Wild Bill

Good riddance! Yes, I agree that now the Tories have been "blooded", TB. Still, at least Harper got rid of her! I still remember one election when Reform found out that one of their candidates had a hidden racist past. Even though the writ had already been dropped, they dumped him. There was no time to come up with another candidate but they didn't care. They would rather have no candidate than stick with him! Meanwhile, another riding had a new Liberal candidate who also had some scandal come out at the same time. The Liberals kept him! They excused themselves by saying "What can we do? There's no time to get a replacement!" It goes to character, as far as I'm concerned.

There are a LOT of sites on the web, Angus! However, here's one that perhaps you didn't already know about: http://www.thebackshed.com/Windmill/default.asp It will show you how to make windmill blades with a jig and a chainsaw, also there's a link to a homemade 1200 watt wind turbine on there somewhere. As always, the big problem is a battery sink. Car batteries are no good. You need deep discharge types. That means maybe tow motor batteries or electric golf cart units. Often you can get these for free! When they get old they no longer hold as much of a charge. Service shops will give them to you rather than have the trouble of disposal themselves, since they are a "hazardous product". There are electronic units you can buy or build called "desulphinators" that will re-condition such batteries. Another approach is compressed air! Have a windmill operate a compressor. Any steam engine will run just fine on compressed air. That engine can drive a generator. No doubt you've got your own ideas. Good luck and have fun!

And you're not callous? Every dollar wasted in taxes is a dollar less that could have helped feed children! You think it grows on hemp bushes? What do you think children live on, air?

Not necessarily so, Michael. I have two examples I personally witnessed. In the early years of the Reform Party, it seemed that the CBC stance on the party was that it was mostly made up of "old white bread" with racist tendencies. It was rarely directly stated but constantly implied. One evening I happened to catch one "sweet young lady" doing an interview with Preston Manning. From her tone and her questions she was clearly biased and even antagonistic. She eventually hit Manning with a question about the demographics of the Reform Party, with a triumphant air as she delivered it. Manning began to explain how if you looked at the Reform Opposition on Question Period you would actually see more visible minority faces than perhaps in the Liberal Party, that the party membership was very diverse. She pounced on him, demanding to know exactly how many Party members were visible minorities! Manning just smiled at her and said "I don't really know offhand. We don't believe in counting them!" She was pole-axed, caught with lips flapping! I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at her! For perhaps the first time in her life she realized how patronizing about minorities she had been. Another would have been a meeting held at Hamilton Place for Reform, with Manning as the speaker. I went with a friend of mine who had a great deal of experience with stages, cameras and all the nuts and bolts needed to present such a show. About halfway into it he quietly pointed out to me a few odd things about the camera crews from the various networks. First off, the CBC crews were at least 3 -4 times larger than those of CTV or Global. (There's a potential new thread!) The really strange thing, however, was how the CBC crew would keep perking up to line up on Manning when he was asked a question about race or Quebec and then back off as the answer would be moderate and reasonable. My friend and I began to take great fun in watching the CBC crew, so much that we missed much of Manning's talk. As the final "questions from the house" segment was wrapping up so were the TV crews, beginning to pack up their equipment. Just before the end, someone asked Manning a question about immigration. The CBC camera guy suddenly threw his camera to his shoulder and literally raced across the front of the stage to line up on Manning's face, with a microphone guy close behind him! When Manning gave another sensible and moderate reply the body language of the crew clearly showed disappointment. It was plain as day that the CBC crew desperately wanted to get a clip of Manning or a Reform supporter saying something racist or discriminatory. Actually, I have a third example. Does anyone remember all those years ago when the US invaded the island of Grenada? They were there to oust a dictatorship supported by Cuban troops. This was the early 80's. CBC NewsWorld was rather young itself. Anyway, I still vividly remember how the CBC video contrasted so much with that of the other networks, both Canadian and American. The CBC spent the first two days trying to present America as some kind of fascist villain for invading the country to topple a government supported by the local people. They kept trying to show us people in the streets who were angry at America. The only problem was that they just couldn't find any! The people were all wearing American flag tshirts and welcoming the troops as liberators! There were even reports (not shown on the CBC, naturally!) from Grenadians who wanted American troops to stay and for their island to be annexed by the US! It was hilarious! Still, these examples all clearly showed me that the CBC does NOT "tend to post facts - not opinions as facts."!

