Wild Bill

Well, that's the official line! That was the old PC way, to keep the members busy with conventions and policy discussions and then votes. Of course, the catch was that the votes were all NON-BINDING on the party leadership! How does that equate with lowly members having real power into party policy? Busy work and distraction, nothing more. Another Manning dream that the new Tories have buried deep, deep beneath the ground...

Ah, mea culpa! Still, while your point may have been solely about opium the Tory drug approach is decidedly not!`` Perhaps I was too hasty and misread your posts as support for the Tory Bill as regards marijuana. If so, my apologies. I'm simply paranoid that Harper and his crew are going to sit there in their Calgary HQ and do something really DUMB to lose Ontario! Their attitude towards marijuana seems to "waft" in that direction... It's always seemed to me that the biggest mistake political leaders can make is to assume that their own personal values or that of their own immediate personal circle are truly mainstream. If Stockwell Day had checked it out instead of running things the way he did he might be in Harper's shoes today...

True, other parties have run "parachutes". I'm just saying that it's been my observation that the Liberals are far more enthusiastic about doing it than the other parties, historically. And no, I don't consider party members to be politicians. Politicians are elected. Party members just gave them $10 and they're in! Politicians dictate policy. Party members do NOT! Of course I don't trust the higher ups in any party I voted for! They're politicians too, after all! You make it sound like choosing a party is like choosing a church, where you give your heart and your soul. In reality, parties are merely teams of managers with (hopefully) a common philosophy of running a government. Within that team will be people of more or of less competence, or even honesty. Besides, their first loyalty is to their party. Members come second and citizens a distant third. I suspect you've never belonged to a party, much less worked at even the riding level. If you have, I hope you had a pleasant experience. If not, it would be very good for your political education to try it out for a while. Right now they're desperate for warm bodies to knock on doors and put up signs. Stick around after the election and see how much they care about how their "grunts" feel about politics. As a populist I believe that blindly following politicians is an abdication of a citizen's responsibility. They are supposed to work for US, not WE for THEM! Allow politicians to make their own PRR alternate list and you may as well just let them vote themselves in and to hell with the rest of us! Besides, PRR is for losers that can't win seats any other way. It's SUPPOSED to be hard to win a seat! That's proof that you have enough public support! What's more, that support is SUPPOSED to be concentrated enough in a given riding to win the seat! Not spread out as a thin "mist" over the entire country. You never heard Reform bleating about PRR and look how well and how quickly they won seats! What fringe parties don't want to admit even to themselves is that they appeal to only a very small demographic. Even if they are given a few seats under a PRR system that doesn't mean they ever have a chance at government without convincing a LOT more voters anyway! All they can accomplish is to be power brokers in minority "pizza parliaments" like in Italy or Israel, where they can make the large parties sit up and beg for their few seats as support. The parties with the least popular support as votes will end up calling the shots! Is that democracy? Not in my books!

I would never disparage Narconon for their good works. However, considering that they deal with the tiny percentage of users who would find a way to screw themselves up no matter what was banned or legal I would suggest that they have a biased perspective. The vast majority of those who have smoked pot do not fall into their category, no more than anyone who has ever drank a beer is a candidate for AA. Again, it's a warped perspective that does not fit the reality. Being "retired" all these years from the halcyon days of hippydom has meant that it is far from the most important issue on my political slate but I sincerely believe that the Tories are taking things too far with their last drug bill. They sound like Priscilla Goodbodies! They could use every vote. They're coming across on the drug issue as "tres uncool". It makes Harper seem like Ned Flanders rather than an effective leader. Millions of Canadians either smoke pot or used to when they were younger. Hearing "Reefer Madness" talk from a political party makes it harder for them to relate to it, not easier. Doing nothing would have been more politically expedient than what they have done. It's on a par with the Liberals setting up a supply of marijuana grown for medical purposes that the users find is of terrible quality! A noble intent but the aim of an idiot! If this election is close in some ridings it could make the difference between a minority or a majority.

The validity of your links.

Dancer, I suspect that you yourself have never smoked pot. Although it's been a few decades for this old hippy I still remember how it affected me. Your comments not only contradict everything I ever experienced about pot but also everything from anyone I ever met, heard, saw or was mentioned. This is why authorities lost so much respect during the 60's and it still seems happening today. When authorities try to sell you a point of view that totally contradicts personal experience you breed disrepect for all authority. You're asking me to accept that the sun rises in the West or that Bob Rae was a wonderful premier of Ontario. You're never going to convince anyone who has ever used pot that you have a valid argument. It is that black and white. You might drag out one burnt out heroin addict who had not only used pot but also aspirin and creme de menthe in his lifetime and try to pass off his example as a negative attribute to marijuana but it would be equally ridiculous. You sound like a virgin espousing celibacy. Most of the time I can take your side but on this one your words just don't pass muster, at least to me. And if the Tories want to convince the millions of Canadians who have used pot that they know what they're talking about they have a very strange way of going about it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about career paths. I'm simply voicing my suspicions that the majority of NDP types seem to be the folks that are more intuitive in their thinking rather than "cause and effect". It would go a long way to explain why "lefties" seem to focus on their goals and get rather vague about the details of how to achieve them and make them self-sustainable. There is a clear difference between those who think in logical terms and scientific method and those who are more intuitive. I'm not making a value judgement. Both methods of thinking have value in different situations. It CAN however explain how two such kinds of people have trouble understanding each other.

