Wild Bill

Mr. C., did I once vote for you?

You don't tell the truth! You tell your opinion! There's a difference. If you want someone to believe you then you need to convince them with an argument that makes sense to them. Some folks here are saying that you are not honest in your arguments, that your comparisons are deliberately inaccurate. No one is saying that you personally are dishonest. They are saying that your ARGUMENTS are intellectually dishonest! You may believe them yourself but you are not convincing others in this thread.

I think you should climb down from your ivory tower once in a while, Dave! We could grant that you are 100% correct in your argument. It still misses the most important thing! If the system is perceived as no longer doing its job and protecting citizens and their property then the citizens will lose faith. Once that happens it is only logical to believe that you have no choice but to protect yourself. The state no longer is doing that job, at least not effectively. More simply, people don't turn vigilante because of long-suppressed desires to drive a pickup truck with a gun rack and a need to be called "Bubba". They do it because they come to believe they are on their own! All the rhetoric about how it is better to leave justice in the hands of the State is just hot air to someone who no longer has faith in the state. We have some real and serious examples of the state not doing its job. This is causing a loss of faith in the citizenry. How is the State reacting to this? We've seen that as well. If someone takes the law into their own hands they get a harsher punishment than that given to the criminal! Meanwhile, the system continues to operate as before. Sticking to just the shopkeepers issue, it is only logical for any shopkeeper to lose faith that the system will properly protect them. They see it everyday! You are not going to change their mind with rhetoric. Imposing harsh sentences on them for protecting themselves only confirms their perception. Once people lose faith it requires much more effort to win it back. Charging people like Mr. Chen is certainly not going to do it!

I was thinking more about terrorists disguising themselves with burkas...

Wrong again, Topaz! At least where I live. Ch 70 on cable carries the federal stuff and Ch 71 carries the provincial. I watch them often.

Not necessarily, AG. We could just enforce the laws we have! Members from other provinces should appreciate that this failure to protect shopkeepers and defend property is very significant here in Ontario. We see such stories as Mr. Chen's all the time. I still remember one from over 10 years ago from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. There was a jewelry story owner who had been robbed so many times that he could no longer get insurance. The police and the justice system had done essentially nothing but make noises to reporters. Finally, out of frustration he took the law into his own hands and got a shotgun. He was not entirely crazy about it. He loaded it with rock salt and not a more dangerous load. Inevitably, he was again robbed and he fired at a fleeing robber. He did NOT shoot directly at him but rather fired at the ground behind him, intending to warn and scare him, perhaps getting him to stop. Unfortunately for the shopkeeper, some pieces of salt richocheted off the ground and bounced up to strike the robber in the legs. I'm sure any Canadian who has paid attention to our justice system already knows how this turned out. Yep, the storekeeper was charged and received a harsher sentence than the robber! The storekeeper is out of business. No insurance and no one was going to buy his store to be in the same position as he was! So he took a loss on his equity as well. I think our justice system is well aware of its failings but would rather "shoot the messenger" to keep the facade in place than actually fix its failings.

LIke auto or medical insurance, perhaps?

I've read all your posts in this thread. I think you may not realize that you illustrate a difference in POV as old as Canada. You seem to think of the country as Quebec and TROC! This story is indeed more of a provincial matter. As such, you might assume that it should receive half the attention of the national news. Yet to someone in Saskatchewan, it is on a par with stories not just from Quebec but from any other province. The story competes with "man bites dog" stories from PEI or Manitoba. Also, Liberal corruption stories are no longer as big a deal as they once were. After Adscam, there is a widespread notion of "what else is new?" among the common people. It may not be entirely fair, but it is what it is. As for these stories coming from Quebec, we've been hearing this stuff since the days of Maurice Duplessis. So it is natural that they are not treated as "unexpected". Besides, "politician" is a bilingual word! ANY stories about ANY politician and corruption have gotten to be "old news". Again, I find it interesting to see that "Canada is 50/50, Quebec and all the other anglo provinces" perspective. I can understand why Quebecois feel that way but I think they are being rather "provincial" (pardon the pun!) to think that Canadians in BC or Nfld. think the same way. What's more, I don't follow your putting blame on Harper. It almost sounded like you blame him more than the Liberals! You seem to be saying that the only federalist choice in Quebec is the Liberals and if they are tainted then separation is the only option. If I've misunderstood you please clarify.

Haven't had a peek at the book yet but there was a large article in the Post about it. Among other things it said that the General got along well with Harper and also McKay, the defence minister. His real problem was with the Prime Minister's Office staff! As for respect, at least Harper has pumped SOME money into the military budget. You can argue about how much and how fast but compared to a decade of Liberal budgets it's quite an improvement. At least it wasn't Harper's government who initially sent our boys over to Afghanistan with Arctic camouflage and then didn't pay for something more suitable! They left our boys to either buy their own or spray paint what they had! That was disgraceful!

