Wild Bill

It's funny how words get twisted or even shanghai'd by certain groups to change their meaning over the years. Gay once meant happy, after all. Being an older guy, I've been following the change with "liberal" for some decades now, at least as regards to politics. There of course is a dictionary definition of political liberal but that is almost always ignored in Canada, since the Liberal Party here has had little or no connection to that definition for a LONG time, if ever! Myself, I'm more of a classic Liberal and yet I am constantly labeled a conservative. Few understand dictionary definitions anymore. It's all in what team jersey you wear. Today in many circles "Liberal" has become a pejorative. There seem to be several reasons, one being a reaction to a trend from the 70's to equate being conservative with being some kind of fascist. Another might be the rise of unexpected negative consequences to many politically correct approaches to social problems, such as easy parole allowing repeated crimes, sometimes violent as we saw with the latest in Toronto, where some poor innocent was hit by a stray bullet outside a nightclub by a repeat violent offender. To many, "Liberal" has come to mean anything that sounds warm and fuzzy but has no chance of working. A conservative type might share a liberal's horror at a Marc LePine going on a mad murderous shooting spree at a school in Quebec. However, when he sees more gun control legislation being instituted, it doesn't look to him like a positive step. It looks like more than just a waste of time and money. It can look like a diversion from doing something that might work! The "Liberal" is happy because something appears to have been done, content with the symbolism but not making the effort to look at the substance. The "conservative" feels cheated. He sees a "feel good" approach being implemented rather than an effective one. If he sees some "gang banger" who killed a bystander in Toronto being given a light sentence in court he becomes convinced of his view. To make it worse, in much of media circles conservatives were ridiculed for being against approaches like more gun laws. They get labeled as being against the goal of making society safer, when they really were questioning the approach to achieve that goal. So now the pendulum has swung and to be a Liberal means having a head full of noble goals with totally impractical methods of achieving them. Extremists on the right, particularly in the USA, substitute "Liberal" into "blonde" jokes as far as social and political policy. Look at the last election campaign. Layton tied Harper to Bush ever chance he got, not because he could show they have the same political philosophy but simply because Bush has a bad name in Canada and Jack wanted to stick it on Harper. Look at the Tories bleating "tax and spend Liberals"! Nowadays we see too much name calling instead of constructive debate. Thank heavens for this board! It isn't perfect but if you ever get discouraged spend some time at "rubble.com" and you'll appreciate it more. Other such boards are perfect examples of ad hominem practices.

Hey, I watched this and similar things happen for years! The story is entirely familiar and plausible to me. Of even more interest, this sort of thing tended to disappear when a company I worked for was bought out by Americans. I think you have to work for a number of struggling Canadian private firms to get perspective on this. If you work in the public sector you would have absolutely no idea! Not that you would not have different problems but you would have it hard to believe in this one unless you lived it.

SOCIALISM You have 2 cows. You give one to your neighbour. COMMUNISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk. FASCISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk. NAZISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you. BUREAUCRATISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away... TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income. SURREALISM You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. AN AMERICAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead. ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull. A FRENCH CORPORATION You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows. A JAPANESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide. A GERMAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves. AN ITALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch. A RUSSIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. A SWISS CORPORATION You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them. A CHINESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation. AN INDIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You worship them. A BRITISH CORPORATION You have two cows. Both are mad. AN IRAQI CORPORATION Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh#t out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy... AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate. A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive.. __________________

I notice that "Sindhu" hasn't yet given a reply. I suspect that he's fled back to "rabble.ca" where he will no doubt feel more comfortable.

You are dead wrong about the number of visible minority faces in Reform! Or even the number of such MP's! I was there and I know. If you're willing to try to put some evidence to your frankly racist accusations I suggest you google up the names of all the Reform MP's of that era to see how many were obviously not "white hicks". You must have pulled that idea out of your butt! Anyone who ever watched the cameras pan across the Opposition benches in the days of Reform could see all the minorities who were elected under the Reform banner. I vividly remember an interview on CBC NewsWorld with Preston Manning and one of the CBC female talking heads. She was obviously biased in her questioning. Preston just smiled and stayed polite. Finally she hit him with the inevitable question about Reform being a "white-bread" party. Preston pointed out that Reform had more visible minority MP's than ANY of the other parties! Also, that the party treasurer of some years had been a young black man from South Africa. The woman promptly demanded to know just EXACTLY how MANY visible minorities were involved! Preston again smiled and said "I don't rightly know. We don't believe in counting them!" She was floored! Her lips were flapping but she just couldn't say anything! I laughed till I gasped for breath! She had no idea of how patronizing her attitude had been. Just another typical white-ass liberal who could only relate to those of different skin colour by plastering a label across their face, instead of just accepting them as other typical human beings.

