Wild Bill

Well, I agree that nationalization rarely works! It's a popular approach in Cuba and Venezuela. Not a lot of successful examples. Still, giving money to 'old guys' who want to keep making buggies for horses seems 'foolish idiocy' to me! People do want alternatives. That being said, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about WHY people want those alternatives! I doubt if being 'green' is number one on their list. I don't think the technology of their cars is that important to them at all. No, it's all about the MONEY! We are dissatisfied with gasoline cars because of the price of gas! We might be in a price slump right now but we've been gouged so many times, like Charlie Brown with Lucy holding the football that we just don't want to participate any more! People want hybrids because they believe they will then spend less of their income on gasoline. They would buy an electric car ONLY if they thought that their electric bill would increase less than their gasoline budget! If going green was the primary motivation only hybrids would be sold today. Since they are still more expensive they are not yet the mainstream choice. They will have to reach the point where they are priced the same as traditional cars before we will experience a sea change in what we see on the road. The same will be true of electrics or whatever else comes along. We have off-grid alternatives TODAY! The problem is that a wind or solar solution is about $30,000 which means a payback period of maybe 12-15 years. The average Canadian cannot afford to make that investment. He's just lost his job and he's worried about feeding his kids! However, the prices and payback periods of new technologies are beginning to come down, including those with cars. Maybe if Chrysler started offering a hybrid minivan, for the same price as an old-fashioned powered model, it would have a future again. From my perspective, all I see is Chrysler playing negotiation games with the feds about staying in Canada TODAY! Not a word about any plan to be profitable in tomorrow's marketplace. Looks like Chrysler's current general is not an Iococca but rather a Maginot...

I thought Jack and the boys all denied having anything to do with legalization supporters? Or were they misquoted in the press a few months back?

Well, armchairs are comfortable and sometimes it's easy to avoid actually getting up! That's why we invented remote controls for the tv, after all. I went to the site and I'll have to digest it for a bit. My first impression was that it took having a stimulus package as a positive thing in the first place! That's politics, I guess. I also would have thought that if they wanted popular feedback they would have been more obvious and explicit with their 'Contact Us' button. They did list a number of contact methods which implies interest but they could have spent a bit more effort in pointing out that they actually want folks to use them! To me, the problem seems much bigger than we can influence or control. It will have to run its course, particularly with how tied we are to America's fortunes. What I see happening is just an attempt for politicians to pretend to have influence and show their concern. Then again, I've grown quite cynical over the years. Our political, economic and business models have been ignoring changes in the world for a long time. Sooner or later factors had to catch up with us. Things need to shake out and adapt. At the start of the process it is difficult if not impossible to 'pick the winners'. Back in the 70's, should we have offered a stimulus package to the Timex Watch Company? Or should we instead of given incentives to Litronix, the maker of light-emitting diode devices who invented a digital watch? Sadly, the Canadian way seems to always be to prop up the horse and buggy industries. Here in Hamilton in the early 60's there was the Aerovox Capacitor company. They had made capacitors suitable for the old vacuum tube radios and televisions for some decades. The world was going transistor and the company desperately needed to modernize its products. So what happened? The Feds shoveled out a huge sum of money to move the factory lock, stock and barrel to Nova Scotia, in order to provide jobs in the Maritimes. The plant was rebuilt and a few years later it went bankrupt, as there were no longer any buyers for their old-style products. We could easily do the same thing with Chrysler. The problem is that politicians respond best to pressures about how people will vote. This focuses them on short term goals like appearing to save jobs, even if only for a short time. The electorate is notoriously poor at understanding long term trends and so politicians tend to ignore such. Another example of the old definition of the difference between a politician and a statesman, I guess.