I remember having this argument with a cop. It was on a fishing trip for my brother's Masonic Lodge. They brought me along to have someone who would actually fish! Anyhow, around the card table we were listening to a program on the radio about drugs. The cop mentioned how we needed more laws to protect kids in schoolyards. I asked him how if drugs were made legal and the huge profits were removed there would be any incentive to push drugs in school? After all, the only reason it was happening was for the money! Pushers were certainly not going to keep pushing their wares out of some sense of religious fervour! He was horrified, but had no answer that made sense! He kept arguing that the laws and the police were the only thing keeping drugs out of schools. I told him that made no sense at all, considering that drugs were rampant in virtually ALL schools for any who wanted them! He accused me of promoting hooking kids on drugs! He asked how I was raising my own children. I told him that I was raising them to make intelligent choices and not to blindly trust in rules and a system that not only didn't work but blew boxcar amounts of money on futility that could have been better spent on treatment and education. We didn't change each other's mind but I did get him so distracted that I cleaned him out in the game!

Non sequitur! Just because there are two sides doesn't mean that one side is better than the other. Just because one might be disenchanted with his common choices doesn't mean that ANY other choice like the Greens would automatically be better. From what I read from the Greens they have little besides Green in their platform. From their ideas of how capitalism works I wouldn't let them run a variety store. Their socialist ideas seem stronger but cribbed from the NDP. They are a one note flute! They would obviously love to steal from the existing parties but they really don't seem to have better than a college frosh's concept of anything but their green goals. No shame to that. They are a young party. They may look much better when they grow up.

Finally we have begun to mention the realities of the problem! From the posts in this thread it would appear that most folks are thinking in extremes. They either believe that all crime comes from poor people and the problem is that the system is not generous enough OR they think that ALL welfare is a ripoff! This makes an honest debate impossible. Each side can drag out examples from the small percentage that represents their point of view while ignoring the REAL situation! Are some people fit for little else but welfare? Of course! How large a percentage do they represent? Far less than the number of folks on welfare. Is the welfare system rational and of positive benefit? Well, if your definition of positive is tiding folks over between jobs then it would appear to often be a failure. The system is so bureaucratic and rule bound that it's hard to see what the real goals are but it sure doesn't look like the goal is to get off welfare! I remember my high school bus driver, who raised 4 kids on Mother's Allowance, working for free 'cuz her wages were clawed back. She did this because if she went off welfare there would have been a six month period of no benefits for her family before she began to receive them from the bus company. Why could she not have been given a six month benefits extension to help her off welfare? Meanwhile, welfare provided a small bungalow with no insulation. The heating bills were unbelievable! She offered to install the insulation herself if the system would buy the materials. One bill from the dead of winter would have covered it. The system refused. They don't pay for capital improvements (even though they owned the house) but utilities were not a problem, no matter how high. This sort of bizarre thinking runs rampant through the welfare system. Why? Partially because it tends to be run by zealots who were always math challenged but more often because of simple empire building! "Tiding over between jobs"? Look again! There is a large percentage of multigenerational welfare. I personally have seen grandma, mom and teenage daughter ALL on welfare while visiting a dentist's office. So some folks are so offended by such examples that they want to abolish the system, letting the truly deserving starve, along with the others. Others refuse to even consider reforming the system, apparently believing that "It is better that a thousand abuses occur than to deny ONE deserving case!" No wonder things keep getting worse.

Really? How do you figure that? They have so many protectionist laws and huge unfair subsidies to farmers and the like that any Free Trade Deal would be a joke in practice! As usual, it seems that some folks are all gushy over the symbol (Europe) and have given little or no thought to the reality.

I should think it obvious that the immature tone is strongest from those attacking McHale! For you to imply otherwise is frankly mindboggling! Whatever, as is usual in this particular thread, things have become pointless. By now it has also become obvious that for some that's the goal.

Well, in practice you're often correct but not always and not totally. There is a slim shred of populist democracy in the system. What's supposed to happen is that the members of the riding association nominate candidates from their riding/community and then hold a vote to choose one of them as the party candidate to run in the election. Sometimes the candidate is simply picked by the party brass. The Liberals have always been famous for doing so. Still, more often than not parties respect local wishes for their local candidate, if only to have a better chance of winning the seat instead of parachuting in some "foreigner". It's not politicians doing the choosing in this process. It's ordinary folks that live in the riding! They join the party to have the right to choose their own candidates, among other things. That IS a big difference from what you describe! I find it telling that the system has become so top-down if not perverted as to someone like yourself thinking that a perversion of the system is actually official!

