anal-retentive! If you have to force them to march in step with you then you've already lost!

Not arguing with you about the situation today, TB. I'm talking about over 20 years ago! The situation today is more flexible BECAUSE of Reform! http://openparliament.ca/hansards/1079/187/ "6:05 p.m. The House resumed, from April 18, 1994, consideration of the motion: Non-Confidence Motions Private Members' Business May 25th, 1994 / 6:05 p.m. That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit Members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion." "Deborah Grey Beaver River, AB This whole thing deals with the idea of free votes and I would like to preface my remarks by saying something that probably all of us in this House know, and that is that Canadians are seeking dynamic and constructive change in their political institutions. Canadians are asking for political representatives who will listen to them-it would be a marvellous change to have political people listen rather than talk all the time-who will consult with them, who will respond to them, and then will come to Parliament and represent their views." "Non-Confidence Motions Private Members' Business 6:20 p.m. Bloc Gaston Leroux Richmond—Wolfe, QC Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion standing before us which reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit Members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion." This link to Hansard explains it better than I can. I admit that I was not aware that things had progressed so far today. Still, I stand by the idea that it was not always so and that Reform was the prime agent of change. What's more, the situation today is still a LONG way from the free vote situation of many other parliamentary democracies!

Reform laid this all out 20 years ago! I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it. Once again, it makes me wonder why Manning ever bothered. Reform recognized that although our system was modeled on that of Great Britain it had one important difference. Every Bill in the House was treated as one of non-confidence! That meant that parties had to practice ruthless solidarity on every vote or run the risk of it being defeated and causing a new election. There was no good reason as to why it was this way. In Britain it had been recognized that only the most important Bills, like money bills or those declared to be confidence motions would be treated as such. MPs of all parties can and do vote both for and against their party's position all the time, with impunity. This is true of most parliamentary democracies, such as Australia, most Commonwealth countries and the USA. Canada virtually stands alone as a parliament where solidarity is practiced on everything, down to the type of doughnuts ordered for meetings! Reform found this to be against their principle of MPs representing their constituents first and their party second. They never did get the chance to work out how to practically poll the people in their ridings to get a consensus on issues but they did at least recognize it was worth the attempt and most of them tried to get a feel for their riding's interests as best they could. Reform also found that there was no real rule in Parliament that things HAD to be that way! It was just long standing custom that no one ever cared to do anything about. They found that all that would be needed would be for any party upon assuming the role of ruling party to open Parliament with a simple Motion stating that during that Parliament only Bills specifically designated as confidence motions would be treated as such, which would mean that MPs would be free to vote against their party with no fear of bringing their own government down. For whatever reasons the other parties were all rabidly against the very idea! However, the concept did raise some interest amongst ordinary citizens, who liked the populist aspects of it. Bills like the first Liberal same sex marriage Motion brought the idea to a head. Many Liberal MPs had said during debate that they were against the idea. Many were under strong pressures from their constituents, particularly in strongly Roman Catholic ridings in Quebec, since the Catholic church was adamantly against the Bill. Yet when the Bill came to a vote, the Liberal party whipped their MPs into voting for it. Those of us who watched it on TV saw many Liberal MPs standing to vote Yes with tears of anguish in their eyes. It was obvious that they were only doing it because their Party had forced them. It's also interesting that Harper has not bothered advancing this notion. Possibly it's because a minority situation makes it less likely to fly anyway. It would be interesting to watch what he does if he ever gets a majority. Given that the other parties seem to have an obvious preference for central control I doubt if any of them would ever become a champion. Still, Reform did accomplish one slight change in how things work, even if it's really only cosmetic. It's common today on a very contentious issue for a party to announce it would allow its members to vote freely but only after the Whip had done a quick nose count and was sure that the vote would go the way the party actually wanted. This means that a private member can get credit for introducing a Bill from his constituents, vote for it and maybe even get a few others to vote with him, but of course the Bill would never actually pass, leaving his Party happy! The Party can claim credit for allowing a free vote without the fear of the Bill actually passing! Sadly, how truly Canadian!

You must be right! The success of the present system speaks for itself!

How could that work? We're running out of rich corporations that they can bleed to death! The band Ten Years After sang it way back in the late 60's: "Tax the Rich! Feed the Poor! Till there are no rich no more!"

You've got it backwards! We should apply the laws with REAL punishments to young offenders to teach them that there are limits to unacceptable behaviour! If there is a real punishment for breaking a window then perhaps you can correct bad behaviour before it gets out of hand. With the present system, young offenders learn that they can do whatever they want with impunity, at least until their age of majority birthday. By then habits may be hard to break.

Forgive me for saying this August but you live in Quebec. Perhaps corruption like this doesn't bother you as much, given that it has been an integral part of Quebec politics since before Duplessis and Bourassa. Quebecers may be more blase about it than those of us in other parts of Canada. I think you'd find that ONLY Quebecers would share your fantasy! Most of us in the other provinces were totally disgusted with AdScam to the point where the Liberal brand is far weaker outside of Quebec than perhaps at any other time in its history.

That's a very good point, Muddy!

