Wild Bill

I googled up UQM Technologies. Apparently that Deere tractor is a lawn and garden tractor. I wasn't aware that was what the prairie farmers use for their harvests. Perhaps their also using those new fangled Sears electric lawnmowers on their barley. I also googled up some sites that talked about electric drive systems for the US Navy. Unless you read something completely different you really should scan a bit deeper when you do a google. Navies have been using electric drive systems in submarines for decades. Of course, you need a diesel or nuclear power plant to drive the electric generator. This is very different from what we are talking about. I thought we were talking about totally electric vehicles to do commercial industrial and large scale agricultural tasks. Not hybrids that saved 5% of the fuel consumption. To be fair, my google skills aren't as good as my reading skills. Maybe you could give me a link to a site that shows a near-future electric tractor that is practical for those prairie grain farmers or could win at the local Ontario plowing matches? Something that doesn't run on D cells?

Well, one paper is hardly overwhelming proof of a different view but if you're interested you might want to go to this site and d/l the .pdf file. It seems rational and persuasive. A tinfoil hat doesn't seem necessary, at least! http://ideas.repec.org/p/sls/resrep/02td.html

Gee, I guess you're right! Best thing for us is to double or triple our trade deficits with China. Or with anyone else, I guess. Thanks for pointing out the error in my logic. Particularly as regards to losing trade with China automatically meaning more expensive imports. I had forgotten that we never could afford toasters before and that there are no other countries that could supply us such goods at attractive prices. I guess those countries that try to achieve trade surpluses must be fools! Thank heavens we're so smart.

http://www42.statcan.ca/smr04/2005/08/smr04_24105_04-eng.htm http://www.international.gc.ca/eet/pdf/Mon...ics-Dec6-en.pdf These are just two sites I googled up. The last shows that in 2006 we were in the hole to China by nearly 27 billion! Geez, if we were to start a trade war with China I guess we'd really lose! How could we survive without owing them all that money? At this rate, where will we be in 10 years? In 20? Thank you, M Chretien! You really opened up trade with China! From a purely Darwinian standpoint, it would appear that the Chinese are far, far smarter than we are.

Are you claiming the battery technology already exists or is nearly here that would have enough stored watts to allow a farmer to haul a plow through the earth for hundreds of acres all day long? Or bale and truck heavy bales of hay for an entire day? Or run a combine through field after field of prairie wheat and haul it back to a silo? The difference in scale between such jobs and scooting around town commuting to work or buying the daily groceries is of a quantum level. It is like the difference between an electric moped and one of those HUGE dump trucks they use at the oilsands sites or at open pit mines, where they all have tires taller than a house. How do you think such machines will be powered? As a techie this just seems totally unlikely to me, at least for the foreseeable future. A prairie wheat farmer today would need the energy output of the "Mr. Fusion" unit in that DeLorean in "Back to the Future". A watt is a watt is a watt. The Universe couldn't care less about eco-politics.

What's in it for Uncle Sam? He gains some natural resources but gets stuck with a huge welfare bill!

I'm all for anything to support things pertaining to our Canadian history. The way it seems to have been de-emphasized and revised these last few decades, particularly in our schools, seems almost Orwellian!

I sympathize with your hardship. As an explanation, all I can say is that for practical purposes Canada's "system" is rife with such stupidity. You see, there has never been much thought as to whether things work or are practical. It's all about photo-ops and catering to special interests, especially with immigration. It's all about the votes! I hate to sound so cynical but if I was wrong then you would never have experienced your misfortune. A loophole like you experienced is so obvious in the forethought that only those mentally deficient or more likely, totally uncaring could have missed it. Even a child could have foreseen it. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. How do we change it? It will take a long time of raising public awareness to the point where it becomes an election issue and some party sees the advantage of including it in their platform. And actually wins an election to get the power to implement it. Still, every journey begins with a single step. Your post here might prove to be such a beginning...

A certain minimum requirement only makes sense. If it cost nothing what would stop some political guerilla from Queens U. with an axe to grind from putting forth a hundred frivolous candidates in a riding, just to ensure a ten foot long ballot to list them all so he can think he made some kind of valuable statement? That being said, the bar should not be so high that the average citizen is locked out. Still, running just to have your name on a ballot is little more than egoboo, if you have no goal of garnering enough votes from your fellow citizens to have a shot at winning the riding. If you are serious then you should already have been gathering supporters and workers for your campaign. They should have been raising money for you to pay for signs and whatever else you need. In other words, is someone seriously trying to help his fellow citizens with positive political change or is he simply dinking around? "Makers, takers and fakers. There are NO other kinds!" ---P T Barnum

Some provinces are harmonized, some are not. Personally, I DON'T want them harmonized here in Ontario! The feds have always pushed harmonization for one simple reason - to hide and confuse how much they are ripping us off! They even give a bit of a financial discount to a province if it will harmonize their tax for them. I like to know exactly which government is bleeding me and exactly how much. It gives me something to think about at election times.