Topaz, there are a LOT of details! First off, the only way you can compete building cars is to have your sales volume large enough to buy all your parts and things in bulk, at the best possible volume cost. That means if you only are going to sell in Canada you will be way too expensive. You have to count on big export production. If Chrysler can't compete with Toyota or Honda, let alone the Chinese, how do you expect to do it with a Canadian car? You need more than just the factories and the guys on the production line. You also need all kinds of engineers to design the parts. You can't just make the same parts you made when you were a Chrysler factory. You'd get your ass sued off! So you have to pay for engineers to design a completely new car. And tool and die makers to make the machines produce completely new parts. Make that cars! A car company that only offers one vehicle is going to have a tough time attracting customers. 6 billion is not a bad guess! You need to not only start up from scratch but you have to expect to need maybe 10 years to start selling enough to make a profit. You know, we went through all this before, not that long ago. You might want to google up "Bricklin" and see what a fiasco that was! Then try "DeLorean". As Gilda Radner always said "Details, always details!" However, why would you want to use the old factories anyway? When horse and buggy time was passing it would have been crazy to take over a buggy factory. We need to make new cars that people want. That means green and clean in their technology but not more expensive than the old gasoline ones. If you're going to make an electric car what good is a factory with machines to make V6 engines? I've read where some of the Silicon Valley whiz kids are looking at making electric cars. Those guys are the ones most likely to get it right! They have no old stuff to maintain and are used to coming up with new technology every week from their careers with computers! Looking back, it never seemed to be the old companies that successfully changed. They tended to just go out of business or become a money-lending company. It wasn't Timex that invented the digital watch. It was an electronics company named Litronix. It wasn't Underwood or Royal Typewriter that invented computers and word processors, with computer printers. Westinghouse, Motorola and GE all made zillions of tube radios and TV's. When transistors were invented they tried to keep up but the Japanese companies like Sony and Toshiba just buried them! So they got out of that business. I think that the longer a company has been around the more it becomes "stuck in the mud". The people in the company only know how to do what they've always done. When you need them to do something dramatically new they're lost, from the guy on the production line all the way up to the company president. Me, I don't think all these bailouts will do a damn bit of good in the long run. Give Chrysler all that money and what good will it do if they still make cars that nobody wants to buy? It's all just a way for politicians to look like they're doing something, by spending all our money. It makes the autoworkers think that someone cares about them and they're likely to keep voting the same politicians into power. Actually DOING SOMETHING GOOD isn't likely to happen at all, except for the odd lucky fluke. The world is changing, and you can't hold it back. There's no point in being a rock against the waves. You only get ground down. Better to be a surf board and ride the waves!

Well, I do believe in populism. I guess I should emphasize that I'd reserve the right to CHOOSE which party I would follow! That being said, I find myself today with once again having no attractive choices. We can let certainly do better with letting policy trickle UP from the grassroots but we have to keep in mind that the common baseline within those 'roots' is not heavily made up of political junkies. There is a need for a party to identify and codify our choices, giving recommendation as to what would be more positive. We don't have to necessarily follow their recommendations but it would make intelligent choices somewhat easier. There has to be a balance between leadership and populism. Canada tends to be too much on the monarchy side with the PMO being the office of the King. However, at the other end of the scale lies Oprah's Book Club. I should think the need for balance is obvious!

I was a faithful Sun reader for years, practically from its inception. When the National Post debuted they stole some of my favourite columnists. Then the Sun bowed to politically correct pressure and toned down the appeal of their SunShine Girl. They began to take photos of not what a man might want to see but rather what his girl friend thought he was SUPPOSED to like! I started buying both papers but within a few months I bailed on the daily Sun, choosing instead to only get their Sunday Edition.