If you're going to imply that Jaffer was sanctioned by his party and even Harper for his influence then you'll have to do a lot better! It's far more likely that Jaffer had set up his own little network that got out of hand. Once exposed to the light of day he rapidly became persona non grata. If your implication is true then we would also have to accept that Jean Chretien and his party must have been involved to the same degree with AdSCam, backing Chuck Guite to the hilt! Actually, I do believe that! Simply because the factors involved are so much more complicated than that with Jaffer that Guite would have HAD to be sanctioned at the highest Liberal levels! I would have no surprises that there was some major corruption in the Tory party. As I said, they're politicians too! However, so far they are pikers compared to AdSCam and the Liberals! If and when the CPC is caught for the same level of money as the Liberal Party, i.e. hundreds of millions of dollars, then and only then will I hold them to the same level of contempt. Again, I have no illusions that the Tories are somehow lily-white. I'm simply calling for some rational perspective instead of mere partisan BS.

Well, I'm NOT a conservative yet I don't think it's as big a deal as you and some others seem to think! Jaffer and his wife deserve each other. They've both blown it as far as ever having a future with the CPC ever again. These things happen over the years, with all parties. To pretend that our politicians are usually morally pure and perfect is naive in the extreme. They're POLITICIANS, for Pete's Sake! What DOES bother me is how so many seem to excuse the Liberals for almost anything up to and including Charles Manson while holding any Conservative caught jaywalking as the worst criminal in the Universe! Somehow Liberals always get forgiven. If they can't be forgiven then they are at least excused as simply "lone operatives". Conservatives of course, can never be "lone operatives". There are still hundreds of millions of AdScam dollars unaccounted for. There's absolutely no way Chuck Guite could have done everything involved as a "lone operative". Yet he's the ONLY one of the Liberal crew who's been charged and convicted with any punishment time! I don't care when politicians play their little games with each other. I expect that! That's what politicians do! When they STEAL from me, while I'm scratching to keep my head above water and my children fed, THEN I get pissed indeed! You could catch Harper with 13 year old twins and it wouldn't bother me to anywhere near the same degree! If anyone wants to believe that the "system" is not rigged and biased in favour of the left then I have the proverbial Florida swampland for them to buy.

Actually Dave, Topaz probably thought that it was a federal issue, in that the Tories were going to cause "incredible financial hardship by taking TV away from nearly a million people"! She has a history of jumping on such issues without fully understanding them. It's obvious she just doesn't like Tories. For the record, anyone using a dish or cable will not even notice the change. The satellite and cable providers are doing the conversions within their system. To the user's TV there will be no change. The ONLY people with a problem will be those with old-fashioned rabbit ears or rooftop antennae! The newer TV's have a tuner capable of handling the new type of signal. Older TV's can just buy an outboard "box", similar to the cable box we used to use years ago. They have been on sale for over a year now in various electronics stores for $99 Cdn. The Americans had a government rebate program that would kick money back, which is where that $40 cost for a box number came from. I haven't heard if Canada will have a similar program. Me, I couldn't care less! I have very few shows I like anymore. I've gotten to the point where I don't care about the quality of the delivery vehicle, whether it's HD or 3D or BlueRay or whatever. It's the CONTENT that's important! You can print a book on cheap or expensive paper but if the story sucks who cares? Since Reality TV became the rage I spend less and less time watching TV. If it wasn't for the rest of the family I would cancel my cable. It's just SOOO BORING!

Of course he wasn't "disavowed" until the scandals, Molly! How on earth can you disavow someone if you don't yet know anything bad about him? I would agree that Jaffer and perhaps his wife have been revealed as hypocrites of the highest order. However, people are fallible. There was a time when Chuck Guite was held in high esteem within the Liberal Party. For that matter, there was a time when the Liberal Party itself was held in high esteem. I've posted before that I have had first hand knowledge of "slimy" behaviour on the part of a highly placed NDP figure. So what? We can all draw examples from all parties. I'd be willing to grant that even Elizabeth May had some indiscretions in her youth. Hopefully, for her sake! I'll also agree that the Tories might provide more contrast to such incidents by appearing more of a "straight and narrow" bunch. However, I wouldn't push that point, if I were you. The logical converse is that the other parties would have to be LESS "straight and narrow". In other words, "wide and crooked"! I don't like the Liberal Party for their culture of arrogance and entitlement. I despise the NDP as a party even more, for their philosophy of bleeding the capable and hardworking. Still, I would never tar every Liberal and every NDP member with the same brush! There are some very fine people within those parties. I don't define good character as only those who agree with my beliefs!

Quoting "the poor" is like quoting "society". It's just some imaginary entity someone can claim to speak for to prop up their argument, with little fear of being corrected. It is usually used when some collective agency wants to screw over some individual. The claim is made that "it's for the good of society!". Somehow we all pay more but society as a whole never seems to actually be improved. Ayn Rand had one of the best definitions of "society" in this context. It went something like "Society is everyone in general yet no one in particular but it is never, ever YOU!"

