Wild Bill

Who cares? Only a minority of people are suicide bombers. THOSE are the ones to fear! The majority of jocks shower after a game. Would you feel comfortable sitting with the minority? I swear, most Canadians must be bailing out of math around Grade 6 these days...

There seems to be some "digital" thinking in this thread. Some folks believe that man is recent to North America. Others believe that he may have arrived here several hundred thousand years ago. It's a big continent. That's a big time frame. I would think it more likely that man could have come here several times! His settlements may have thrived or died out for various lengths of times. To insist on only one arrival hardly seems scientific to me.

"There is only ONE race! The human race! And so say we all!" ---Cmdr. Adama of Battlestar Galactica

None! That's not what I'm suggesting. Retaliation in this instance is simply a games theory strategy. There are always those who twist the Golden Rule. They count on their opponent turning the other cheek. They take it for granted that they can break rules while their rival will be bound by them. To persist in being a noble "boy scout" results in only one outcome. You lose! End of story. Certain countries practice this philosophy all the time, particularly with trade. They will sign a deal to get you to take their exports and then find all sorts of sneaky ways to prevent your exports from getting a market in their country. There are very few American cars in Japan. Lots of weaselly reasons but the net result is Japan sells lots of cars to us and we sell mice nuts to them. The Americans ship grapes across the Niagara river into Canada all the time. If our farmers try to ship product their way it is held for "inspections". The holding time is long enough to spoil the product. The Europeans are probably the most subsidized farmers on the planet! With the highest rates of protectionism. Governments are too afraid of challenging their farmers. Look at the French. Their farmers riot at the drop of a hat. The only thing such an opponent understands is being met with equal or greater force. The Eu seal ban looked to them like a free shot. They could get political brownie points in their own countries and lose nothing in trade relationships with Canada. Do you think it was a coincidence that Harper was scheduled to meet the very next week to sign some trade deals to try to get economies moving? I'm simply saying that if we disagree with the EU ban then we have to show the Europeans that there is a cost to what they've done. It seems we can't expect much from Ottawa so we have to do it ourselves. It may be a spit in the wind but I've been picky about the origin of what I buy for some years now. I won't buy a can of mushrooms from China. I still can remember that brave young man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. I would NEVER buy a car made in China unless they improve their human rights record! I do try to be practical about it. I'm under no illusions that I can singlehandedly change the world. It can be very hard to tell where a product came from, especially when it may have been manufactured in several different countries before it was finished. The new labeling laws Harper passed a little while ago are helping. There's still old stock in my supermarket but gradually my choices are becoming clearer. A few weeks ago I was looking at different cans of beans, trying to determine where they originated when I noticed another old guy beside me also reading the label. I asked him "Fussy about where they come from?" He looked right up and smiled, saying "You bet! I've even got my wife and kids doing the same!" It gave me hope!

Perhaps you're too quick to label someone who disagrees with you as a racist! Some of those posts were observations the poster had made about how there seems to be higher percentages of some races in certain situations than others. For instance, I think it might have been Argus who make the point that in the poorer and more crime ridden parts of some towns we tend to see a much higher number of visible minority immigrant faces. This is NOT a racist comment if the numbers bear it out! If we take in too many immigrants who are from poor third world countries and for what ever reasons including education are unable to find jobs then you don't have to be a racist or even a rocket scientist to expect them to end up in those areas. Still, the fault would be ours. We should have screened them better. However, many of them are no doubt refugees and you can't expect refugees to all be engineers. Obviously they are not getting enough support to help them fit in. I'm cynical enough to believe that is because the Liberal government got the photo-op when those poor people entered the country and after that lost interest in them. Anyhow, perhaps you might be a bit too quick to dismiss someone who merely disagrees with you as simply a racist. I know it makes a quick and easy rebuttal but it's really not a positive step towards arriving at any sort of truth. Someone can vote to only have competence based criteria for entry yet believe there are an excessive number of Jamaicans involved in crime around Jane & Finch in Toronto. They may be WRONG when we look at true statistics but their observation is NOT necessarily racist!