Yes, it does seem that we humans are hard-wired to need strong leadership. It's likely a survival trait honed over the eons as we evolved. Strong leaders kept us organized. We'd be safe, fed and warm. Weak leaders could get us killed. In my span of years I've noticed that Trudeau, Mulroney, Harris and Klein all had something in common. They were strong leaders! They stood out as individuals and took strong, definite stands on issues. They were rewarded with incredible majorities and/or long terms of office. Contrast that with the usual boffin offered to us, with spin doctors frantically trying to keep him or her in a beige suit and brown shoes, sitting smack dab in the middle of the road and desperately trying to offend no one and only succeeding in boring everyone! People want someone who stands out from the crowd to lead them. Danny Williams may not be the sharpest crayon in the box but his popularity amongst his electorate is strong and firm. The Pequistes in Quebec often seem to be outright illogical in what they think they can achieve but it doesn't matter. For years now they've held the hearts of a large number of Quebecois. This instinct would explain why Harper has failed to achieve high marks for personal popularity. He's perceived as a very smart man who could put you to sleep with his attempts at small talk. John Tory came from a similar mold. Jack Layton is a colourful character. His ideas are loopy but his leadership quotient keeps his support reasonably stable. If he ever took a tip from every other Labour Party in the world, stopped blaming evil corporations for all our problems including bad weather and started to live in the real world it's possible he could be as successful as Tony Blair. You may not happen to like Tony Blair but you have to admit, he's been a lot more successful than Jack Layton. Ignatief might be smarter than Dion but so what? So is a doorknob! We are desperate for strong, capable leadership from our politicians. The strategy seems to be to limit our choices to vote for a party for smelling the least rather than offering us something inspiring and strongly appealing. For years now we get nothing but elevator music, 24/7! My generation spawned rock and roll, from Buddy Holly to the Beatles, Buffalo Springfield to Pearl Jam, Janis Joplin to Aretha Franklin. What do we keep getting from our politicians? Ann Murray. Celine Dion. Barry Manilow. ABBA! It's a nightmare that never ends!

Good point! I'm far from being religious but I had to feel sorry for Stockwell Day when Kinsella mocked his religious beliefs with his 'Barney the Dinosaur' schtick. If Day had been a Muslim there would have been hell to pay, if you'll pardon the pun. When a man has no respect for others why should he get any in return?

It seems to me that they are totally unconcerned with perhaps the most important purpose of a political party...leadership! When I looked at their site all I saw was a big push for proportional representation and electronic balloting. As far as policy or philosophy we got a quick offer of using 'e-referenda' to poll the people. That's not enough for me and I suspect for most of my fellow Canadians as well. CAMP is obsessed with the mechanism and leaves the goals to whatever bubbles up from the popular trends. Paris Hilton for PM? A party should offer a clear vision of goals and approaches for our governance. The electorate should have an idea of where it stands and what it would do. CAMP appears to be saying "We have no ideas of our own to offer you. We'll just use computers to make it easy for us all to "talk among ourselves' and then whatever most folks seem to want we'll implement." In other words, a party would first find out where the parade is going and then graciously would be willing to get out in front. Except for PR and E-voting, how is that different from what we already have?

Perhaps that's why some folks just can't accept leftwing arguments. They start off with a partisan assumption and when challenged with facts they try to 'slide' away from what they had stated. Then they end up saying it doesn't matter anyway 'cuz all folks of that persuasion are evil! As for the rest of the population, have you asked them? How do you know? Do you have a link that gives some hard evidence? Even if your claim is true, much of the population also believes in astrology. So what? Does the Universe care what people believe and reality adjusts to the majority view? No, these kinds of premises are the pitch of the carnival con man. Sad to say, they often work. Still, they are rarely correct.

Since I don't agree with Proportional Representation and have reservations as well about electronic ballots, what do you have for someone like me? I also have reservations about a "Delphic" referendum mechanism run with electronic voting but I could accept it as long as it was non-binding. That way if it was rigged there would be a check on the method to ensure an issue was truly popular. Anyhow, as far as my first paragraph, what else do you have that might make me give you my support?

Quite right, Michael! I live by Hamilton and followed Andrea's dialogue. Sounded like she would have fit right in...in 1972! Same old, same old from the NDP. Lots of ideas on how to spread the wealth and zip all about how to generate it in the first place, all the while blaming any and all problems on "evil, greedy companies". I guess this all fits the new definition of 'progressive' thought.