Here is a quick quote that seems pertinent: "We have accepted as true the belief that we are responsible for global warming and a growing hole in the ozone layer - without scientific evidence. We have faith in disaster. Scientists have a considerable financial stake in our continuing to believe that these problems threaten our lives and must be solved. They get paid for it." The quote is from a book from Kary Mullis, the biochemist who first invented the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR. This was what enabled us to decode and chart the DNA molecule. He was awarded the Nobel and Japan Prizes. His book is titled "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" and is a fabulous read! He is the antithesis of the traditional "stuffed lab coat", being a self-confessed hippy who took LSD and loves surfing! He is also absolutely brilliant yet strikingly down to earth and focused with his powers of analysis when viewing any scientific problem. He tears many of the sacred cows of modern "trendy" science to shreds. Despite his being a "black sheep" to the orthodoxy, his intellectual and scientific prowess cannot be disputed. Yet he writes in a clear style limning out the science in a manner easily grasped by the layman. Some posters are claiming that we laymen must accept the view of "their" professionals and stay out of any debate or decision making, since laymen are by definition just too dumb to be allowed to have an opinion. Well, Mullis is just one of many "deniers" with eminent professional credentials. Why shouldn't we accept HIM?

By that reasoning, why have any editorial cartoons at all? Why have satire? The cartoons in Denmark were about fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. The satire was about the apparent contradiction between "a religion of peace" and terrorist acts. The protests actually highlighted the irony. We witnessed fanatics burning and even murdering as a protest against cartoons that suggested they committed violence! Editorial cartoons have a tradition of over a century of using humour to highlight inconsistencies with "official truths". If they were eliminated or "sanitized" it would be a poorer world. Imagine a world run by the Ned Flanders types!

I don't! I've followed Kyle Rae's career for years and I've never found him to be very logical. Passionate for his causes, yes. Logical, no. I think Rae believes equality to be special treatment, preferably with lots of public money for his pet causes. He's just another socialist with an agenda. I couldn't care less about Rae being gay. I just worry about my wallet if he's around!

You're quite right! I missed it the first time I read the link. I went back over it again and saw that in Feb of 2008 many Danish newspapers reprinted the most controversial cartoon as a protest to support free speech. Oh well, as Emily Litella (Gilda Radner) used to say, "Never mind!" I'm quite glad I read the article. I never realized that it was western countries like Canada, the USA and Britain that actually "wussed out" the most on this issue. My schooling always led me to believe that the New World was the champion of rights, as an inheritance from Britain and France. I was taught that it was old Europe that was more feeble and decadent. Yet on this issue it would appear that Denmark and many other countries are well ahead of us!

I should think it obvious, Michael! Denmark may have officially upheld the right to publish such cartoons but in PRACTICE everyone is afraid to do such a thing again! How does a right that you dare not to exercise matter? I'm describing the difference between what's "official" and what's real.

No Michael, it does not! In my question I agreed that the controversy started by Denmark publishing the cartoons. What's important is what Denmark did after things hit the fan! Publishing in the first place was a normal part of freedom of speech. Standing up and defending the right of freedom of speech in the face of opposition is what shows character! Anybody can just "make with the talk". Here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Post...ons_controversy It's a bit long but I encourage folks to read the whole thing. Otherwise one may not realize that it looks rather sanitized and politically correct. Wiki reports the debate after the violence and murders started about free speech and also talks about decisions "not to publish blasphemy against religions". This is where the "rubber meets the road". After reading the entire article it seemed to me that Denmark had caved in! Understandably perhaps, since the violence levels were terrible but they didn't need to allow the opposition the facade of not insulting a religion. The idea of not offending any religion looks like a whitewash, a rationalization to limit free speech without admitting that's what you're actually doing. Free speech in Denmark has become only lines in a Constitution, with no meaning. Free speech but only if you're mute! The fundamentalists won. What's more, Wiki reports that many western countries simply caved in advance, including Canada! That's what led to the HRC inquistion of Ezra Levant. The rationale often used is the one about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as if that's a real parallel. In that example a false alarm causes harm. With the publishing of cartoons in Denmark the harm came from the over-reaction of primitive fundamentalist Islamists. How else could you describe murdering nuns over a cartoon?

All the more reason why I'm puzzled to see Denmark at the top of the list!

Interesting debate you've got going, RW. It seems to me that it's a perfect example to two very different approaches to a scientific premise. One approach is to consider the evidence itself and if consistently invalid lose confidence in the source. The original premise of course is understood to be still unanswered. The other is to first consider the impressiveness of the premise and then consider the character of those presenting the evidence. If the initial impression is favourable and the character inspires trust then all evidence from that source is considered to be gospel. It seems we humans are born hard-wired to use the second approach and must be educated to the scientific method. The second approach is obviously the more popular in our society today. Still, we did get to the Moon! Hopefully we will get enough people living and thriving off this ball of rock that Man will survive despite his irrational nature.