Well, median income is only half the story. What about cost of living? Shouldn't one consider disposable income? To give an extreme example, if your median income doubles but your cost of living trebles or quadruples then your living standard drops...

Really? Decades ago we were poorer? Decades ago when I was a lad the norm was that Mom stayed home! My father was a typical working man at a local factory. On his income alone we had a house and a car. We were all reasonably well fed and clothed. There were four of us kids. Mom staying home made a dramatic difference in our upbringing compared to today, with so many kids raised more hours in daycare than with their parents. Mom staying home meant that the household duties could be done by her. This freed up evenings and weekends for family and leisure time pursuits. 4 kids was not that big a deal to look after in those days. Today both partners working is the norm, not for some sense of accomplishment for the female half of the partnership but just to pay the mortgage and bills! With work time and in areas like Toronto ridiculously long commute times the time left for family and leisure is severely curtailed. Nothing for the household is done through the day. Both partners are at work. When they get home is when they look after cooking, cleaning and childrearing. No wonder they have fewer kids. They're too flippin' tired! And the thought of trying to help put more than one or two through higher education to save them from a similar fate is pretty intimidating. A larger brood would simply be impossible. The average Canadian can't afford a live-in nanny. I would totally disagree with your premise that couples today are richer than decades ago. They may have more toys but today its the toys that are cheap! A colour TV is only a few hundred dollars. My parents spent nearly a grand in the early 60's, when a gallon of gas was maybe 22 cents. It's the home and car that are expensive today. If we want to encourage larger families we'll have to do it by ways that give modern couples TIME! That will kick the hell out of the productivity stats. We'll need to make the same money with a LOT fewer hours! I don't think this could be accomplished in just one or two elections.

Don't worry about us Canucks. When Russia gets around to claiming the entire Arctic circle for its resources (all the way down to Winnipeg, no doubt!) Canadians will finally realize the sort of "friend" Russia truly is...

I do believe that in this argument you're wasting your time. The popular opinion of the Russian bear in western countries is just too firmly entrenched to ever be changed. It is based on the actions of the USSR, on sympathy for the conquered Baltic nations and on innumerable Hollywood movies. You can argue if the opinion is accurate but it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Russia seems singularly inept at its propaganda attempts to change this perception. I'm starting to wonder if it is part and parcel of the Slavic character. I first began to pay attention to this back during the NATO bombing of Kosovo. The news was full of Bosnian civilians in front of CNN cameras. They appeared frightened and cried out how oppressed they were by the Serb forces, desperate to get UN help. Whenever I saw footage of Serbian civilians, they seemed to be shouting "We too are oppressed! And we will rise up and destroy our oppressors!" Now both sides in that conflict no doubt committed similar atrocities against each other during that terrible civil war. Still, in the battle for world opinion the Serbs had clearly lost. No one feels pity for a warrior, only for who appear to be helpless victims. Russia appears to be reverting to its old character. It ties its sense of self-pride to its ability to use force. This can of course be very effective, as long as it doesn't trigger a war bigger than Russia intended to deal with. The downside is that once Russia starts down this path, it will never get allies and cooperation on a volunteer basis. It will ALWAYS have to use force! And free nations will never again trust Russia. She can use all the diplomats and propagandists she wants to justify whatever she does but it won't matter. The average western citizen still remembers East Germany, Solidarnosc and Joe Stalin as the underpinnings of modern Russia. When you have a bad rep a thousand positive deeds are forgotten in the face of one negative. Russia has gotten what it wanted in Georgia. She should pay attention to the training it has given her. She will get little or nothing on the world stage again from negotiation. Her swords will be her only useful tools for a long time to come.

Perhaps not an accurate assessment. There are two possible approaches to dealing with a government like China. There's the Winston Churchill approach and the Neville Chamberlain approach. In your arguments you don't seem to be a Winnie-style advocate.

It would seem you now agree with me. I don't recall Manning's party(s) disowning the idea but certainly after the merger with the PCs the very smell of the idea was buried to be forgotten. And Harper indeed is no longer a champion of the idea, or pretty much all other Reform/Alliance ideas, for that matter. If you are correct that our kids will have to wait a very long time, you should not be surprised if the voter turnout continues to decline. People tend not to get enthusiastic about a process where they feel less and less personal influence. Manning gave people a sense of participation and personal involvement. Sadly, that's totally gone today.

Independent? What good would that do? In the entire history of Canada we've had perhaps only ONE vote where an independent mattered! That would be the one with Chuck Cadman. I've no desire to simply wave a flag for an idea yet have no power in the real world to change anything. As for free votes, I guess you never studied any of Manning's literature. Are you aware that Canada is the ONLY parliamentary government in the world that practices such rigid party discipline with votes? Britain, Australia, the Americans with their republican system, New Zealand...ANYWHERE! All these other countries restrict voting as a party block to those Bills that are deemed true confidence motions, which are mostly financial. Anything else is wide open. Here in Canada it would seem that the party whips would demand solidarity on even a vote on where to buy the doughnuts and coffee! Reform did highlight this situation enough to bring some embarrassment to the other parties. Now we see "token" free votes. These are where the party whip does a quick nose count to be sure that allowing a few dissenters will not affect anything. This allows the odd MP who has a serious conflict with the interests of his own riding to go against his party for the photo-op without any fear of changing the result of the vote. Afterwards the party can brag about allowing "freedom". Still, there's some slim hope. The idea of more true representation is still out there. Sooner or later it may bubble up to the surface and become so much in demand that parties will be forced to cater to it. My kids may live to see it.