I'm glad to see you changed your questions! In your other attempts ALL options included racial criteria! Talk about rigging poll results! I think some folks are hypersensitive to the fact that certain areas of the world DO have a crime problem and DO send us immigrants who are not desirable! I have one friend and workmate from Jamaica who told me that there is one part of Jamaica where all the 'undesirables' live, heavy on crime and violence. He brought his family to Canada to avoid all that. Now he sees other Jamaicans in Canada who came from that part of the island everyday. He firmly believes that they are undesirables and are still engaged in their old habits. I have to accept that he has a closer perspective than I do but nonetheless, I don't find it logical to assume that EVERYONE who lives in a bad part of town is bad themselves! Some folks are just poor! There's no shame in that. There was also a newspaper account last year of a woman who was a refugee from war-torn Sudan. She had fled armed gangs who raped and killed people in vast numbers. She had had family members murdered and been raped herself. She got her family out and brought them to Canada, where they started a new life. She was living in St. Catherines, Ontario and one day in a supermarket she looked up across an aisle to see one of the high ranking officers of those "death squads" she had fled from her home country! Apparently, he was one of those who had raped her! She tried to get some answers from the "system" as to how this fellow could have been allowed into Canada but to no avail. So she went to the press. Anecdotal evidence is not of high value but when there's a LOT of smoke the chances are good we have a fire! What these stories tell us is that the REAL problem with Immigration Canada is not that they have racial quotas that some would disagree with for racist reasons! Rather, the problem is that Immigration Canada must be very poor at screening new immigrants, particularly with the refugee backlog. I guess we should be thankful that Idi Amin never applied to come to Canada.

Please don't confuse me with Mr. Lictor. To me race has nothing to do with intelligence. I meet idiots in all colours and have voted for many of them. Some mornings I'm not so swift myself. I make no value judgements when I refer to racial stock. My point was that if they are that educated they probably could do better in their home country, which likely is farther up the living standard list than Canada. The exception of course would be refugees, which are not likely to be highly educated, although of course some would be. When you speak of production and demand you still seem to be ignoring the fact that our domestic demand is essentially "mice nuts" and could never support most primary industries AT ALL. The domestic auto market IN TOTAL is only 15% of Canadian auto factory production. With no exports none of the factories can survive. Importing immigrants to try to revive the car companies is like trying to hold back the tide. I agree we should be concentrating on finished products. That was one of my main points! As far as hoarding our resources, that's a dangerous game. It was depending too much on natural resources that helped get us into this mess! You see, that's what every 3rd world country relies on, their natural resources! There are lots of them willing to slash their price to earn foreign money, since they have nothing else to trade. For Canada to want to position itself as relying too heavily in this area shows a frightening lack of foresight. When you suggest selling our resources at higher costs you're assuming that competition from those other countries would not be a problem. Trust me, it IS a problem! Anyhow, I don't feel I deserved your cheap shot about being a racist at all. I spoke of immigrants. Who knows or cares what colour they are? If there are no jobs, there are no jobs! Mention Goebbels again and I will invoke Godwin's Law.