Thank you! Now, I wonder if M Normanchateau would apply his own argument equally to the Liberals as he did with the CPC...

As a matter of interest, how much of an increase was there in the LIBERAL popular vote?

I'm well aware that many delinquent parents try to sue school figures for faults in their own children as a result of their poor parenting. I'm suggesting that other parents suing THEM could be a counter-pressure! Do they fight the lawsuits? Or do they just cave because it's cheaper and politically expedient? How often does a principal REFUSE to override a teacher's decision? Can you name any precedents in law from actual court decisions? The publicity from fighting such lawsuits might well be the ammunition needed to put a stop to such nonsense. The cost of one test case is far less than the social costs of promoting non-deserving students. A worthless degree might get you a job but it likely won't help you keep one. Unless you're lucky enough to become a member of CUPE, of course. It doesn't sound to me like either of your "two things" answers are very "real world". Expecting some parents to "stop being so ridiculous..." is a nice wish. How do you expect this to be accomplished? As for giving principals protection, what kind of protection are you suggesting? If it is legal protection from lawsuits, as employees of the school boards they act as board agents. Any lawsuit should end up placed against the local board. It is up to the board to decide if they in turn wish to treat the principal as a problem employee. This is no different than if a McDonalds' server dropped a hot coffee in your lap. You don't sue the employee. You sue McDonalds. The only remaining protection necessary would be from verbal or physical abuse. Physical abuse would be covered by common law. Verbal abuse goes with the position. If the principal can't handle it then by definition they are a poor manager. I suspect that all those expensive lawsuits that are taking up so much of school boards' time are hearsay and actually don't exist. If I'm wrong, just name some! I've heard too many stories about principals running for trustee positions that cave to any and all parental complaints so the boat is not rocked at the next election. Anyhow, all this still doesn't change my personal position on how I would handle any problems for my own children. I have been very fortunate so far. If that were to change I can guarantee that I would NOT be quiet and obliging! I don't give a damn for someone else's union and care for no one else's children as much as my own.

No, but as a teacher you may be too close to the problem to have a clear perspective. You have to struggle with it every working day. It's like with cops, how as the years go by they tend to socialize only with other cops. It's part of being human. As for suing the parents of problem children, why do you pooh-pooh the idea? Consider, a citizen pays his taxes expecting that part of the deal is a good education for his children. If the schools do not fulfill their part of the bargain and the political process seems paralyzed, is a parent not entitled to redress? If a child breaks a neighbour's window, it is expected that the parents are obligated to pay for the damage. How is this different if an unruly child takes time and resources away from others in the classroom? As a parent of two children myself, my primary concern is their safety and education. That of other children is secondary. That of problem children, particularly those who have parents that aren't fulfilling their own responsibilities is even farther down the list. I'm not against those children with special needs being cared for, just that I don't believe that they are entitled to take away from other children. I believe that if the State takes the taxes then they take the responsibility, period! If they don't live up to it then the first step is political grievance. If that fails then anything that works is fair game! If getting lawyers involved works then at least that is a far more responsible step than marching into a school board meeting and "going postal"! If it ruffles some feathers, who cares? Again, the primary interest is that of the civilized child and their education. Everything else is secondary. Anything that doesn't work is a negative and whatever DOES work is a positive! I personally have seen bullying issues going on at my children's elementary school where the bully is just given anger management session after session, while he continues to prey on victims! When one poor little boy finally out of desperation fought back, HE was punished! In effect, he was made a victim twice! He received a very negative lesson, that authority figures will NOT protect him! No child should ever be made to believe such a thing. His parents eventually had to put him into another school. Meanwhile, the bully is still there, taking more sessions, with his very own EA to cater to him. If it had have been one of MY children involved, I'm afraid I would not have been nearly so mild about trying for a solution. As I said, my first responsibility is to my own children. I would take callous and bureaucratic disregard for my child's welfare quite personally.

