Wild Bill

Odd trade...

Yeah, isn't it great to live in a country like Canada that is such a powerful interventionist on the world stage? Our military must scare the willies out of countries like...Bangladesh! Even Eritrea has enough military resources to give our lads a good go! We have perhaps the best trained and certainly the bravest but when we keep sending them out with old equipment, the wrong colour of cammo uniforms and supply trucks so old the rusted out tire rims bend and break we severely limit their ability to be 'interventionist'.

One thing that never seems to get mentioned is that public sector unions usually are in a monopolistic position of which private sector unions could only dream! If Ford is on strike I can go look at a Chev. What do I do if I need a service that is ONLY handled by a public sector agency? There are no private buses covering a city's downtown. Still, if you're rich enough I suppose there are enough cabs. What about getting a passport or driver's licence if they're on strike? By my lights, any government service that is in a protected monopoly should be declared an essential service and lose the right to strike. It's not fair to the public to let them have it 'both ways'.

I find your argument curious, at best. You seem to be soft-pedaling certain aspects, presenting them as something different than what they are. You point out that coalitions are common in other countries and perfectly legal in ours. Yet our tradition is that a coalition is an exceedingly rare thing. The last one was during WWI. I hardly think that toppling Harper is of the same national importance. Besides, most Canadians don't care about other democracies. We care about our own! You comment that a coalition might be more advantageous than a general election. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The question is how many other Canadians share it and how that will influence any eventual vote. You dismiss objection as 'mere moaning'. Are not Canadians entitled to have an opinion on the ethics if not the morality of the coalition attempt? If they disagree with you does that make it 'mere moaning'? I think discussion about the legalities of a coalition are a red herring. This is not merely a minority government situation. I don't think there would have been nearly as much outrage if it were a case of the Liberals and NDP together having more seats than the Tories, which would have been much more of a usual case. You say "I can't think of an easy way of solving the problem of such coalitions". Well, perhaps that's why we've only had one or two in our history! If you don't have one there's no problem to solve. No, the real issues are two fold. English Canada is uncomfortable with a separatist party holding the balance of power. They also prefer an early election to being denied a choice for the sake of expediency that only favours the oppostion parties. Arguments like yours sound to me simply partisan. You never liked Harper and are thrilled at the idea of a coalition knocking him out. You're aware from the polls that the voting public has little or no respect for the idea so you try to make out that a coalition is really an ordinary thing and no big deal, that would save us the money and aggravation of an early election and besides, all the people that voted for the opposition parties (as well as those who didn't vote at all!) would absolutely prefer a coalition to an early election because they were against Harper anyway! Whatever, the question now seems moot. It's obvious that Iggy has no intention of toppling Harper in January. He will be able to claim positive influence on the budget and having knocked some arrogance out of Harper. Then he can turn to his own problems of money and organization within the Liberal Party. Witness the plaintive bleating of the Bloc and the NDP. Their partner has abandoned them, without even sharing credit for the budget changes and whatnot. Iggy seems much more practical than the original coalition gang. He seems well aware that the idea is just not popular with the majority of the Canadian public. Even if the coup succeeded there might be hell to pay at the NEXT election! Worse yet, since the Liberals would be the largest partner in the coalition they would likely receive the most of the backlash. They would have the most to lose and it's another black mark against Dion that he never seemed to have realized this. It would not be enough to achieve a coalition with an airtight legal justification if it only meant handing Harper a majority when the people finally DID get to vote! I think January will come and go. Give Iggy a year to knock his party's finances and riding organizations into good shape and he stands a much better chance at the polls. The Liberals will still only be an eastern party, of course, with likely only a few BC token seats. The harm they've done themselves in the West from Dion's attempted coup will take years to dissipate, a la the NEP. Still, they held power with only half of Canada for many years before and under Iggy may well do it again.

You might be right, at least with a portion of the people. Still, it seems to me that a bigger portion of the people than you might have thought DO understand our system! They just don't LIKE it! Even if you correct their ignorance, that doesn't mean they will instantly become supportive of the proposed coalition simply because it's perfectly legal. They will instead become even more outraged that we have a system that allows it to happen!