"We're not unique..." in the sense of being in a recession? How does having company in our misery change anything? Some might find it comforting but it won't save one business or job. I'm curious as to how you think an economy works. You seem to think it just grows on consumption, that more people means more demand and therefore more money floating around. I don't quite see how that can be true. Wealth comes from providing a product or a service to do with those products. We dig ore from the ground and we make it into steel and then into cars. We grow food and then not only do we provide income for farmers and supermarket checkout tellers but those who make plates and forks as well. However, today it's a global market. The two steel mills here in Hamilton, Ontario could never survive on just the Canadian market. They lose more than that demand to rust! They need export customers around the world to give them the volume to support their business. Alberta's oil and wheat is not sold just to the rest of Canada. So if there will be jobs to be had the significant portion will come from large firms that export to the world. Certainly that will mean a few jobs at car dealerships in your home town and construction jobs to build homes for them but the wealth that is at the very root and heart of all of it comes from large, PRIMARY industries! It's been a while since I had occasion to use the term 'primary industry'. Somehow, such terms just aren't mentioned anymore. I guess some more 'mystical' concept of economics is more popular these days. For those unfamiliar with the concept, primary industries are those that mine or harvest resources and/or are the first steps in the chain of developing them, such as steel makers and car factories. Secondary industries support primary industries, such as home builders and street pavers. Tertiary industries might be restaurants and variety stores. It used to be considered very important to have enough primary industry at the start of the chain. That's where the lion's share of the wealth is produced. Those who receive their wages from working in a variety store usually cannot afford to buy a new car or own their own home. During the wave of immigration to Canada after the Second World War we experienced an explosion in growth for primary industries. The factories built to make tanks and planes now were making cars and toasters, hifis and TV sets. New technologies were offering new products never seen before. We needed those immigrants! We had LOTS of jobs to offer! This is NOT the same situation today! Where is the wealth from jobs in the primary industries? Where will these immigrants get their income? It's not enough to say they will need things so therefore it will make the economy grow if the only place they get their income from is a government cheque paid from the taxes taken from everyone else! That's like thinking you can grow your economy by drafting everyone into the Post Office and have us all send letters to each other! It just doesn't make sense from a math standpoint. Having the company of other countries experiencing this global recession won't help either. Sure immigrants might take some jobs from 'native sons' but in the main it seems to be those variety store jobs or perhaps driving taxis. What other jobs are there? Right now there are ex-factory guys here in Hamilton applying at Tim Hortons! Finally, one point that no one seems willing to even consider is that Canada simply is no longer the attractive destination for immigrants that it once was. The word is getting out that our streets are no longer "paved with gold". Our embassies may not be telling applicants that we have high unemployment rates but families here talk with families "there". The word is spreading. Those folks that think we should be only accepting white Europeans like those who helped build this nation in the 50's are simply naive. Why on earth should those folks want to come to Canada? In the 50's Europe was torn up from the war. Today, their living standard is HIGHER than that of Canada's! Where once we were ranked 6th or 7th we are now somewhere around 17th or lower, after countries like Norway. The only dissenting rankings seem to be from those more leftwing organizations that include subjective opinion factors in their benchmarks like "quality of life" instead of comparing what the average citizen earns and what his paycheque can buy for him. No, if our governments have this idea in their heads that we absolutely MUST have high levels of immigration then we have no choice but to take them from wherever we can get them. This means that most will come from countries even further down that living standard ranking than Canada. Those countries tend to be of different racial stock and often of lower educational standards. Not all the immigrants driving cabs in Toronto are doctors. As a sidebar, I don't really know why but if you look at any construction crew they seem to rarely have many minority faces. I don't know if there's racism in the hiring practices or if they simply don't get applicants! Or maybe it's just my own town. Perhaps if you look around in your town you may see something different. Anyhow, as Gilda Radner used to often say "Details! It's always details!"

I don't think we should dismiss Oleg's view so quickly. To me, it sounded like he was simply being practical. If you are in an overcrowded lifeboat you have to make some hard choices. Otherwise the boat sinks and everybody dies! Oleg and I might disagree if we are truly at that state but he has a legitimate POV. At least he's trying to frame the issue in such practical terms. We never seem to have any debate on whether changes in our national situation have affected our ability to support more or fewer numbers of immigrants. Right now is not 1954 when we had a huge demand for factory and construction jobs. We have vast numbers of people thrown out of work. Have we adjusted our immigration quotas? Where are these people supposed to get jobs to feed themselves and their families? Are we even telling them the situation has changed so much before we allow them to come in? The papers have had a number of stories about the bitter disappointment many immigrants have suffered. Some have gone back or re-emmigrated to a different country. "Loving your neighbour as yourself" doesn't guarantee you will have enough extra to feed him, or that he will be able to feed himself. To not bother to think of such things is simply cruel, even if unintended. To my mind, Oleg is simply asking pertinent questions. He deserves a more practical response. If he's wrong, PROVE him wrong!

Who's arguing? I was pointing out the flaws in some other folks suggestions! Even with the Australian example someone mentioned that they have an 80% turnout. That means 20% were content to just pay the fine. Your point just enhances the silliness of trying to force people to be more involved. I hadn't thought of your point that they could just show up and spoil their ballot to avoid the fine. Quite true. So outside of a few political junkies like ourselves, explain to me again how a more "proportional" system would make a significant percentage of those non-voters more active.

Quite true! Making voting mandatory or even STV-type changes will not change basic attitudes among a certain percentage of the population. A mandatory vote would simply be swamped out in randomness as people just marked their X anywhere to escape a fine. Thinking that simply getting the numbers up is the same as making people more politically motivated sounds like yet another 'Liberal' solution, where "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

"I don't know where I'm comin' from, But I just met a girl name of Dynamo Hum!" ---Frank Zappa

Why would I be so childish as to 'report' you? I'm simply gathering information to make my own estimation of your character. I find it ironic to find myself defending your attacks on Harper considering I'm not his biggest fan these days but then again, I would even defend Ignatief from someone who attacked with your tactics. You see, I believe in fairness and justice for all, including those I don't like. Then again, I'm not a modern Liberal. I really think you are nitpicking in your alibi. Your descriptions about Harper's behaviour are not facts, of course, but merely your opinion. To vent your opinions in such an insulting manner may be within the letter of the law but hardly within its spirit. Then again, is that not one of the fundamental aspects of a modern liberal? To nitpick with legalisms while the spirit of a law is ignored? In my humble opinion, of course.

