Wild Bill

Well, if we take the big cities like those you mentioned and a few others out of the equation, isn't that the lion's share and then some? Doesn't that make those that are left a rather trivial number? I can tell you with absolute certainty that the police are NOT regularly stopping shipments coming of Six Nations in Brantford! I fail to see why it would be that much different at any other reserve. For that matter, I'd be very surprised if there's not a reserve close to Winnipeg, your town, that has exactly the same situation. As a non-smoker, perhaps you just don't move in the right circles to be aware of what's going on? I mean, if you didn't smoke and/or buy contraband yourself, unless you were in law enforcement how or why would you even know?

+1! Some seem to have forgotten that we don't HAVE to take ANYBODY! We accept refugees out of the goodness of our hearts. Only someone with no heart could refuse to take someone shipwrecked into their lifeboat. Only someone with no brain would take so many that the lifeboat would sink and drown EVERYONE!

Wouldn't a smoker simply choose to buy contraband? The going rate for a bag of 200 cigarettes on the Six Nations Reserve is $6. Compare this with $80 or so for a legal carton. Again, I'm picking apart your model and not your point. Still, there was a time not that long ago when virtually no non-native bought contraband cigarettes. Now the official number is 1 out of every 3 and climbing. Why? Some feel that energy sources are different, in that you can't as easily sell contraband gas. Maybe not, but in the past few weeks here in my town the new crime is big-time theft of gasoline and diesel oil. Big tankers pull up to a gas station in the dead of the night, break some locks and siphon the underground tanks dry. Considering we're talking upwards of $50,000...

Not that I might disagree anyway, but when you say that we're an open society for immigrants, I don't recall ever being asked my preferences by any politician or party in my entire life! It just happened. It became policy and that was that, period and end of story. Has the Canadian public ever been asked how they feel about this? There never seems to have been any true debate in Parliament over the years. No politician of any party would touch this one with a ten foot pole. If the subject is brought up more informally it always degenerates into accusations of racism, which is absurd since it's really all about culture and not race. Or defensive comparisons to the immigrants who helped develop Canada after WWII, which is a very poor comparison since those immigrants were mostly young, hard-working folks just starting out in life while today the bulk of our immigration seems to come from family reunification. Grandparents usually don't come here to work in the construction trade. Saudi Arabia might be an extreme case but it may actually be more democratic in its policy, as to reflecting the wishes of its people. Certainly, any country that can preserve a strong unified culture is more likely to be successful in surviving in this modern world. Still, if the idea of democracy is a government that at least tries to follow the wishes and values of its people, how can we even tell if our system is being democratic?

Well, I could make the exact same observation about Newman and CBC-NW! Are you saying that you can only be objective by getting your news solely from people that agree with you?

I have a hard time accepting this part of your argument. My impression is that Prohibition failed because there was just too high a percentage of the American public who both hated and flaunted it! Also, that the criminal element had grown so rich and powerful because of it that the American government could not possibly make an effective attack on it. The parallels with today are obvious. In my town the police discovered SEVERAL FLOORS OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD BEEN RUNNING AS A GROW-OP! The police cannot be everywhere and it all gets down to the money. If you are going to impose your own personal standards on SOMEONE ELSE then you are a fool if you expect them to meekly accept it. They will hate you for it and find ways around the law. You end up needing (and paying!) for a cop not just on every corner but in every home. Prohibition was the direct cause of gangsters like Al Capone. He never would have been so rich and powerful without booze money. Prohibition was a result of the Temperance Movement achieving sufficient lobbying power. The problem was that it was a direct attack on the rights of an individual to go to hell his own way. In effect, the Temperance Movement achieved the political power to FORCE their neighbours to do what the TM thought was good for them! Prohibition tactics are really just social fascism. This is made worse by such fascists taxing the hell out of the rest of us to pay for their futile charade of even making a dent in the "war on drugs". Finally, there's no way stills could have become the main supply of alcohol. Stills require a reasonable amount of room, heat and ventilation from the heavy smells. Not the sort of industry that lends itself to city dwellers, or even many rural dwellers at the time who didn't own their own land. Which exasperates the present problem. It is FAR easier to grow some plants in an urban dwelling than to run a still!

I don't know why, especially since their heyday was before I was born but I've always been fascinated by the DC-3! I've read books on its history and how during wartime it had a reputation of getting you there through thick and thin, even with half the wings shot off. I live beside Hamilton, Ontario, which is home to the Canadian Warplane Federation at the Hamilton Airport. They're always looking for new members to help maintain their planes, including a Lancaster. All their planes fly! Part of the new membership deal they offer is a ride in the Lancaster. I wonder if they'd think me "lower class" if I asked for the DC-3 instead!