By grade 6 or so the child is often no longer one of the "little people". Timeouts do NOT always work! Many children just ignore them. I hesitate to make this suggestion but I am slowly starting to believe that if the "system" is refusing to do its job then parents may be forced to take matters into their own hands. Home schooling is not a fair solution. Why should the civilized kids have to leave? Why not deal with the uncivilized? Trying to pressure the system is an intimidating task. Your opponents have tax moneys available to fight you. They are paid to sit there while YOU have to go to work! I'm wondering if it is possible to sue the parents of a problem child for depriving your own child of proper attention in the classroom? After all, if the problem child misbehaves he or she is the one taking resources away from the others. I realize that this is a very drastic step but if it were done in sufficient numbers I believe it would cause enough of a public outcry to force some more positive actions within the system. Actually, anything that gives good parents more power would be a positive step. The beauty of a voucher system is that it would allow parents to deprive bad schools of funding. This would also force changes. Just some thoughts...

I always thought Spinal Tap had answered these questions back in the 80's...

Aren't you confusing two sources? Gunter's quote specifically names "worldwide MANMADE CO2 emissions". YOUR statement simply refers to CO2 levels as a whole, with no reference as to where they are coming from! You appear to be making the assumption that all the CO2 increase is manmade. Proof?

Ah, now I see! I misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about an internal majority within the new CPC, which would establish who has the power to determine the party's actions. You are talking about what would happen if the CPC achieved a majority government. In the immortal words of Gilda Radner: "Nevermind!"

RW, I think you'll enjoy this one! http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story....52-48c97f8ae623 It shows that "deniers" are making progress.

Again, how do you justify your opinion? When the parties merged, there were a huge number of Reform/Alliance MP's and only a handful of Progressive Conservatives. Seems that Reform obviously had an overwhelming majority from the start! Which makes it all the more strange that they would choose to abandon their platform. I'd be interested in your explanation of how they didn't have a majority.

Moreover, in the words of Spider Robinson: "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her THINK!"

The rationale behind Bob Heinlein's premise was that if you were willing to fight for your society you were more likely to make a considered vote. Not necessarily a smarter or better informed vote but at least you likely would take it more seriously and expend some brain sweat on your choice. Those with no stake in the system tend to be more frivolous or selfish in their choices. Actually, that's the original way voting happened here in North America. The American Founders never even considered universal suffrage. Only those owning property or running a business got a vote. When I was a lad back before the last Ice Age here in Ontario that's the way it still was with municipal elections. The last big change was giving tenants the right to vote. When you think about it, perhaps with some levels of government we should never have gotten quite so far away from this principle. I myself saw conflicts arise when renters were given the municipal vote in my town. Certain wards had far more apartment buildings than private homes and within a short time the votes tended to favour the needs of the tenants but the tax base came mostly from the private homes! There were quite a few sparks before that one got straightened out. Today it's true that a tenant does pay property taxes through his rent but that doesn't mean he pays as much as a private home or business owner. Also, if it's buried in his rent he may not even think about it! I remember when the OHIP medicare premium was taken off the worker and put onto the employers. It vanished as a deduction on your pay cheque and now today most workers are blissfully unaware of who pays for the health system. Since they never see any premium or charge they think it's free! Something to think about, anyway. It just seems that if someone has to pony up to pay for the beer personally then he might think a bit more about choosing a decent brand...

Really? My understanding from listening to him all these years is that while he himself is against abortion he believes in a truly democratic choice. Paul Martin's government had a whipped vote on same sex marriage. Liberals who had themselves trumpeted against the idea were then seen to be in tears as they toed the party line and stood for the vote. One of the first thing Harper did after taking power was to have another vote, where at least his own MP's were totally free to vote as they wished. Same sex rights still passed, but at least it was more demographic. If you imply that his stance on abortion is part of why social-liberals don't like him I would reply that their own tendency to refuse binding popular votes on such issues is why libertarians like myself don't trust THEM! Nothing is more frightening to me than other folks acquiring the power to limit a free citizen's choices by rigging the system. I've heard Harper state that he would like to eventually have a free vote on abortion but that the issue is so contentious that it would tear a government and perhaps even the country apart! Thus it cannot be a priority for some years yet. That seems only practical, to me. I personally am in favour of the "right to choose", even if unfortunately it sometimes ignores the wishes of the father. Yet I think a rigged vote or one that doesn't attempt to represent the will of the majority of the people is wrong! Democracy doesn't work when the people are not allowed to make what an elite would consider a mistake. We end up in a politically correct dictatorship. Sometimes it's necessary to make bad mistakes to properly learn an important lesson. Again, my impression is that not only does Harper have no desire to impose his personal views on the nation but neither does he have any intention of having an abortion vote in Parliament for decades, if not longer. Why would he want to commit political suicide and doom his party to the powerlessness of the Opposition bench for the next century?