Of course, they are also offering punishment if you don't do as they say! Sounds more like a Liberal approach, to me!

You seem to have a very narrow view of Ontario folks. Ontario is hardly Toronto. In fact, the entire rest of Ontario HATES Toronto! We all love Toronto about as much as the West loves Ottawa. Nonetheless, my previous post to you still stands. You are acting as Dion's best friend as far as helping the Tories win more seats in Ontario. Perhaps that's your real goal...

Well, I don't! And I do think it will cost them a bit here in Ontario. Their stand has a sniff of "Reefer Madness" to it. I suspect to many urban voters in Ontario it will paint the Tories as more "Deputy Dan" from the 60's than "hip" to today. Oh well, the Tories are not likely to do well in the heart of Ontario cities anyway. Actually, I would find it hard to believe that the Tory campaign handlers are that naive about pot. I suspect the real basis is more machiavellian. They know that for most people it's not a deal breaker of an issue and besides, people will still do as they have been doing anyway. Nothing will actually change, like how a gun ban does nothing against illegal guns. What WILL happen is that the social conservative demographic, which has been a bit disappointed with Harper for not jumping to make evangelical christianity mandatory, will think they have been thrown a bone. As I said, nothing will change but for that stripe of people they will never notice. These are the folks who think that passing another law is the same thing as actually DOING something effective! The Tories will be able to hang on to these voters without them bleeding off to some Ned Flanders party.

I think some "pacifists" would be quite surprised at how many companies have similar statements postered on their walls. It's always an illogical conceit to assume that your own values are universal or even just mainstream. Anyone so politically correct as to defend the Taliban deserves the fate of Daniel Pearl.

Well, I'm more of a Libertarian or perhaps classic Liberal. It's ironic how on this board so many assume I must be a Conservative. So much for dictionaries, I guess. Anyhow, I dunno about being more fearful but I would agree that there are definitely personality traits associated with political leanings. I am constantly struck by how many "lefties" are math challenged! It seems that this side of the fence doesn't tend to attract hard scientists and engineers, or techie types. If they do attract scientists it's usually botanists instead of physicists, rarely rocket scientists. There are exceptions of course but over the span of my life the trend seems overwhelming. I too would be interested if others have noticed more non-political traits associated with political leanings.

Me too, but "I was so much younger then, I'm older then that now!" There is a definite limit to how much can be smoked without impairing your driving as there is with how much alcohol you can consume, at least in my experience. What's more, I would never have even considered toking while driving, anymore than I would have been chugging beers as I drove along. It's claims like these that hurt the cause.

Well, it very well could mean the end of something! It might mean the end of the majority of citizens thinking like you do! Say what you like but it seems that the values of Canadians are changing. Meanwhile, those against Harper choose to oppose this trend by calling all those of their fellow Canadians stupid and ignorant! What a way to win friends and influence people! If that doesn't swing people back to their former views then what will, eh? Shrieking and scolding! Yeah, that oughta do it!

Yep, that's us! We can't defend against guns, planes or bombs but if there's a disaster somewhere we can show up with blankets. Of course, if there's TWO disasters going on at the same time we're kinda euchred...

If you're so hung up on accountability then why do you mention Walkerton and make NO mention of Mr. Cable? Obviously, you don't think he is accountable!

I understood it perfectly. I didn't like it! It all hinged on the idea of politicians making the list of alternative MPP's instead of voters. Every one I know who voted against the idea did so for this very reason. Yet every single time I hear someone like yourself refer to that vote I NEVER hear that point mentioned! It's always "Oh, folks just didn't get enough time to understand it!" or "Well, bad people spread evil propaganda that scared people away from it!" Never what perhaps was the TRUTH - there were things about the proposal that folks DIDN'T LIKE! The idea of a more proportional system is a totally separate and distinct issue from the specific proposal that was offered to Ontario voters on that ballot. It was a dumb and unpopular approach to your goal of PRR. Get over it! Stop whining and come up with a better one!

It's one thing to be disgusted with Ritz. It's quite another to use him as an excuse to dump the entire party. Particularly if you're not impressed with the other parties as alternatives. As I keep saying, it's not enough to throw crap at your opponent. You also have to make your choice smell nicer to a voter's nose. Or more simply, you don't raise yourself up by tearing another down. Even more dangerous, it's a lead pipe cinch that sooner or later one of your OWN will say something stupid! You run the risk of inviting retributive justice. In politics as well as ordinary life, people in glass houses are stupid to talk too much about stone throwing...

Who cares? Are you suggesting that because you don't like Uncle Sam that we have no need to worry about Russia taking de facto possession of the Arctic? Are you saying that it would never happen and even if it did, we have enough resources to do anything about it?