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I day that I don't want 3rd world immigrants? We always need immigration. I simply pointed out that we don't have a lot of choice as to where we will get them. The 50's were an unusual situation, where we had huge numbers of for the most part well-educated and trained people fleeing war-torn Europe. Europe is now richer than us so the number of willing emigrants from those countries is a pittance compared to before. That being said, if we are getting mostly 3rd world peoples then we have to accept them as they are, complete with what they lack to fit in here and any religious or cultural differences that may pose a conflict. These are real problems that make most modern day immigrants different from what we experienced before. We have to recognize them and deal with them. We really don't have the choice to deny them entry. Where ARE we going to get our immigrants? I'm just saying that it is not logical or 'real-world' to maintain that immigrants today are virtually the same as those who helped to build Canada a half century or more from today. Also, that some of them have cultural values that are in conflict with that of mainstream Canada. I believe that the onus is on the immigrant to then adapt and not on the rest of us. I also would take exception to the belief that if we've allowed enough immigrants of a particular culture to become the new majority that we should meekly accept any changes they wish to make. I liken that to someone who has taken needy strangers into their home until they outnumber the original home owners who then decide they have the right to change the exterior paint colour and interior decor of the home! Canadians in the main back in the 70's were quite open to the idea of third world immigrants. However, no one told them that this might change mainstream culture. The reaction of those then if they could see how Canada looks today in some areas might have changed their mind. You may well disagree with me but again as I said, please don't put words in my mouth to make me out to be some kind of anti-third world straw man. I believe that most immigrants from the 3rd world are quite happy to 'melt into the pot' in a few generations. However, from time to time there are some significant exceptions. When they crop up we need to make some firm decisions.

It doesn't work like that. They are really afraid of a NON-UNION health care system! We could have private clinics and private hospitals, paying them exactly the same for each procedure as a public hospital. Still covered by the Health Care Act and no paying for something out of your own pocket. THAT is what the left is really fighting against! Most provinces rigorously ban or severely limit private clinics. The left knows that private clinics and hospitals are likely to run much more efficiently for the same funding. They will fight to the death to avoid such a situation. Meanwhile, us ordinary joes don't care a whit about a clinic being union or non-union. We just want the care!

You seem to be offering apples for oranges. Wulf's list is of crimes with the common factor of having Islam as their motivating factor. A list of British crimes is highly unlikely to offer a religious commonality of Anglicanism! It's not hard to find evidence of radical Islamists being behind such crimes. They themselves trumpet it! It's true that other religions did similar bloody deeds in the past, such as Christianity during the Crusades or the Inquisition. The difference is that those religions evolved from those days and today condemn such actions. Yet there is a large population of radical Islamists who are causing trouble TODAY! The other religions have not been such a threat for a very long time. We have to deal with what are real threats today. Some folks try to be apologists for negative actions by suggesting that two wrongs make a right. Hardly much protection from terrorism or comfort to its victims.

Sharia law? Native 'punishment' circles? Honour killings in Toronto? Female genital mutilation, also in Toronto? Sorry. I can never 'get used' to such things. I will constantly oppose them! As for immigration, who cares where someone comes from? We only need to care about how they act when they're here. Our immigration demographics changed from western european to more primitive third world countries not because of any conspiracy in our system but simply because we are no longer an attractive destination for western europeans! We did pick up some Balkan folks fleeing the troubles there these past few years but Brits, Italians, Germans and such are feeling quite comfortable these days at home. Those countries are now richer than we are. It's that simple. We just don't like to admit it. No, if we want immigrants we need to draw from less developed nations. These people usually need more time to assimilate and training/education for the workforce than a tool and die maker from Poland. They also tend to have a less sophisticated philosophy as regards their religions that can come into conflict with our values. It takes more time and effort for them to fit in, particularly while we also tell them that thanks to official multiculturalism they aren't expected to fit in anyway! So we have more challenges today. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Neither will convoluted rationalizations of our values, such as what happened over those cartoons in Denmark that incited the radical Islamists. The talking heads declared that yes, we had free speech but it would be rude to practice it! The analogy given was yelling 'Fire' in a theatre but that was flawed. It would have been more correct to compare the situation to someone trying to burn down the theatre because they were offended by something in the movie. Anyhow, most of the immigrant kids assimilate no matter what their parents want or the government gives in multicultural grants. Most of the problems come not from immigration per se but from taking in too many folks from less developed areas too quickly for the money we spend on resources to help them get started. We're evolving into a 'Star Trek' society. No one cares about your race, or even if you're human. The problem can be if you come from a culture that doesn't believe that the Earth is round or stars are other suns with planets of their own. We need people who can help keep the ship flying, not people who think that some book thousands of years old describes how the laws of physics work or the nature of the Universe. Everyone has the freedom to believe any cockamamie thing they want but in the final analysis some things work and somethings don't. That includes cultural values in a modern society.