Well, it seems Mr. Tory has bitten the dust! Oh well, once again he and his advisers blew it. The people in the riding apparently resented losing their regular MPP who stepped down for Tory. What's more, this was a more rural riding and many of them it seems thought of him as a big city, 'Toronto' guy. Whatever, The incumbent had won last time by about 15,000 votes and Tory lost by some 200. That means at least 15,201 voters abandoned their allegiance to the provincial Tories over the choice of Tory over Scott. Tory always seemed like a genuine nice guy but he sure made some gaffes during his reign. Some pundits are suggesting Tim Hudak as his replacement. Tim seems to have his feet on the ground. No other names come to mind as leadership contenders at the moment. There seems to be a dearth of high-profile candidates. Maybe this is an opportunity to get on a winning path. One of the problems with the Ontario Tories is that they've always been afraid to be Tories! We had years of pink Toryism with Bill Davis but after he retired we began to see a conflict between the red and blue sides of the caucus. Usually the red side was in control. It was only when the party was so far down that no one thought they had a chance of winning that they allowed Mike Harris to take a shot. He promptly gave them the two largest majorities they ever had! When Mike stepped down all the talking heads fell all over themselves claiming that his approach was now poison to the voters and a more 'centre' approach was needed. So Ernie Eves was presented as not just 'Harris Lite' but 'Harris VERY Lite!'. We don't know if the electorate was really against more Harris-style conservatism. The premise was never tested at the ballot box. One thing was obvious: Ernie went down in flames! Tory was another Red Tory. He flamed out in 2007 and now in this byelection. So maybe this is a chance for a Blue Tory to take another run at it! After all, why should a liberal-friendly voter support a Red Tory? Why not just vote Liberal? Successful provincial premiers like Harris and Ralph Klein won votes because they provided a clear choice from their opponents and also DID WHAT THEY SAID! Of course this repelled some voters but the record shows they attracted far more. A Blue Tory is not likely to sweep 416 Toronto but so what? You'd have to be left of Dennis Miller to sweep Toronto so why bother trying? It no longer seems possible to please both Toronto voters and those in the rest of the province. They are two completely different species. Anybody else got any ideas on what the provincial Conservatives in Ontario should do?

Oh, I'm well aware of that, 'eyeball'! I think Canadians stopped having blind faith in laws and institutions about the time of Mulroney's downfall. We had so many examples worthy of cynicism, such as the new GST, scandals about priests and choirboys, the F-18 contract being awarded to a Montreal firm, the huge tax deduction given to the Bronfman businesses allegedly for being 'connected' and most of all the manipulative attempt to sell us on the Charlottetown Accords, where the politicians were saying one thing in French but something quite different in English. We could write a book with such examples! Those times appear to have been our breaking point as a people. Before we naively believed that innocent men went free 99.9% of the time and that our taxes were in the overwhelming main efficiently used for government services. After too many examples of tax money funding fish processing plants far inland to earn brownie points for an inland MP and naval decision makers being based far in inland Quebec we became 'Americanized', in that we all seem to be from Missouri, demanding to be shown 'cuz we don't believe just because some 'suit' tells us so. I've made the point before that some citizens seem to view institutions and laws as some sort of "Godfather" who can always be trusted to be fair, sensible and honest. I could never be one of them but sometimes I envy their sweet, naive innocence.

You are making an assumption, that institutions and laws always make sense and always should be respected. This just doesn't always bear true in the real world. How do you feel about the gun registry? To me, any authority figure has no right to an automatic assumption of intelligence. That has to be proven. Too many times we see examples where the law is an ass or lawyers can twist it to serve any end, often contradicting other decisions. While we do not live in a perfect world and we have to accept that sometimes the 'system' makes mistakes, if the mistakes start to become too large a number then we have a problem. I would agree with you that there has been a growing segment of society that has no respect for institutions and laws. This is an unfortunate thing for Canada. It's just that too often institutions and the judicial system ASK for such disrespect! I understand that Karla Homolka is living quite free and comfortable these days. All perfectly legal, too.

Circumstances alter cases. There is no broadbrush solution to every issue. Refusing to recognize the details of each situation on its own merits is what makes things like the pot laws such a mess. I am sick and tired of paying taxes to watch some Deputy Dans bash square pegs into round holes, thinking that they could make it work if they were only given bigger hammers! This is the sort of thing that breeds disrespect for our institutions.

I'm awake, I just can't get excited! Somehow, even though he's my only alternative to Dalton McGuilty I just can't feel any inspiration! I think it may be that I still haven't forgiven him for his absolutely stupid gaffe over religious funding during the last election. I do hope he turfed those arrogant young pups who were his campaign advisers. What a bunch of losers! Hopefully, once he's in Queens Park he'll start to take Dalton to task.