I don't share your interpretation. I agree he can be quite petulant but it's just a partisan stretch to say he doesn't quickly axe people just because he resents being pushed to do it. No, it's simply good strategy. Why make an issue bigger than it is? That's just handing the opposition more fuel for their flames. Much better to try to keep things as low key as possible. That was Chretien's strategy for years and it worked well. He carried it a bit further, in that he would keep denying a problem with one of his MPs far past the point when it was blatantly obvious to the world. Still, quite often things just blew over and went away. This was frustrating to the Opposition but why should Chretien have cared?

Well, she is married, after all. In fact, her husband Jaffer is a known drug user. Perhaps he has a lot of drug money? Failing that, their two incomes and resources may be enough. Doesn't really matter. The CPC owes her nothing about her personal finances. Her house and debts are her and I presume, her husband's problems. Harper likes to let people go as quietly as possible, to minimize the damage. Give it a bit more time. She's toast! She brought it on herself. People are entitled to make mistakes but her mistakes damaged the party name. No party can forgive this. Unless the offender is Hedy Fry and a member of the Liberal party, of course!

This might be appropriate, Michael: "Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship" "'Dracula's in charge of the blood bank'" "Exclusive The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it. Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday. But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/ " It's always the details that tell the real story, isn't it?

Suppose for the sake of argument that you are right about Harper's motives. How does this change any of Pliny's points about what makes a political party valid with real popular support and not just another snout in the trough?

e have a House based on population. It's called the House of Commons. The problem is that with only one effective house there is no protection for a small province or region from the wishes of a larger one. If Ottawa decided to institute another National Energy Program to screw Alberta, or to take all the oil profits away from Newfoundland, the large provinces can successfully pass such legislation, because of their higher number of seats based on their population. The very purpose of having a Senate, or Upper House, is to have one that gives equal power to each province. This would give PEI the same power as Ontario to be a check on any unfair legislation. This is the reason that tiny Rhode Island has the same number of Senators as California. A two House system is one with checks and balances between regions and populations. So it would appear that your second option of giving all provinces the same number of seats is the better one. To have unequal numbers of Senators for different regions, based on their population, would make any new Senate as useless and unfair as what we have now.

Waldo got you fair and square, Shady. The CD tax is the heir to the blank cassette tax instituted by Sheila Copps years ago! It's simply a hidden tax, already applied before the point of sale. As a point of interest, while I can't speak for the same tired old artists who have been receiving virtually all of the Canadian content royalty money for radio play all these years I CAN say that in my business I've met hundreds of new Canadian artists who have never seen a nickel of Sheila's money... Go figure! What else is new? Welcome to Canada!

The Opposition supporters can say what they like but it still boils down to the plain and simple fact that Conservative supporters will shell out from their own pocket for what they perceive as a more positive government. Supporters of other parties obviously would rather wait for their party to give money to THEM! Different philosophies of life, I guess.

I still remember fundraising with the Reform Party. We didn't get much from millionaires and big business. We got millions of dollars in donations, $10 at a time! Ordinary people giving small amounts that they could afford amounted to a very large sum, indeed. Since then whenever someone tries to tell me that they belong to a political party that would be very popular with Canadians yet can't get anyone to VOLUNTARILY give them a few dollars I just can't take them seriously! The idea that a party can only exist if they get free taxpayers money to me is just an admission that they truly are not popular with ordinary people at all. If someone will throw $10 in the hat that to me is much more "real" than a bunch of politicians passing a law that they can take $10 from every tax payers' wallet. An INVOLUNTARY donation is just an elitist sham!

Most people don't understand how wind power works. However, they love the sound of it! It sounds so "green" and whispers "Save the Planet!" What they don't understand is that because wind power is only there when the wind blows, you can't count on it. So you HAVE to build some more conventional source like a hydro dam or coal/gas burning generator! It has to be available to pick up the slack when your wind turbine isn't moving. Otherwise you only have that power when the wind blows. If you're in an iron lung running on electricity and the wind stops you have to get your power from somewhere or you will die! Politicians like McGuinty know that people don't understand how this works. They set up schemes where if someone puts up a wind turbine they will pay them a price far higher per kilowatt/hour than regular electricity. People read this in the paper and think "Wow! McGuinty is doing a great job! He's saving the planet! I'm going to vote for him!" Nobody notices that someone has to build those backup generators. Who's going to pay for them? That's right! You and me and all the other tax payers! Plus, we pay that super high rate for the wind electricity! Double whammy! What a con!

I'm not ignoring your references. They simply said that China has made some promises. The only thing beyond that is a mention that they are becoming a world leader in photovoltaics. The references didn't actually state that China was using all they made. Outside of one desert installation the rest of their production might well be for export. In other words, to land in Canadian Tire for US to use and not China! As for having confidence in the U.S. or Canada re: emission levels, our faults are not an excuse for China. Two wrongs don't make a right. That being said, I've grown up in a town with two of the biggest steel plants in the country, Stelco and Dofasco. Anyone in this town is well aware of the money and labour these plants have spent on cleaning up the waste and emissions from their operations. That alone inspires some confidence, certainly more than with China.