Well, I would say it's a chance to identify what we consider positive cultural values, which ones we may share and which ones we wish to promote! At the same time, we can identify those negative values we will NOT condone or include in our national culture! Instead of just accepting ALL other cultures' values as equally positive if not superior to our own! Defending our own culture is not the same as debasing that of others. What's more, if push comes to shove and there is a conflict about a cultural value there is nothing immoral about letting our own take precedence. We do have problems in our country with those who would seek to make their own cultural values supreme, usually by some legal trick or other. Or use their own culture as a defense after committing a crime, or as the basis for sentencing. Not only is this attitude a logical inconsistency, it weakens our commitment to the principles of equality and fairness for all, within a culture that is shared by the majority of us. There is a ridiculous notion held by many today that somehow if we are always willing to put other cultures first we are setting an example that the "other side" will seek to emulate. An extrapolation of the Golden Rule, if you like. The problem is that there are always those who will take advantage of those who practice the Golden Rule, counting on you 'turning the other cheek' so that they can get their own way. When dealing with such an opponent no amount of example will help you achieve a positive end, at least for YOU! In games theory, the technical term for those who try to win with the Golden Rule is ...LOSER!

Well, I don't know about 'any other of the mainstream religions' but I would agree that for sheer numbers you essentially are correct, at least as far as the situation today. The most bigoted man I ever knew was a devout Hindu. It's interesting how some seem actually afraid of the question! I guess they have a reluctance to accept that not everyone practices what we would interpret as positive values, for fear of being accused of bias against a particular religion. In actuality it's not religion at all but rather culture! There are vast numbers of modern and sophisticated Muslims living perfectly normal and tolerant lives in western countries. However, it would be naive in the extreme to deny that there are also countries and regions where virtually everyone of Muslim faith practice it from an extreme and intolerant perspective, by our lights. We're talking virtually millions of people, here. I remember once working with a young Somali Muslim lad who explained to me one of the problems of adapting to Canadian culture. His parents like most other Somali born parents in their community believed in arranged marriages while he and all his young friends wanted nothing to do with the idea! This had become a real source of estrangement between parents and offspring. I guess it still is! Anyhow, some of the parents demanded that the imam at their local worship hall give a 'sermon' about this point. He seems to have been a more progressive fellow because his sermon pointed out that nowhere in the Koran does it talk about arranged marriages! He told them it was entirely a cultural matter, nothing more. Not at all what this boy's parents wanted to hear. Anyhow, my point is that most often we are talking about cultures rather than faiths. What's wrong with debating such points? What's rational about refusing to acknowledge that they even exist? Maybe some folks are really afraid that if they point out some negative or even primitive aspects of another culture they may have to confront some of the same with their own...

I didn't make up the rumour. It was in the National Post, The Toronto Star and mentioned on both CBC NW and with Mike Duffy on CTV. So I had good company! Unsubstantiated maybe, but it wouldn't have been surprising that even separatists would want their noses even more in the trough...

There were strong rumours at the height of the coalition furor that if they got in they also intended to give 6 senate seats to the Bloc! Anyhow, it's easy to criticize Harper but in this situation what is he supposed to do? Only a couple of provinces have elected senators in waiting. The other provinces have not supported the idea. Is he supposed to name only the opposition to the Senate? An Opposition that just tried to turf him out? Historically, the Liberals have NEVER put more than a token number of Tories into the Senate! Even after Harper's appointments the Liberals will still have a majority. There is no time left for Harper to wait to see if the other provinces will adopt the idea of electing their senators. Besides, they've had years already to make up their minds. How much time do they want to say no anyway? It just smacks to me that criticizing Harper now is just a cheap shot, like bitching at a man who promised to perform as a dancer who had just lost his legs in an accident on the way to the gig!