How old do you have to be to be responsible for murder? To some, it's easy! You pick a birthday. The night before, you can't. When dawn breaks, something changes in your brain and it's different. The immortal scifi writer Robert Heinlein illustrated this point in his novel Starship Troopers. A teacher was describing the social conditions of the late 20th century to a class of young students. He used the example of raising a puppy, where when the puppy messed on the floor you had to scold him and let him know he had done wrong but this didn't mean at all that you didn't love your puppy. He described how with children below the age of majority the system would let young offenders away with anything , with repeated dismissals and probation, until the magic age of becoming a legal adult. Then they threw them in jail! He likened this to letting a puppy run wild and mess wherever it wanted until it was full grown and then if it messed on the carpet you shot it! His point was obvious. It's madness to forego any discipline on young offenders and then suddenly consider them adults from the morning of a birthday! Heinlein referred to the last half of the 20th Century as "The Crazy Years".

How could I possibly do that? I already admitted it was my own personal experience behind my belief. There will be NOWHERE on the Net I could come up with stats to back up my suspicions. Who would pay to survey people about such an issue? Certainly not the government, who would be the very LAST to want any proof that people have lost faith!

I can only speak for myself but have no reason to believe that I am in any way unique! I have been burgled a few times in my life, both with my home and with my vehicle. Never did anything happen as far as catching the criminal or returning by property. I have family in the police force who tell me that most such crime is done by juveniles and that it is a very frustrating thing for a cop. Rarely are the perps caught and even if they are, they can be taken in front of a judge literally 20-30 times before any punishment more than repeated parole is given. I was told how one little perp here in Hamilton was given more parole for stealing cars and stole a police cruiser after he left the courtroom! He was apprehended and the next time he was brought before a judge (same judge!) he received...more parole! Over the years there has been one small change. Long ago you would at least have a cop come out and check out the scene. Now they never bother. The desk sargeant just gives you a report number for your insurance claim, over the phone. Can't complain, I guess. Since nothing is going to be done anyway why waste further effort? We did have one case in our neighbourhood where the police took action after there had been a rash of over 60 breakins! All smash and grabs, where they would kick in your door and race through the house to all the likely places, like bedrooms for jewelry and the like. They would be gone in just a couple of minutes, never carrying anything large so that they could walk down the neighbourhood sidewalk without drawing attention. One poor old lady a few doors down lost over $20k in jewelry! With that many occurrences I guess the cops figured they had to do something so they hid a few officers in the area and waited till something happened. None of my neighbours ever got any property back. So I can understand if reporting has become less faithful by victims. If there's any serious money involved of course you have to report it to make a claim but too many claims and your insurance goes up. Or, you can't even get house insurance at all! So on the "little ones" you just swallow it and keep quiet. On one early incident when a cop had actually come to the scene of the crime I remember saying to him "I thought I lived in a good neighbourhood!" "You do!" he said to me. "Why on earth would a thief bother to rob a BAD neighbourhood?" It made perfect sense! I guess I wasn't familiar with thinking like a thief. I realize this is just one personal experience anecdote. However, there is a difference between mere anecdotal evidence and widespread common knowledge and experience. I'm sure that the "powers that be" who generate crime stats may be fully aware of this phenomenon but they have a vested interest in not examining the problem. Their goal is to show stats of how crime has dropped. They are addressing a political perception. Reality is merely an inconvenience.

My understanding is that we were not equipped to keep prisoners. Our job was to hand them over to the Americans and/or the Afghan government. Now some folks are questioning if the Americans or the Afghan government did all the right things. Apparently, this means that we should NOT have handed over the prisoners! We should have known from the start that there would be problems from our allies and never given our prisoners into our allies' custody. I guess this means we should have had our own prisons! What other option would there be? We should have known our allies were evil and taken on the role of prison keeper right from the start, along with any eventual trials. In other words, we should've had our own Gitmo! This is ridiculous! Any human rights fault lies with the country that actually received and kept the prisoners. If there was evidence that Canadian soldiers abused prisoners BEFORE handing them on to other countries then I would agree they were at fault. However, we cannot be responsible for any wrong actions on the part of the Americans or the Afghanis. In fact, in the final analysis I would say it is the Afghanis who take final responsibility. These would have been their citizens, or at least insurgents found on their soil. Or should we refuse to respect their sovereignty as well? We should have assumed from the start they would be guilty of rights violations and kept the prisoners ourselves! Such a policy would have been totally awkward and impractical. Not to mention insulting to our allies. If you have an abusive prison, you blame that prison! Perhaps the warden or maybe even the state or federal government that operates the prison. You don't blame the cop who caught the criminal and handed him or her over to the prison!

I read your link, Topaz. Once again, you confuse me! The article clearly states that the website of the law firm described Derek Lee as doing all the functions of a lobbyist! Wouldn't it be only common sense to assume Lee is in fact a lobbyist? Now afterwards, Lee denied it and the law firm pulled the information from their website but what else would you expect? Seems to me that the Tories acted in good faith! ANYBODY would have thought Lee a lobbyist after reading the website of the law firm where he had worked! Or do you think that everyone should have been psychic and known from the start that it was a mistake?

No problem! All Angus has to do is get his ham radio licence and put an antenna somewhere on his tower. Ham radio operators are federally licenced. Municipal and provincial governments have no jurisdiction over antennae and towers. The only exception is if you live in a trailer park, condominium or something like that. They can put a clause outlawing antennae and towers into your agreement that you have to sign before you move in. In effect, it is a private group of homes with their own rules that you have to agree with to be allowed in. Angus would be scot free!