Wild Bill

I suspect that "His mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries!" I taunt him! Excuse me. I feel the need to go for a "silly walk".

I'm confused why everyone is feeling so warm and bilingually touchy-feely when Quebec is essentially officially unilingual! Just look at the highway signs around Toronto on the 401 and compare them to around Montreal. When I come home across the Burlington Skyway to Hamilton there are signs in French telling me that my lane must exit. I see nothing comparable in Quebec. Seems to me Ignatieff is trying to suck and blow at the same time.

I find your suggestion to be doubleplusungood!

What are you implying? That embarrassing Dion once was enough to get a Senate appointment? I didn't realize it was still so easy. The last time I heard of a petty, small time appointment was when Trudeau appointed his chauffeur.

While you're looking that up, you might consider that the chances of someone who denies TOE getting a JOB in the biological sciences is about as likely as someone getting a job as an accountant yet never took any math! That's the problem with fundamentalist religious doctrines contradicting science. In most scientific areas, the fundamentalist explanations won't work! Try to develop a new flu vaccine without using evolutionist principles and see how far you get. Moreover, try to inspire someone enough to hire you! Any scientist would have zero confidence that you would be of any use as an employee.

Yep! Nothing will change. We either have a western party that can't please the East or an Eastern Party that can't please the West. I'm beginning to believe that the peoples involved are so different that it may be impossible to please everybody. Perhaps Canada should break up! This situation has been going on for decades, with no signs of changing. A party that can't field a reasonable number of seats in all regions of the country cannot possibly be said to be a truly national party. This is a failure of both the Tories and the Liberals.

Difficulties? It scares the hell out of us! When you don't care about individuals then you have no protection from the 'mob'. If the mob makes a mistake then you're screwed if you're in their way or have something they want. Galileo was persecuted because the mob believed the Sun and everything else went around the Earth. Uncounted numbers of people have been hung or burned at the stake because the mob did not allow an individual to hold a contrary opinion, even if he was right! I have nothing against Christians in general but a good number of them these days seem to WANT to have those days back! I hate to trigger Godwin's Law but I think these examples are appropriate. Two of the most advanced models of 'the people's will...not caring about individualism that much' would be Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Before I would EVER trust 'the people's will' I would have to be shown much better reasons to TRUST the fairness and accuracy of that will! Historically, 'the people's will' has been often dead wrong. Ironically, all that being said, it still seems to me that here in Canada at least we still don't have ENOUGH populism in our government! Everything often should be in a balance and it always seems that we at least have too much of an elitist system. Moreover, usually when someone implies they speak 'the will of the people' they have nothing to back that up. They just say that to make it sound like they have majority support. I'm reminded of the Ayn Rand definition of 'the good of society' which went something like: "Society is everyone in general and no one in particular, but it is never, ever YOU!"

"Them's as can't teach, administrate!" Sorry. Cheap shot, I know. Too many years of seeing parallels in 'Dilbert' with my places of employ. I have both teachers and CUPE members in my family. I feel sorry for them. What strikes me strongest, however, is how they seem to think that their workplace environment is the 'norm' for all places everywhere. They have little or no idea that they actually work in a unique environment. Going from Dion to Ignatieff was at least a step up in common sense intelligence. Still, the Liberals do seem fixated on having an academic as their leader. My experience has been that academics rarely have any first hand experience with much of anything. They feel it's enough that they've "read the book" and can teach it in a very articulate manner. That sort of perspective, or rather lack of it, can get you into deep trouble.

Tell it to Jane Creba. Or Tori Stafford. Oops! You can't! They're dead! Oh well, quote those stats to their loved ones. I'm sure they'll be comforted.