Well, at least he hasn't been caught handing out that surplus in Montreal restaurants... Je me souviens...toujour!

Why do people pick apart each other's models and ignore their points?

Don't forget Kimmy, there were over a million of us in Ontario alone who bailed on the PC's and followed Manning. Why? For the same reason! Brand X had become a piece of crap! ToadBrother seems to be saying the fault was Reform's for giving us an alternative, not the PC's for being a bad offering. By that logic, I guess we're all at fault for not voting in the Marxist-Leninists. Or for no longer buying disco records.

Of course. Joe and the PCs were leftwing. Again, only leftwing thinking is reasonable, to some. Or perhaps I should use the word 'progressive'.

Sorry Wulf! If you want to say that drugs are bad for you I won't disagree. If you try to claim that its the drugs that cause crime then I can't credit you for being logical at all! Drugs incite crime because laws make it hugely profitable! Trying to control it with cops is just spitting into the wind. It didn't work with Al Capone and it doesn't work today. I can understand why so many want to protect their fellow citizens from themselves. After all, there has never been anything as popular as telling your neighbour what to do with his life. What I don't understand is why we waste so much tax money on a futile 'war on drugs' that can never be anything more than a charade. I sincerely suspect that some of our politicians are on the take to drug lords to preserve illicit income. It is a matter of documented fact in Florida that drug lords pay some politicians to keep drugs illegal. I don't know who's worse, the pushers or the hypocrites.

Perhaps others read the Post today and saw Ignatief's words about the future of the coalition. He started off by stating that he was firmly behind the coalition's actions but ended up by saying that Harper had better have a great budget come January or things will get ugly! Obviously, he's setting up the exit strategy. The coalition's actions so far will have been heroic. If Harper throws them some bones in his budget then they can say they made him cry uncle, for the good of the country that polls show is so against his coalition. No need to bring the government down and take a chance on facing the voters sooner or later. Aren't politicians such sweet talkers?

No, it won't. In fact, don't be surprised if it makes less difference than you think! There seems to be a constant about the left. They tend to be less objective and more emotional. Their heroes are all angels who can do nothing wrong. Their villains are all totally evil, just for the sheer joy of it. Apparently, Harper has denied Canadians their democratic rights by shutting down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote. Meanwhile, the coalition wants to take power by avoiding having Canadians vote! That's a GOOD thing, according to Bob Rae on the telly Friday night. Same thing, different judgement. The core support for the Liberals and NDP is not likely to change one iota. Fortunately, there is that portion of voters in the middle who swing their vote. Likely that will be more than enough to give Harper his majority. The Liberals and the NDP will still be around.

How much does a "Rent-A-Protester" get paid, anyway? I could use some extra money for Christmas!

Not to Bill Clinton!

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks want to link a Mulroney scandal to Harper. Harper helped build the Reform Party from amongst others, large numbers of Conservatives who were pissed at Mulroney! Reform all but destroyed Mulroney's Party! At the time of the "Unite the Right" merger there were only a tiny number of PCs left in Parliament. How on earth can anyone argue that today's CPC bears any responsibility for something that happened back in Mulroney's day of the Progressive Conservatives? I guess young pups think the Universe was created on the day they were born and nothing existed beforehand.

I think you're talking apples and oranges! If the Opposition wants a mandate to form a Coalition Government, they should run an election campaign as a coalition so that Canadians are made perfectly aware that is what they intend to do. The choice should be quite clear. You vote for a party or you vote for a coalition. Anything else is just sneaky! Legal maybe, but nobody likes a skunk at a picnic.

If I understand you correctly, the only reason people would support Harper is if they were stupid, ignorant and/or gullible. Aren't you being the teesiest bit elitist and patronizing? How about someone being smart, well-informed and shrewd, but they simply don't feel the opposing argument has merit? You aren't the ONLY intelligent being in the Universe, you know! Sheesh...you even got BCchick to take your attitude and that's not like her at all.