No, I don't think Harper is at a disadvantage at all. I believe that most voters are nowhere near as partisan as those of us who post in these threads. If the incumbent hasn't caused any big sh*tstorm then people tend to vote with the status quo. Why change if there's no real perceived need? Just because some partisans here have tried to stick every trivial "scandal" on to Harper's Tories, up to and including late library books, is no reason to think that most Canadians care. To them, as long as taxes haven't gone up and the economy hasn't tanked then everything is tickety-boo, considering. This applies to ANY incumbent, of ANY party! Please don't think that I'm saying that more people love the Tories. I don't think most voters are that partisan any more. An incumbent only has to defend his record if the people are angry. Otherwise they will still vote for him, because he has made their lives easier. If things are going ok then they can ignore politics and enjoy their lives. In normal times Dion as an opposition rival would have to offer a reason to change. Any student of sales or marketing knows that you can put all the choices you want in front of a customer but if you can't give him a good reason to change he sticks with what he's more familiar. So Dion would have the tougher task. However, as I had said, the NewGST is kind of a wild card. "Green" is a mojo word to many folks these days. I'm saying that significant numbers of voters might back Dion without needing to understand his plan. So Dion doesn't have to explain his plan or defend it in debate. If he DID get elected he might become a huge disappointment to the people but that's in the future. We're speculating about the NEXT one!

Well, I always like to stand out in a crowd!

Oh Dear! Not at present! Perhaps we should speak more softly and not give them any ideas...

Close enough for rock and roll! Although I should point out that Tory is just another term for the Conservative Party, just as Grit describes the Liberals. These terms date from Merry Olde England. There's a new term you've probably heard that perhaps is more useful to such discussions. It's "Statist". Statists can be right or left. Basically they want the State to control everything. They are great at rationalizations to deny their goals, like championing free speech as long as you don't say anything politically incorrect. They want government standards, programs and laws for pretty well anything. The ultimate in "nanny staters", I guess. I would say Canada has fallen much further down this path than America. Sometimes things seem kinda confining. Perhaps it will change. Maybe the reason I feel that more "lefties" are rude and bullying is that I live in an area that traditionally supports the NDP and Liberal parties.

Well, I guess it all depends on what you consider most important. You worry about them representing the best interests of the justice system. I worry about them representing the best interests of the people. Perhaps in some ways they coincide.

I would have been more surprised if voter support HAD moved! It's summer! No one cares about politics! It's between elections. Another reason why people don't care. Polls ALWAYS show little or no change at such times! Only political junkies like ourselves are paying attention. Once the writ is dropped, then and only then does the electorate start to wake up. Sheesh, it's not as if Canadians as a whole have been begging for an election! No, Canadians' interest has been lukewarm at best. That's our tradition, after all. Right now the most parties can do is to try to get shape on their spin, as it were. When the campaign starts and people start to pay attention they will all have just a few weeks to enhance their appeal over the other guys. Incumbents who have not seriously screwed up will have an advantage. Opposition parties without planks of powerful popular appeal will have a serious challenge. Normally, I would think that Dion would have the greatest challenge. His NewGST takes a LOT of 'splainin' to make Mr. and Mrs Joe Public come on board as "eco-warriors". He may simply not have enough time to do a good enough job of selling it. The very idea of a new tax makes Canadian hackles rise. Asking for trust that it will not hurt opposes generations of good reasons for voter cynicism. Why should they trust an unknown like Dion? Yet despite all that Dion may still do surprisingly well. It all depends on how dumb we've become. If there are more people who get excited when they hear the word "Green" than there are people who ask "will it really work and what will it really cost?" then the idea might actually fly! I'm really not sure at this point how it will work out. Public apathy about politics and its issues seems to keep increasing. More and more people seem to view politics as more of an elemental force, like the weather. You can't do anything to change it. All you can do is close the shutters during the bad stuff. So why bother talking about it? I'm not saying such cynicism is right, just that it seems to be getting more popular.

Funny, in the Science & Tech thread I keep getting told that I "don't have permission to reply". The other areas work fine!

Looking back at the links you made to my earlier posts, I have to admit you're right! I WAS guilty as charged! Labeling is an insidious thing, isn't it? Still, I still don't believe I lack company. As for McCain and Limbaugh, I have a problem defining them as rightwingers or conservatives. Limbaugh in particular. American "rightwing" is something unique and particular to that country's culture. They don't fit my idea of conservatives at all. America uses a lot of political labels in ways that I can't understand. They seem to define Libertarian as some sort of gun-toting survivalist anti-government hillbillies. Much different than my understanding. I'm more partical to the political definitions given by Bill Gairdner in his book "The Trouble With Canada". So while I would agree that adults picking on children is low I might not agree that certain individuals doing it are good examples of rightwing thinking. Limbaugh is just an arrogant boor, IMHO. Still, even a broken watch is right twice a day. Perhaps I'm an exception but I link left and right to liberal and conservative in political philosophy. For this reason I would define Canada's Liberal party as liberal in name only. Their words and actions don't jive. The same with the Tories, for that matter. Here in Canada only the NDP seem true to dictionary definitions. The big two are more like baseball teams, where often you see the same players end up on different teams. Their only real differences are in their jerseys.

Your attitude is quite common. In fact, it may be the majority view. I find this absolutely amazing! In effect, nobody knows for sure anything about the people who pick judges yet we are all confident that they are qualified and represent our best interests. I don't know and that's why I'm asking the questions. I guess I'm less of a "faith" person than most.