When I had my heart bypass there was a man in my ward who was an aboriginal. Nice fellow. I'm not sure if he would agree with you. If you had your way he would have died!

Would this be considered insulting? "The accidental Albertan will never get a majority. He is a sociopath in that he would rather attack than govern. He is opportunists who cares nothing for Canada, only power and prestige that comes with being PM. As soon as he leaves politics, he'll be on a plane to work for FOX News. Accidental Albertan, nothing more." What about this one? "Looks like Harper the mad dog sociopath is back." Or this? "And that is why the Liberals are going to come our on the offensive right back that Harper is a mad dog sociopath intent on attacking rather than governing." There are lots more.

The band "Ten Years After" sang it 30 years ago! "Tax the rich! Feed the poor! Till there are No rich no more." I believe the next line was : "Tell me, where is sanity?"

I saw it last Wednesday. At the first scene showing everyone going in and out of Starfleet HQ I burst out in laughter. EVERYONE was in red! Oh boy, I thought. There's a LOT of folks gonna get it in this one!

Thanks, Molly! I've bookmarked that one for some friends.

Hey Wilber, I'm an old guy! To me, evolution stopped with Loni Anderson in her prime!

Wouldn't deny it! Except maybe there's an evolutionary argument to be made. What I'm talking about is being scientific in criticizing it and with modifying it. STV and similar schemes have a scientific aspect to them. My only beef is how unscientific their spokespeople have been about why in two elections it has flopped so miserably. Blaming it on propaganda and mass ignorance of the electorate doesn't seem scientific to me. Stacking study groups and then implying they are impartial about it is also unscientific. I understand that you have not been such a champion. I'm merely commenting on the associated points made by others. Some STV proponents have reminded me of an old criticism of Mike Harris' tactics, about creating a crisis in order to look like a hero dealing with it. The assumption is that the system is broken and on the verge of becoming completely irrelevant. Only by adopting the specific changes offered by some study group with a "hidden agenda" can we be saved. These are only premises, not facts. The approach is religious in nature, not scientific. Then again, perhaps a religious approach might work better in the court of public opinion. Astrology has always been popular. Why not STV?

Don't get your hopes up! Sooner or later Harper will be replaced. Sooner or later Ingnatief will be replaced. Yet somehow the choices perpetually seem just as poor. I've said it many times before. I'd vote for a dead dog if he were any different that what we always seem to get offered!

I apologize for being condescending. That being said, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how someone involved in such a practical cause and effect discipline could otherwise make such an assumption of a steadily decreasing voter turnout. Unless you can give me another explanation, I can only assume that you are not as scientific in your politics as you are in your profession. I would submit that it is even MORE important to be scientific in your politics! Being unscientific about Mr. Bernouli may crash a plane. Being unscientific in politics can crash an entire country! That's how we keep getting fooled. That's how we go down wrong paths.

Interesting viewpoint. I'll agree that Harper is a control freak who rules his party like a dictator. That's why he reminds me so much of Chretien!

That reminds me of the Ayn Rand definition of 'society', as in 'the good of society'. She said that "Society is everyone in general and nobody in particular but it is never, ever YOU!"

I dunno, Molly. In my experience, when a politician cloaks himself in "inclusiveness" and "caring" it actually means he's dishonest and is using a cover. These are carnival side show tricks to separate the mark from his money. You make him feel good so that he'll WANT to give you money! He'll give you $1 on a chance to win a 25 cent cupie doll for his girl friend. By now I actually become distrustful when a politician's public image seems mostly based on "niceness". Seems to me he should have a good track record and logical ideas first. "Inclusiveness" can be nice but simply a bonus. I used to be a salesman and I still remember one buyer who used to say "God save me from 'nice' salespeople". What he meant was that he was frustrated by how so many were so friendly but totally incompetent at solving his needs and problems. He'd rather have a grumpy one who knew what he or she was doing!