Perhaps you paid with a ride on your motor-sickle?

Actually, it runs on granola! While we're on the subject, I've often wondered if the reason we hear so little "hippy" music from the late 60's and early 70's is not because the 'suits' have no number data from that era (FM DJs were too stoned to keep stats, I guess) but perhaps there's a CONSPIRACY against psychedelia! Somewhere the ghosts of Richard Nixon's cabinet are still pulling the strings... Seriously, we hear lots of music OLDER than that era and lots of newer material. Isn't it a bit strange that there's a decade missing? The music of an entire generation is rarely if ever played. "Coincidence? I think not!"

I have two daughters, 18 and 12 years of age. Neither EVER listens to the radio! Neither do any of their friends, apparently. Lots of IPod stuff and YouTube or whatever but zip all for traditional radio. This has to have an impact as they move up in age to an advertiser's demographic. I find I listen to very little myself anymore. Some news and talk but rarely for music. Part of that is the convenience of my own library of vinyl and CDs. The main reason however is that for my tastes I NEED my library 'cuz commercial radio doesn't cater to my tastes! I'm 56 years old, square in the middle of the "classic rock" demographic. Yet I rarely hear much of what I listened to when I was young. Classic rock today would appear to mean "Classic AM Rock!" When I was in my teens and early 20's I never listened to AM radio for music. Neither did anyone in my peer group. It was all FM radio, with lots of album cuts and next to nothing of what would be called a "Top 40" hit. It was Mendelson Mainline, Moody Blues, Captain Beefheart, Fairport Convention, Perth County Conspiracy, Crowbar (but NEVER 'Oh, What a Feeling!", Pat Travers, Dominic Troiano, with the occasional break for FireSign Theatre or Cheech and Chong. So where does that leave today's radio? No kids and no old farts. That leaves folks in elevators and those getting a haircut, I guess. Not as many listeners today HAVE hair to cut! The 'suits' took over, not allowing DJs to pick their own material in favour of buying playlists of songs that came with "numbers" indicating their supposed appeal to any particular demographic. Well, they got what they wanted. Now they're whining about their future. Reap the whirlwind, all you plastic people! I'm off to put a Buffalo Springfield LP on my tube audio phonograph system.

I can only speak for myself and I do not share in the hyperbole of the pot champions. I'm not a user myself but simply a classic liberal, or libertarian if you like. However, how about a source for your 80% claim? Even if true, if pot were legal and the only money was in export I would expect that activity would be mostly confined to border towns, making the situation easier to police. I doubt if we'd see gangland shooting in Moosonee. Meanwhile, yes we do have slimeballs shooting up the streets, especially in cities like Toronto. My point is that the status quo is obviously not working. The Tory approach seems like something drawn up by Ward Cleaver of "Leave It to Beaver". I'm a "utilitarian", I guess. If you're going to tax me then you should be spending it in ways that work. From my perspective, I see little or no difference between the Tory approach to the drug problem and Jane Stewart's HRDC or the gun registry. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Again, as P T Barnum said: "Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds." On this issue it would seem that Harper's crew are not makers. Perhaps they simply don't have the cultural background to grasp it. Toronto imposes gun laws on western farmers that are inappropriate. Harper's westerners impose drug laws from a Sunday school perspective. Meanwhile, I and my family are no safer but still taxed! What else is new...

Do you have any conception of the logistics required to accomplish such a goal? So far the "war on drugs" has captured less than a few percent of the total estimated supply. Do I have to google up some links for you on more common knowledge as well? How about YOU supply some sources showing that such an idea is even remotely practical??!! Anybody can make a wish. As Eyeball pointed out, pot is a weed! A user can put a few seeds into a few flower pots and have a supply for some months! How on earth do you expect to police that? In my town there are grow ops all over the place. The police find a couple or so every year. Usually they find them either by a fluke of luck or the grow op was run by people totally inept at covering their tracks. It's just so easy! Less than a mile from my home there was a high rise apartment building that had TWO ENTIRE FLOORS running as a grow op! This to me was mind boggling! Every apartment had been rented in a different name and the rents were all paid on time. The superintendent never knew. He never had any problem or need to visit those floors. When you are talking boatloads of money anything becomes possible. We've been at this game for 60-70 years now and pot is still here, more than ever! It would take a virtual police state to stamp it out. Even if there were the political will where would we get the money? What's more, there doesn't appear to be the popular support. Even those Canadians who aren't active smokers would never support such a "pogrom". I understand the need to pay taxes but not to support a Ned Flanders social agenda. Hiring more Officer Wiggums will not win the war on drugs. I say again, it's a farce. Until I hear some real-world, cost-effective arguments to the contrary, I will spare about as much time to those championing "Prohibition" as I do to astrology and predicting the future by reading bumps on peoples heads.