Now we can see more clearly the source of much of the confusion around this topic. It has to do with how we define left and right. Some of us would use a dictionary. Others use people from the real world and label them into a collective group. So Limbaugh and McCain are considered the definition of rightwing or conservative. Frankly, I consider this more than simplistic. I think its nuts! It's defining a philosophy with poster boys. The trouble with poster boy definitions is that they are twisted into something often unrecognizable by the words and deeds of a fallible human being. Every group has its demons. A critic can form an opinion from a demonic poster boy without having a clue about a political philosophy. If you look in a dictionary for a definition of conservatism there's no picture of Rush Limbaugh. Sadly, too many folks rely on books with few words and lots of big pictures.

Hey, all I know is he was out in less than 4. I was responding to the point made that insanity is not a free pass and that such a person would spend more time in an institution than if he was convicted as a regular felon. Carl was declared nuts and Carl walked after less than 4 years. BTW, has ANYBODY been convicted of FIRST degree murder here in Canada in recent memory? I've read where this simply no longer happens. If so, why bother having it on the books?

Interesting viewpoint. You've just totally negated the very concept of a democracy! So the laws of the land should not come from the people, as they aren't smart enough to know what's right and wrong. We must appoint men who we recognize are of a better calibre and look after the little babies. So who chooses who's fit to be a judge? Not just for a time but for life. You've ruled out the people.

Not always. I have some close experience. While anecdotal, it's hardly in the category of urban myth. Years ago my father-in-law was a house builder. He had many tradesmen he used on a regular basis, like roofers, electricians and plumbers. His regular plumber was a man I'll call "Carl", who lived in my town. Carl grew a bit kinky after a while and began to push his wife into the wife-swapping scene. At first apparently she wasn't too keen but once she got into it she got an enthusiastic change of heart, to the point where she told Carl she wanted a divorce, to be free to marry someone else. Carl didn't like this idea at all. One day when the kids got home they found that Daddy Carl had hacked up their mommy to death with an axe. Many of us in my community followed this ghastly crime from our own neighbourhood with great interest. Carl was charged with criminal insanity of some kind and was put in a mental institution. At that point most folks figured things were over and done with and after a few years the incident was all but forgotten. As you can imagine, my family had more of an interest than most and continued to pay attention. One day we were shocked to hear that Carl was back on the street! Apparently, when you are considered criminally insane you are only locked up until the doctors agree that you are no longer raising snakes under your hat. If they decide that you are no longer nuts then you are free to go. Carl had served less than 4 years! We can argue if this all makes sense to treat such cases in this way. I myself don't claim to have all the answers. I DO know that my father-in-law refused to ever use "Carl's Plumbing" ever again!

Why not work to make judges apply the sentences already available? I should think that would be obvious. The general perception is that we citizens have little or no power to do this, except only in the most abstract sense. Consider, in Canada judges are not elected. They are appointed for life. If you don't like a judge's sentencing record then that's just too bad! In fact, be careful how loud and publicly you criticize him. That too is considered a crime and he can have you charged! If you write an angry letter to the editor, rail all you want but be careful not to mention any specific judge by name, even if he gave Paul Bernardo only a slap on the wrist. Mandatory sentencing is perceived as a tool to FORCE such judges into giving sentences more in line with the public will! I'm not taking a stand as to whether or not it would be a good tool, just that perhaps this is the reason.

Actually, "eyeball" has confused me. Does he mean gun control would have prevented a gun being pulled in the first place? Or is he being sarcastic towards the idea of gun control as being impractical and ineffective in the real world. Myself, I would like to see gun control that works to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But then, I also always wanted a pony and to get to drive a fire engine.

Not at all! For years now gang leaders have used juveniles as the front line shock troops, especially for shootouts. The juveniles will get far lighter sentences if caught, they will get increased status within the gang for their willingness to do violence, and the gang leaders (who don't care a whit for the juveniles anyway) can sit back with impunity.

Well, it seems to me that you're making unsubstantiated premises again. Where are these alternatives you're talking about? How practical is it for a consumer to make a switch? You're asking for a big leap of faith. Isn't this where we started? I think I'm typical in that I have an older home and very little disposable income. Not that much credit headroom left, for that matter. My choices for heating are oil, gas and electricity. ALL of them steadily become more and more expensive! So if your argument is that I should switch to an alternative, tell me what that alternative would be! Yes, markets only care that a choice has become more expensive. If there's no cheaper alternative, so what? The typical home owner has only so many lamp sockets to fill with those new compact flourescent lamps. What's more, any electrician can do the simple math to show that the lighting portion of your household bill is mice nuts in comparison to any appliance with a motor or a heating element. Unless you can show that there are indeed cheaper market sources I believe YOUR argument falls apart! If you can name me a few I will cheerfully concede. Again, this is where we came in. I'm a techie. Show me something. Don't ask for my faith.

Here's a good one: http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firea...un-control.html So how does this work? Do we now try to amass more links than the other guy? The most links wins