Have the Greens thought very deeply about this? First off, the farther away the source of your product or service the higher the shipping and transportation costs. In a free market no one can afford to swallow this. They would have to include it in their price. Obviously a local source would have an advantage. What's more, in the real world they will come smack up against all the subsidies governments of many countries have used to 'rig' trade in their favour. China refuses to let its currency value float like that of any other, keeping it unnaturally low to give themselves a huge labour cost advantage. European farmers have huge subsidies to make their food cheaper. Why do you think that I can see strawberries from the former Yugoslavia in my local supermarket at a cheaper price than local? Since they are fresh they must have come by air freight, which isn't cheap at all! It's impossible for this to happen unless there is a huge subsidy. How on earth do the Greens expect to deal with this? They would need a bureaucracy larger than that for the Liberal gun registry to examine all the products we import and levy a duty or tariff based on the true transportation cost. They would then be forced to correct for any subsidies. Otherwise they would totally swamp out any correction levied just for transportation. After all this, they would have to deal politically with all these countries, who will be screaming so loud they would be heard clear around the planet! If this idea is typically of how deeply the Greens think things out, it's another reason why they have a long way to go before they are ready to govern.

Whose shoes do you wear? Were they handed to you on top of Mt. Sinai?

Large numbers do, even in Canada! Or are you implying that you personally know the majority of folks and their views? You remind me of how Stockwell Day's evangelical supporters seemed to think that rather than a small minority they represented some 'silent majority'. Day governed as if that were true and was promptly and severely proven wrong.

That was my point! The original greek scrolls are 2000 years old! The King James version was written in the time of King James and released in 1611. It would seem that virtually all Bibles in use today in English speaking countries are relatively modern translations of translations. However, the fact that there ARE so many contradictions means that it is illogical to use a Bible as proof of much of anything. As a moral guide it is accepted by many people but to take it as absolute truth is purely a matter of opinion. To take it as a Law of a society is yet another thing altogether.

It's simpler for me. I have no interest in boycotting everything for every reason, just to be fair. I arbitrarily pick and choose what's important to ME! I don't care about religions, I accept that (only from my personal experience) most Quebecois only care about Quebec and I don't make a distinction between hurting China's people vs. their government. It's THEIR government and only they can change it! As I said, I can't save the world and more than that, I feel no personal responsibility to do so. I just pick certain areas that offend me and sometimes do what I can on a personal level. If you try to fix EVERYTHING you spread yourself out so much that you can't do ANYTHING effectively!

Something is being missed in this thread. It has to do with 'consent to be governed'. Long ago in Britain justice was an individual thing. Someone robbed you, you tried to steal things back. Someone killed one of your clan, you took the life of one of theirs. Naturally, such a primitive system had flaws. Mistakes were often made, grudges and even blood feuds lasted for generations. Also, there was the problem that victims often were those possessing much less power than their oppressors. Slowly improvements were made. Citizens began to be recognized as having inherent rights. Justice began to be administered by clan chiefs and civic leaders. Eventually, justice became known as flowing from the King or monarch. You no longer had the right to take justice into your own hands. What helped things along was the understanding that the ruler could do a better job for you at justice than usually you could do for yourself. As long as the King was seen to be reasonably fair, impartial and EFFECTIVE then the average man was content. This was the birth of the concept of 'consent to be governed'. Somehow, in the last 50 or 60 years, we have allowed a disconnect to occur between what a victim might consider justice and the effectiveness of the state at administering such. It's all very well to decide that a murderer should not be put to death for his crime, out of some concept of 'humanity'. Sadly, the victim often does not agree. Yet his or her views are repeatedly 'blown off' as coming from someone 'too emotionally involved' or 'not dispassionate enough'. Sentences are often perceived as being too light for the severity of a crime. There is a popular conception that not only does the state no longer care about the victims, it will punish any victim who attempts to take the law into his own hands more harshly than the actual criminal! Sadly, there are numerous examples of this in the news almost every day. Perhaps it deserves its own thread but can it be healthy for a society if this disconnect is allowed to grow? What happens to the popular 'consent to be governed' if the state is perceived as no longer interested in administering true justice? It doesn't matter if you believe in capital punishment or not, or if you think the justice system is too lax or too harsh. That popular conception of the state not doing a better job at justice than an individual can do for himself is there, its real, and it's being fed every day by the actions of the state. This is not a healthy state of affairs. Perhaps others may have some thoughts as to where this may end up.