Ah yes, the MacLeans article! This article puzzled me. I have respect for the magazine and normally tend to credit what they publish. Yet this article is at odds with my own personal experience and that of my social network. I have to ask myself, why? Perhaps part of it is that the article states that this present positive situation only came about after 1997. My industry collapsed after 9/1/1, not that long after. I found myself over 50 in a field that no longer offered any jobs. Worse yet, I live in an economically depressed town. Perhaps that colours my perceptions. Also, the author factors the depressed American house prices into the equation. This is a snapshot view that only matters if you are selling your house today. If your home is your home and not a liquid investment this might not be a fair way to calculate debt load. 5 years from now your home could be worth quite a bit more than the current depressed value. That's the nature of real estate. Besides, your house value is only important if you have to sell, TODAY! If you don't, then just live in it for a few more years until the price comes back and then decide if you want to sell it. Including medical insurance is also a huge can of worms. True, we don't go in hock to have a baby delivered. We also often have wait times of months or years for things like MRI's. And don't believe the propaganda that "of course, in an emergency we'll bump you to the head of the line". How can they tell its and emergency? By when you have collapsed and are in the ambulance trying to hang on till you reach the hospital. So when you compare the value of the two insurance systems you just get sucked into diverging arguments. I didn't see any mention of regional disparities in the article. Are the oil patch wages high enough to skew the equation? Do most of the country's people live with less disposable income and more debt? What I do know is that I spent my career often working for Canadian branches of American firms. The personal information I gleaned from my American co-workers was dramatically different from that implied in the Maclean's article. They didn't have to put in as much overtime (unpaid in salary jobs), their homes cost less, their utilities were lower, what they bought tended to be cheaper (especially meat and dairy products, due to Canadian supply boards that inflate the resale prices dramatically), their income taxes were lower and they could deduct their home's mortgage interest! They could also split income/deductions with their spouses on their taxes! Most important, they paid less for beer! A LOT less! So I have a hard time believing what was written. I'm not 100% sure just where the discrepancies lie in the article but it just makes claims absolutely different from my own experience and observations. Perhaps I'm just in a statistical anomaly. I'm not sure. If so, it doesn't make living any easier!

Not for any party that practices "party solidarity" in House votes. I would not even do that to some enemies...

Jdobbin, are you assuming I have no experience at all? I held one of the first if not perhaps the very first Reform Party memberships issued in Ontario. I served several terms as a Riding Director. I raised money, knocked on doors and brought in a LOT of new memberships! I feel I did more than the average citizen. That's why I feel I'm aware enough of the practical details to know that it's not a good fit for me at this time to try to be a candidate. If I'm going to see any meaningful change a token effort with a fringe party would not be worthwhile to me. There's a difference in being able to run and being able to make more than a trivial difference. I'm not trying to be offensive when I say that I don't place much value in platitudes and arguments stretched to the limits of being academic. Platitudes are what drove me away from the old Tory party. The troops were expected to do all the work but had no say at all in the party platform. Like the Liberals, there was a lot of "make work" committees, all carefully arranged to be absolutely non-binding on the party leadership. Reform offered us a truer, more grass roots democratic party. I guess I've been spoiled. I could never again be happy with anything less. The present parties just don't command the same inspiration for me. They talk a good talk but their actions are simply elitist, IMHO. Dion, Harper, May, Layton...same old, same old to me. So far, as I've said many times, I'll vote CPC out of default, not out of any sense of inspiration. It's my civic duty to vote so I vote. As a wiser man than I once sang..."The Thrill is Gone!"

Can you back this up? The only stats I ever saw that made such claims came from some cheerleading, Anti-American group that used "quality of life" benchmarks instead of hard facts like disposable income and cost of living.

Understandable. It's just that you didn't answer any of the specific challenges to someone in my position. You just told me that guys like Dick Cheney could do it! You didn't seem to address any roadblock in a practical sense. If I did what you suggested I would end up with a divorce, kids who never went to college and most important, I would lose all sense of self-respect the first time I was forced to be a trained seal and toe the line with party solidarity on virtually all House votes. If I was 26 instead of 56 your advice might have been more "real world". Your academic suggestions frankly made me feel like a man with no legs being badgered for not participating in a dance.

How could a trade war hurt us if we're running a HUGE trade deficit with China? That's mathematically impossible!

Don't give the leftwingers here any ideas!

Money! We Canadians in general are poorer than Americans. We are lower down the living standard list. In my neighbourhood some mothers are paying over $100 per day for daycare. Not much left at the end of the week from that second family income.