This report came from some group called "Reporters Without Borders". Who are they? Are they a reputable source or just a few university kids that work on their student paper/ Whatever, what I find very hard to understand is that they rated Denmark as #1. How can this be? This is the country that first published those cartoons that upset the Muslims. After the riots and even murders that followed they caved and don't publish anything that might offend that group anymore. How can a country that won't publish anything that might offend some militant group possibly be #1 in "freedom of the press"? This just doesn't make any sense. This report must just be some politically correct spin from some silly group or other.

If you want to quote Rand it's really not fair to cherry pick only those partial ideas that support your argument and ignore the rest! She never wrote that all individuals should do everything themselves. That's ridiculous to the extreme. Your model would be more correct if there were a number of individuals on that island who each produced different products or services and FREELY TRADED the fruits of their labours with each other! If necessary the group would form a government, to insure that nobody ripped off another individual by force or coercion. We owe our wealth to the product of all individuals, not to any collective governing body. The problem when you say "Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated." is that "society" is a vague and nebulous term. Most governments claim to act for the will and the good of society and appear to do a very poor job of it. The problem is always the same - how do you accurately reflect that good and that will? Somehow it always seems that small groups manage to bleed from the producers in the name of "society", since no one can prove them wrong. Rand once said this about your idea: "Society is everyone in general and nobody in particular, but it's never, ever YOU!" I prefer a more succinct quote by P. T. Barnum - "Makers, takers and fakers. There are NO other kinds!"

Gee, that makes one wonder. It's the 1970's and in some fundamentalist Islamic country that sponsors terrorism the new custom of the burka suddenly appears...

That contradicts what I've always heard. Can you give us a cite for the claim that C02 emissions from volcanoes is small? Are volcanoes the ONLY source of natural C02? I just can't accept your claims without some backup.

Back in the mid 80's I took a job at a small department of a long-established one-time big but now shrinking manufacturer. I had just came from the high tech world of selling newfangled computer chips and was quite 'leading edge' in using personal computers. Immediately I saw the most amazing situation with my immediate manager. Quite probably I was the only one in the building to recognize it but being the new kid I knew enough to keep my mouth shut! This guy was using one of the first spreadsheet programs to draft up business plans and forecasts. He had stuff all over the page about projected sales, costs, profits, volumes and everything you could think up. He had numbers all over the pages that looked simply great! He was impressing the hell out of HIS bosses and getting all kinds of support for his pet projects. There was just one problem. All the hard numbers in his spreadsheets came from assumptions. He seemed to just pull guesses out of his ass and let the spreadsheets replicate them into an impressive report! No one else ever seemed to ask "Where did that cost come from?" or "Where did that projection of annual units sold come from?" They just saw the spreadsheet and were blown away by how you could change one number and the program would instantly make every other number jive with the new input. Eventually of course that manufacturer had to start downsizing and there went my job. I think there's just a parking lot left where I used to work. It was a good life lesson. Never again did I assume that management knew what they were doing! That's the problem with computer models. The first big and bad example was probably the one from the Club of Rome about depletion of the earth's resources. It was a very crude program and the program writers had never intended it to be taken as accurate. To them it was just an example of what could be done. Like any model it relied on what basic info was fed into it. If that was wrong or incomplete then you could not expect an accurate answer. When the politicians and academics got hold of it they were ecstatic! It was their new golden calf idol! Or perhaps, a wondrous magic 8 Ball that you shook and waited for the answer to float up to the little window on the side. Billions of dollars and perhaps even billions of people were spent and inconvenienced on false assumptions from a computer model that even its developers understood to not be accurate.

Of course, MM! Why would you expect it to be any different? It's just simple math. I used to do this example on the back of an envelope but it really got easy once we all had spreadsheet programs. Take a guess at how many people make under $25/yr, 50K/yr, 250k/yr and those who make more. Don't worry about being accurate. This works so well that you can be HUGELY wrong and still clearly see the same result! Multiply out the incomes in each category and you will be able to plot a curve, make a pie chart or whatever blows your skirt up! It will be obvious that most of the money comes from the ordinary working Canadian! The poor have no money and while there are some who are super rich, there are not that many of them to add up to nearly as big a chunk of the tax base. Governments go where the money is. You could let all the rich off scot-free and it wouldn't really matter. The rich do serve one useful political function. When we poor peons start to get angry about being screwed too painfully a politician can always say "Look at that rich guy over there! He's not paying his share!". As a diversion it works great! We go chasing after the rich guy while the politician, safely off the hook, sits back and laughs at us.

Well, perhaps the degree has changed. The politicians seem to be much better at being slimy!

You must live in Hamilton! I'm waiting for the day when they miss one week and then want to charge you for the extra bags at the next pickup!