Well, that's the age old problem, isn't it? Pragmatism vs. idealism. The problem here is that the new party now is asking those of us who believe in populism, a Triple E Senate, free votes and such are now expected to just have faith that after a long, slow process of incrementalism these goals will be achieved. That's a LOT to ask on faith! Particularly when the Canadian record of parties delivering on such promises is so poor. Eventually the need to achieve and hold power consumes so much of a party's attention that the original goals become forgotten. Also, the danger in such a policy is that it only works if the old Reform base has no alternative but to support the CPC by default. If any other party, new or old. launches an appeal to this particular demographic I see little or no way Harper's team would be able to hold onto that voting segment. Meanwhile, being 56 myself I guess I'll have to resign myself that I won't see much in my lifetime...

I don't understand your rationale behind making this claim. I was a Reformer and am quite familiar with all the planks of the old Reform platform. It's my perspective that ALL of them were quietly dropped after the merger with the Progressive Conservative Party! The new party seems to actually be a clone of the old Mulroney party, with a bit more Chretien-style of a controlling PMO. So if the new party has abandoning everything that made it the Reform Party, how can you make the claim that the present party is Reform in disguise? Or are party platforms irrelevant to your definitions?

Once again, I disagree. I paid close attention to that question on the ballot and I think the problem was not that Ontarians didn't like the idea of PR. It was the way the question was asked! First off, the initial question should have been to ask if folks wanted to reform the system at all! THEN later you could offer them choices about different systems! What happened instead was that we had a year of some study group that nobody knew existed examining the idea of a new PR system. They picked THEIR favourite, mailed out a flyer about it to every citizen and the question on the ballot amounted to: "Hey Ontario! You probably didn't know about this but some folks are unhappy with our present system of electing MPP's so we are offering you the chance to vote in a new system that WE dreamed up! When you fill out your ballot on this election day you will have the chance to vote on taking or leaving THIS new system! If you haven't heard about this before and the question appearing on the ballot is a big surprise to you then you obviously are ignorant and you should trust that if you just got a little more educated you would be in favour of this change." I can hear the Vogons in the background saying "Don't start snivelling to us that you didn't know your planet was slated to be demolished for a hyperspatial bypass! It was clearly posted at the civic office on Alpha Centauri! If you're all too lazy to pay attention to civic activities then you deserve what you get!" I say again more simply, what should have happened was that the initial idea of reform should have been raised in Queen's Park, given months of publicity and THEN put to some kind of plebiscite to see if Ontarians even wanted to explore the idea. NEXT, there should have been a highly visible process to find out what KIND of reforms Ontarians actually wanted! We were given a take it or leave it surprise. No wonder it was voted down, in a landslide!

So are you equating offers to cover campaign debts with handing out money in a Montreal restaurant and building innumerable canoe museums in Shawinigate, complete with golf courses and leaning on bank managers to give a dicey loan, to the point of getting him fired? There's a need for some perspective here...

What a wonderful idea, if you're a Conservative! I can see the election signs now: "A Vote for Rae means more Rae Days!" and "Remember When Rae was Premier?" Why not just hand every Ontario seat outside of downtown Toronto over to Harper right now and save time?

You may be right but I kinda doubt it. I know a lot of farmers out there and my experience is that they are a very clannish bunch. They maintain interest in their farming neighbours for miles and miles. Rural folks have much more of a sense of community than city dwellers in places like Toronto. In that area, they all know that they could be hit with such native protests at any time themselves, at the drop of a hat. Look at the attempt to make an issue out of the Ancaster Fair. It breeds insecurity, and insecurity always pulls people together. It's interesting that we never hear of a poll in that area asking "Do you trust your governments or the OPP to protect you during these protests?" And it's a sucker's bet that we never, ever will! Fantino seems to have an odd attitude, judging by his remarks in the papers and that email that just came to light. He would appear to be perfectly content to have the town burned to the ground, as long as the people just stood by quietly and didn't make any ruckus about it.

Don't really understand? With young braves riding ATV's through their backyards at night, with lights, loud music and sometimes firing guns into the air, after protests that blocked the major access through the town and having their electricity dead for an entire weekend, who in their right mind would care?