So why should a company try to be more efficient if not to lower its costs so that it's profit margin is higher? Why should there be competition? Well, as a consumer, I want to buy the better product at the better price. I get infuriated if I buy something that looks good but turns out to be junk! So I seek another producer. Is that not competition? If there is a company with a better product with perhaps a better price, how am I expected to know about it if there is no advertising? Remember Machjo, 50% of consumers are guys and we HATE browsing! Women may shop for entertainment but men shop with a mission. We tend to do a little research as to where we can find what we want at the best price, drive there, buy it and then get the hell out! I boycotted a local mall for over 20 years because it was the only one in the area that for some reason would not put up a directory. If I couldn't quickly find what I was looking for I refused to go there at all. If the world went your way I think I would never buy anything ever again! Mind you, I could use with buying a bit less food...

By any chance, are you related to Pee Wee Herman? "I know you are, but what am I?" Sorry to interrupt you during that delicate brain operation...

Did it actually grow? Do you have anything to back that up? I suspect that the same people who were always against him just got louder! My point is that things were never actually tested with an election. We just had a bunch of folks who never wanted a Harris style government make sure we didn't have any choice, who then told us that was what we all wanted anyway! It feels like manipulation, to me. Even within the Tory party itself, there has always been a struggle between the Red and Blue Tory factions. The only reason Harris got the leadership in the first place was because the party was so far down in the polls the usual power brokers thought they had no chance and so let him get the job by default. They were totally shocked when he won his first huge majority and immediately started thinking of how to take the party back to a less right-wing style. They got their wish with Eves but promptly lost the election! That's why I say that to these people, it's better not to govern at all than to not be Pink Tories. I'm a techie. To me, if it never passes a real test then it is simply opinion, not fact. By those lights, the idea that the majority of Ontario voters no longer want a Harris style government is just an opinion.

Would that be because you know that the majority of Canadians might disagree? That since "the way it is" supports your own personal views then populist democracy be damned? Explain to me how that is not simple elitism.

A school friend of mine later went on to become a priest in the Orthodox church. As part of his education he studied the original greek scrolls that were later translated to become the modern Bible. I was very surprised when he told me how many MIS-translations there are in the King James version of the Bible! First off, for the creationist crowd, in the original greek Adam was not a proper name. It was a plural noun meaning "mankind". Sure puts a different spin on Genesis, doesn't it? As for your point Topaz, the Commandment never said "Thou shalt not kill." It said "Thou shalt not murder." That also shows how we have a major misconception! However, it seems these days anybody can write any old version of the Bible they want and insist that it's the only true one so I doubt if going back to the original words will ever happen.

One thing's for sure, as a people we will NEVER, EVER be allowed to vote on capital punishment in a binding referendum! Or even a non-binding one for that matter. The last thing our politicians want is any proof that there is a disconnect between the will of the people and the actions of governments...ALL governments! We get a lot of convoluted arguments as to how the status quo is what we really want, we just don't know it. Or we are told that the majority of us are against it, polls to the contrary. Or most elitist of all, that some of us know what's good and moral better than the rest of us and so have the right to force their choice on us all. Plus ca change...plus ca meme chose.

You're picking apart my model instead of my point, by dragging it into a sidebar. How does the number of suicide bombers in Canada change my point?

One thing's for sure, any vintage aircraft volunteers in Canada will think carefully before investing time and effort with the Canadian Air Force again.

I don't know if Flanagan has a 'hidden agenda'. I don't have enough facts to venture an opinion! I also agree that you used that word 'appeared'. That's not my point. The average reader would not have read your post from a lawyer's viewpoint. The IMPLICATION of your post was that we were dealing with facts, not appearances! Perhaps this is why you keep getting accused of being a 'shill for the Liberal party'. Your intentions may be honourable but your style often seems pure 'Kinsella'. Or maybe you ARE deliberately being a 'spinmeister'! I have insufficient facts to make that claim but I can see how someone might take that view. I don't believe that of you myself. I think you are just very fervent in your support for your chosen party. I'm just pointing out to you WHY some others may take your meaning differently from the way you say you actually meant it!

Hmm. You keep writing posts stating premises as if they are backed by facts. Then when you're challenged you backpedal with statements like the above, which you yourself admit are your beliefs, or rather your opinions. You didn't say that in your opening post. Jdobbin, I don't think you are doing this deliberately. It might to you some good to think about it, however.