I label it as "lip service" 'cuz I have no confidence China will actually DO IT! Or at least, not in the manner or to the extent of what they promise today. As for your "manufacturing" argument, China may have accepted the manufacturing business but who held a gun to their head and said they must make those products without attention to modern "green" techniques? Canadian steel makers must spend the money for scrubbers and a whole host of "clean" technologies in making their product. China spends zilch! Is that the fault of "western countries, particularly the U.S."? More simply, are they "dirty" because we FORCE them to be "dirty" or have they chosen to operate in such a manner because they SAVE THE EXTRA COSTS, HAVE MUCH MORE COMPETITIVELY PRICED PRODUCTS TO SELL AND MAKE A LOT MORE MONEY!

Again, I don't follow your reasoning. You state YOUR interpretation of the Koran! I won't deny there are numbers of Muslims who share your interpretation. However, how does that mean that EVERY Muslim takes those words in the Koran literally? The Bible makes some pretty far out statements but it is obvious that not EVERY Christian takes them as literal truth! Are you implying that EVERY Christian takes every word of the Bible as literal truth, the same as every Muslim accepts the Koran? There are some things about the Canadian Charter of Rights that don't sit well with me but since I am a Canadian does that mean I MUST believe in every word? Or that ALL Canadians DO? You don't appear to be very logical in your arguments so far.

"Every muslim's duty...", how do you know every muslim believes this? Certainly a percentage of them appear to believe this way but "...Every...", isn't that kind of a stretch? Have you spoken to all of them? Have you evidence of some polling information? I'm not denying the danger of some fundamentalist Islamists. Even if only 5% of Muslims held such views that represents a huge number of potentially dangerous individuals. Even more dangerous, if that 5% are the ones with guns and bombs. I just can't see how you can paint ALL Muslims as being intolerant and violent! I've known a number of younger Muslims and they have assimilated very well. Frankly, they would laugh at you for including them in your fears! Older folks tend to be more set in their ways but still, the Muslim culture of a Shia who left Iran in the days of the Shah is vastly different from that of some primitive thug from the holocaust of Sudan or Ruanda. Have you ever considered that by painting more rational individuals with the same brush as you do with the more primitive and violent you can easily spurn the support of those who are more sane?

I really don't know where's the "action". Nowhere, I hope! I've been the kid who devoured science books since kindergarten all my life. I rode the high tech wave selling microcomputer chips from their invention and sold the world's first personal computers, pre-IBM XT! I make my living with electronic repairs. Not despite that background but BECAUSE of it, I don't buy into much of "green" premise, as regards CO2, other gases, man made global warming and other associated beliefs! However, real or not, China is enjoying a huge advantage by only paying lip service to the environmental issues. It's a big part of why they've taken so many of our jobs. We put increased costs on domestic manufacturing in Canada and then totally ignore imported products that have no such costs. Frankly, I think it's insane! Failing being able to waste money on "green" issues in the first place, I would support retaliatory duties and tariffs against those countries like China who do not make the same investments into cleaner manufacturing.

So they've signed on. <yawn> They've signed on to lots of things over the years. They say they agree to monitoring and reporting. Wow! While they're at it, perhaps they can get the poison out of the pet food. Or their milk. Or the lead paint off all those Barbie doll accessories sold at WalMarts everywhere. Perhaps they'll open up their search engines, maybe allow Google without censorship! I saw one of their spokesman on the tube the other day claiming the way they handle the Internet is within the standards of most other nations. Gee, they must also be ready to start respecting intellectual property rights! All those warlords in the Chinese parliament will close up their factories where they knock off CDs, movie DVDs and the latest software offerings. In fact, if things are as you claim they must be ready to pull all their spies out of Canada! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/15/spies050615.html "Two Chinese defectors say the Chinese government has a network of more than 1,000 spies and informants in Canada. The two men were diplomats in Australia, where they are now seeking political asylum. They say Australia and other countries such as the United States have Chinese spy networks operating inside them too. The defectors say the spies and informants have orders to disrupt the Falun Gong movement, which China calls "a dangerous cult," and to steal commercial and scientific secrets. Chen Yongleen, the first secretary of the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, defected two weeks ago. He was followed a short time later by Hao Fengjing, a low-ranking Chinese intelligence officer." Perhaps we should wait and see before we give them credit as you seem to want to instantly do. For such an argumentative fellow you seem amazingly trusting. Actions speak louder than words.