PT beat me to it but just to reiterate...how likely would have been for those innocents to die if drugs were legal? So how does the present status quo make me and my family safer? How much in taxes are we paying for this farce?

What planet do you live on? I thought I didn't get out much myself! Anyhow, a quick google gave pages and pages of links but I didn't think you'd accept anything from legalization lobby groups so here's this one: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/11/24/...tudy041124.html "The survey found that 45 per cent of Canadians have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime. About 70 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 reported using the substance. Males were more likely than females to use pot, as were those who have never been married. The study found the use of cocaine and crack also rose from 0.7 per cent in 1994 to 1.9 per cent in 2004. Overall, it found that the use of illicit drugs by Canadians at least once in their lifetime rose from 28.5 per cent in 1994 to to 45 per cent in 2004." That was from a Canadian government study group. Please note that the use of cocaine and crack is "mice nuts" compared to the pot numbers. Here's something from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/drugs/users.html "Well, we can officially call ourselves Toker Nation now. According to the 2007 World Drug Report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Canada has the dubious honour of leading the industrialized world in marijuana use, at least when calculated as a percentage of population. According to the UN report, which is a staple of police forces around the world, 16.8 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 64 smoked pot or ingested one of its derivatives last year." To be honest, I had mixed feelings about using the CBC as a reputable source but what the hell...they have to be more "real" than what YOU are implying! Finally, here's one from York University. Always good to get the lawyers' view! It starts off citing the same UN Report but adds to it after a few paragraphs. http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ff...33;OpenDocument "Eugene Oscapella, an Ottawa-based lawyer who specializes in drug policy issues, said the UN report shows that the legal status of marijuana in a given country seems to have little bearing on consumption rates. The report found that only 6.1 per cent of people in the Netherlands, where marijuana use has effectively been decriminalized, reported trying pot. This shows decriminalization has no bearing on rates of use, and Canada shouldn't be so afraid to follow the Dutch lead, Oscapella said. ``The criminal law does not prevent people from using marijuana, nor does legalization force people to use it,'' he said." These links are only the tip of the iceberg. Really, I was surprised that you would question the numbers, given that they have been public knowledge for so long. We are all entitled to our opinions but as far as the magnitude of the number of pot smokers in Canada goes, asking for sources is like a Creationist asking for sources on evolution. I hope for their sake that Harper's team is not under a similar misconception. Vastly underestimating the number of pot users in Canada when formulating new, stronger laws could trigger a very negative backlash at election time. It would be a shame if this precipitated a change in government when frankly there are many more urgent matters to be resolved. They would be as vulnerable to campaign mockery as Stockwell Day was to Kinsella's "Barney the Dinosaur" shot.

There were shootings in Canada in those days as well! Like the scene today with pot grown in Canada there were incredible amounts of alcohol smuggled into the USA from Canada. There were competing interests on this side of the border that used violence against domestic competitors. However, it is obvious that the number of shootings in Canada would drastically diminish and that would be a plus for us at least. Still, personally I couldn't care less if Canadian drug lords continue to shoot each other! Saves us some tax money to deal with them. As for the US, if Canada were to legalize pot it would force the Americans to objectively examine their approach. I realize that a mouse like us living next to an elephant should not "tug on Superman's cape" but still, morally we have no reason to give a damn about their feelings. We export pot to the USA. In return, they send us guns and heroin. If they were a bit more aggressive in protecting us perhaps we might owe them something in return. Meanwhile, they are merely being pikers demanding something for free. As P T Barnum once said: "Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds."