Wild Bill

"Grudgingly accepting..."? Well, that's one view. I think it depends on where you live. In my part of Ontario I get a quite different read. People are deeply resentful but feel helpless, with no choice. It comes on top of all the layoffs and job losses. There's little sense of just "cutting back". In the GTA few people have driven for pleasure for years. Long commutes to a job that demands extra hours is the norm. People buy gas BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO! And they're resenting it! There's a storm brewing here and from what I see coming from Ottawa the Tories are oblivious. It truly looks as if they've written Ontario off and handed it to the Opposition parties. Either that or there is ZERO input from anybody knowledgeable on the ground in Ontario into the Tory war room! Perhaps the Tories' own polls show that they can achieve a majority without more seats here. No doubt they have access to better data than someone like myself. Meanwhile, once again it's nostalgia time! I get the same sense of people feeling that they have no choice that I used to feel before the Reform Party came on the scene. I truly believe that much of their seemingly instant support came from intense dissatisfaction with the available choices. My sense is that Ontario voters are desperate for an alternative. If someone offers them one that seems viable the result could be quite dramatic. It would be a shame if the Opposition took more seats in Ontario and denied Harper his majority but if it happens it looks to me like he asked for it!

I can't switch! In exchange for a conflict on this one issue you're asking me to choose other parties where I conflict with them on EVERYTHING BUT this issue! Bad choice!

Arrogance seems to be a universal trait of marxists, or at least socialists. If your comment wasn't ad hominem then I don't know what is. Anyhow, enough. Life's too short. Time for the "ignore" button.

You're asking me to argue with a secondary point. Who cares about the views of the majority of the Palestinians? They're not the problem! The issue is with the ones with guns who fire rockets. After a rocket lands on your home having someone hand you a poll result showing that the majority of the folks on the rocket launcher's side of the hill don't want to kill you and your family is cold comfort. Your arguments seem rather academic and not real-world, at least to me.

After your post #725 you accuse ME of ad hominem?!! I meant no rebuttal. I made an observation, one that I believe fits the philosophy behind your postings. Your implied vision of a utopian native society fits this view, at least to me. Since I believe my observation to be true I see no point in making any rebuttal at all.

Well, any bill could be interpreted as a "door opener" if you stretch it far enough. The problem is, should someone be able to cause the death of a fetus as a result of assault, attempted murder or whatever similar towards the pregnant mother with no consequences? Apparently, that is the way the law works today. Assuming you don't agree that this is a GOOD thing, could you perhaps suggest some better wording that would accomplish the same end without compromising a woman's right to choose?

Indeed. It finally came to me why CR never seemed to make sense. Take away the native aspect and his posts are really just warmed-over marxism. He's not calling for political solutions that would WORK! He calls for solutions that first of all fit his catechism. You can't win against an argument based on Marxist theory. It's like arguing with a Creationist. Save your breath.

I didn't see anyone mention that we have little or no control over how foreign food has been grown. I mean, we couldn't even trust China with pet food! You need inspection and enforcement at the source. Trying to analyze the contents of a can is much more difficult. Furthermore, historically we put all kinds of restrictions on our farmers as to what chemicals and sprays they can use and how they must handle produce, in the name of "clean living". This inflated domestic costs, often to the point where farmers can no longer complete with imports. Yet we pay absolutely no attention as to whether other countries enforce the same standards as we do! A spray that is banned in Canada may be common usage in another country and that country can and does ship food into Canada covered with the stuff! I'm a free trader but restrictions that cause extra costs on domestic products should certainly be applied to imports as well. Otherwise you make a mockery of the idea of free trade and a level playing field. Implications that Canada's farmers are just not competive are kinda smarmy, when these factors are considered. What's more, it exposes the true intent of such "health" laws about farming. If they were truly about protecting the Canadian public then of course the same restrictions would have been applied to imported food. Since they never have (or at least, never enforced) it's obvious that they are only about a photo-op.

Do you seriously expect that any government would stay in power if they caved in to such a ridiculous argument?How would natives take back ALL the land? How would they collect such rent? It is never smart negotiating tactics to expect your opponent to cheerfully commit political suicide for you. It simply could never happen.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Actually, when I think of "Indians" I think of some of the posters to this board. You know, the guys who speak as if all natives are entirely right and all whites are entirely wrong. The guys who accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being racist. They are some of the loudest native voices I hear so I tend to assume that they are typical of all. Not logical, I know. I have to constantly try to correct myself. Perhaps if I heard some different native views once in a while instead of the same old 'broken record"...

Glad to hear you're alright, Jack! Seriously. Still, Ontario is a totally different demographic. Speaking for myself, I've been so damn strapped for over 10 years of a declining economy that I have no resources whatsoever to put into such investments, whether with money or with time. Albertans would remember the economic disasters of years ago with the NEP and other bonehead federal programs. Ontario is undergoing something similar right now. Farmers have been ripping out fruit trees and grapes here in the Niagara peninsula. The last juice factory has closed and they have no one else in a practical situation to buy their product. So they are simply closing down the farms. The number of factories laying off and/or closing is staggering. The TD bank just issued a report predicting that in 2 years Ontario will qualify as a "have-not" province under equalization. Meanwhile, Flaherty blames the Ontario premier, McGuinty. I happen to think he's right but I just don't understand what he's trying to achieve. So what? He can crow all he likes about McGuinty being a bonehead. What reason is this for Ontario to give Flaherty more seats next election? Perhaps I'm too cynical but it almost seems as if the new Tory Party being so western based they think that Ontario deserves some of the hard times the west has historically experienced. Maybe so, although the trouble with that kind of thinking is that the people suffering today are not the same people who were around at the time of the NEP. Flaherty should be thinking about how to win the hearts and minds of the voters in Ontario. Making the other guy look bad doesn't automatically make your guys look better. The Tories should be doing everything they can to make themselves look like a better choice to help Ontario get back on the right path to prosperity. If they look like they're just oil patch kids gloating at Ontario's misfortunes or that they are waging a personal vendetta against the provincial liberal government and punishing Ontario voters for making a wrong choice then they are NOT likely to be successful in winning more Ontario seats! Sometimes when I follow the news I'd swear that the Tories have given up on Ontario and are handing us over to Dion and his bunch. What a choice! I can put my 'X' beside either "smug and cranky" or "dumb and screwy".

Interesting article! So the Opposition claims that the Tories are tarnishing the reputation of an institution (Elections Canada) that Canadians "all love and respect". From what I've seen and read (Peter C Newman's 'The Canadian Revolution', Gairdner's 'The Trouble With Canada' to name only two) Canadians lost faith with government and its institutions nearly 2 decades ago, around the time of the Mulroney fall from grace and the implementation of the GST. I hope this is just rhetoric on the Opposition's part. I'd had to think they're so naive as to actually believe that's what Canadians believe!

Well, reason prevailed and the Caledonia blockade was removed today. My big fear was that this could have been the proverbial straw on the camel's back. The Mayor of Caledonia was quoted as saying that people were at the end of a desperate rope and talking about taking the law into their own hands. It HAS to happen sooner or later! You can't abandon an entire town with no true legal protection for literally years and expect the citizens to just keep smiling. I wonder if the idiots who thought of a blockade to support Mr. Brant knew just how far they've pushed things...

Maybe, but is that a dictionary definition or a legal one? A "gentleman's agreement" has no written paperwork. It doesn't even need any verbal negotiation, or even conversation! To the players involved, the circumstances of the market situation are obvious. They can see what's going on and understand what to do for maximum benefit to themselves. So how do you bring legal charges? You can call what they're doing anything you want but there's no way you can prove anything in court.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I never meant (nor said!) I was talking about an agreement on the world level. I was only referring to the players within Canada. I'm not convinced that the world price of crude is the major factor in the price we pay at Canadian pumps. If that were the case then we would always have had parity with the pump price in the States. History shows that whatever the world price of crude we Canucks still always pay a hefty premium. I'm saying executives of CANADA Shell or Exxon or whatever have a "gentleman's agreement". Thanks for the correction about Rockefeller and Carnegie. My brain worked better before the kids came. Still, the mistake was in my model and not my point. The official reason for Trust busting is always given as to protect the public interest yet it always seems to cost us more in the long run. I'm sure anyone with any stock in Black's company is feeling very resentful of the US government after all is said and done.

I'm curious. Do you have a background in business? I spent my career in high tech sales. NOBODY in a marketplace wants a price war! The name of the game is NOT to sell more product than the other guy. The goal is to make more MONEY than the other guy! If an oil company lowers its price it will of course sell more litres than its competitors. So what? It will also have reduced its profits! Why bother? Particularly with a product like refined gasoline. People have to buy gas to get to work and cope with their lives, no matter what the cost. If you have only a few sources and they all keep their prices up they end up with much more profit than if they choose to keep beating each other up. Just as a sidebar, when you hold Black up as an example of "a rather typical evil capitalist" you might consider the case of Andrew Carnegie a century or so ago. He was the owner of Standard Oil and was targeted by the American government for being a "greedy monopolist". After being dragged through the courts his company was eventually busted into many smaller ones, in order to "promote competition" and "get a cheaper price for the 'little guy' ". The interesting thing is that after Standard was broken up and Carnegie given his comeuppance the price of gas to the "little guy" went UP! Just as after the government busted Conrad and took over his company the company net worth spiralled into the ground! They destroyed the company in order to protect the shareholders from evil Conrad. I'm not defending the oil companies in Canada. Just pointing out that I think you are unclear in both your logic and your examples. If you ran a company that provided my pay check I think I'd quietly start sending out my resume...

It sounds to me like we are victims of diversion, once again. We're pointing fingers at each other as to who drives the least efficient vehicle, as if that's what's driving prices up. If hummer drivers pay for their own gas I don't care how much they need. It won't reduce my costs! Politicians are getting us to fight with each other so that we won't look closely at THEM! We have high gas prices because the oil companies CAN! They have no competition! We have only a few oil company players. They don't need an organized conspiracy. They can simply operate under a "gentleman's agreement". It's called an oligopoly. They only have to fear political pressures. They've handled that by contributions and a situation where the GST is applied ON TOP of all the other taxes at the pump! This "tax on a tax" situation is supposed to be illegal yet no government whether Liberal or Tory has corrected it since it was implemented. Why should they? The more the cost goes up the higher the tax revenue for the Feds. Supply has been carefully controlled so that the slightest glitch in the supply chain can be used as an excuse to hike prices. A hurricane in New Orleans? Hike prices. An earthquake in Ebonia? Hike prices. If Petro Can had truly wanted to fulfill its official mandate to act as a lever on gas prices it would have built a new refinery or two! We haven't seen any new ones in 30 or 40 years. Part of this is because of incredibly expensive extra costs for environmental controls but when it was a government company it could have found a way around much of this. The laws are always more stringently applied to private companies than public ones. Having more refining capacity would have helped to keep prices down. No, the situation is the way it is because both the oil companies and the government have vested interests to keep it that way! Meanwhile, every time we cry out in pain we get told that it's OUR FAULT! We drive a car that's not efficient enough or grandmothers just refuse to bicycle in the winter or we haven't sealed up our entire homes with foam insulation and on and on and on....ad nauseum. As a people if we had any brains we would refuse to accept these guilt trips and go after our politicians for allowing this situation. Until we do we deserve whatever we get. Bend over. Whaddya want? Regular or Premium?

Actually, they might need guns to defend them from the Liberals and the NDP! Time and time again we've seen the left attack those they consider "turncoats". They vilify any gay Tories or black Republicans they see. Anyhow, it's the Libs who are usually a bit light on the number of minorities in their party. I first noticed this when Reform was the Opposition. Didn't stop the Liberals from screeching, however. I've always suspected the Liberal gene also is linked to being math challenged.

I vividly remember the Chevette. It didn't get anywhere near that kind of mileage! It was lucky to get 20 miles to the gallon and was totally gutless. If memory serves it only ran to 40 hp. Now the imports you mentioned were a different story! They indeed ran to 30 mph or more, with a lot more power. It appeared that the American car companies just couldn't figure out how to build a good 4 cylinder engine. The Chevette appeared to have a 283 V8 sawn in half to make it a four cylinder! The VW rabbit blew rings around it!

What has race got to do with it? Mooches come in all colours. So do working folks. For that matter, we have a fair number of native-born Canadians who expect a free ride with their citizenship. Besides, we live in a Star Trek society. Race hasn't been much of a factor for several generations here now, except in certain hold-out areas "up in the hills". CULTURE now, that IS a factor! Not all cultures are as advanced as another. Not all cultural values are positive when compared to our core culture. So cultural clashes are inevitable. I say, let people practise their culture all they want but when push comes to shove don't expect other citizens to PAY for it! I don't expect the government to pay my fee for when I go haggis hunting in the fall...

Thank you for taking time out from your busy day designing rockets and doing brain surgery to give us the benefit of your "humour".

I'd support that idea, when the rest of earth shares in the costs of running things in Canada! If someone comes to Canada it's only fair that if they want to partake of the benefits of Canada they owe their citizenship and their allegiance. If their heart is still really with another country and they are here simply for what they can take then screw 'em and the horse they rode in on! When I was a lad in the days of hippies there were a lot of communes that sprung up. I visited a few. It was interesting that the successful ones were well aware that while many young folks would come to a commune not all of them would actually WORK to do what was necessary in the building and farming. They sure loved playing guitars and smoking doobies around a campfire at night! Usually after a few days to see what they were like the main body of the commune would suddenly throw a meeting, have a "show of hands" vote and decide on the spot who could stay and who had to go. Those who were voted out were tossed out on the spot, while everybody sang "Hit the road, Jack! And don't you come back no more...!" For all I know some of these communes may be still going today! I think I might check them out, out of curiosity. Those communes that accepted anybody and paid no attention to those who did the work found that in a surprisingly short time the worker element quietly left and the commune then fell apart. The parallels are obvious.

Hmm...I would assume that if the Tories are losing women voters they are likely switching to the Liberals. Does this mean that Dion's Liberals are more attractive to women than to men? That "real men" won't vote Liberal?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm well aware that we have little or no control over what cards are dealt to us. However, we have total control as to how we play them. Rae's government is despised not because of the circumstances they found themselves in but how they tried to handle them. They had wrong and boneheaded policy! Why should I care that you hurl insults at Tories in my face? I don't have blind faith in a party. I'm willing to call a bonehead of ANY party a bonehead! I've switched my vote over the years from Liberal to Conservative, depending on how capable a crew one or the other is offering. It was always a vote for the best of the worst choices. I did have some enthusiasm when I could vote for Reform but after they merged with the Tories they very rapidly abandoned ALL of Reform's principles and became the Tory Party that I had bailed from, all those years ago with Mulroney and Campbell. They still appeal to me more than Dion's bunch of academics and losers. Perhaps Ignatieff will instill some fresh air, we'll see. In actuality I guess I'm a Utilitarian Libertarian. The rights of the individual in the light of what is workable and practical. So far the NDP have never seemed a good match for my values.