Wild Bill

Well, we all have our own limit to cynicism. Moi, I thought I had hit my limit after Adscam but I had to actually drill new holes to raise the bar higher after watching Dion keep slamming Tory motions and then refusing to vote them down.

If you pushed them about it I'm sure you'd find that while they do indeed care about the country's finances they take it for granted that the harm will not be that bad. You have to remember that most Liberals are heart and not head people. They run on faith. They have faith that they are the natural governing party and that they can fix anything! If McTeague's Bill pushed us into a unplanned deficit that's not a big problem if you have Liberal faith. The country has had deficits before. To them the country is better off paying that price to have Liberals back in power! Ask them if they care however and their eyes will fill with tears over love for Canada! They just have a different sense of how things are connected.

You might be right. Still, I'd rather wait and see rather than place any bets. The pollsters were kinda wrong about Liberal fortunes in the Alberta election. Actually, I think Dion is gonna get pushed into an election no matter how good or bad they do in the byelections. His party seems to realize that he's not gonna win the next election for them. In fact, a lot of existing Liberal MPs may lose their seats. He shows no sign of turning this trend around. In fact, it keeps getting worse! Games theory would suggest that the best bet is to trigger an election now and take your lumps. Then you have an excuse for a leadership convention. Dion's gone and Rae or Ignatieff is in. Pin as much of the party baggage on Dion's ass as you toss him out the door. Liberals can't call a leadership convention right now 'cuz it would give Harper the opportunity to force a snap election while they're disorganized. The NDP and the BQ would love to help that along, since it would only mean pluses for them. After all, the Libs did it to Harper's gang, twice! After an election Harper could not possibly pull that trick. Canadians would never stomach another election so soon. A new Liberal leader would have months if not a couple of years to get ready for the next poll. By then maybe Prince Justin would be ready to assume the throne!

This is a link to a book and a tv documentary about how we got into Afghanistan. Perhaps some might find it interesting. http://tvguide.sympatico.msn.ca/Interviews...11_pathtowar_AD

Drea, do you seriously suggest that the potential losses involved with an invasion of North Korea would be anywhere near as low as what we're experiencing in Afghanistan? There is only one reason worth attacking North Korea. If they develop nuclear capability of blowing up their neighbours! Of course, at that point whoever is in the White House will have to decide if he really cares about the lives of those neighbours. America has paid a lot of blood these past hundred years to free OTHER people! People who afterwards tended to spit on them in return. I could understand if they decided to sit one out. I'm not sure if you're right with your point about the oil pipeline. I AM sure that as gas prices go higher and higher this summer the public mood is much more likely to turn against OPEC than Uncle Sam! When people are hurting they demand their governments do something. If doubling our commitment to eradicate the Taliban could be argued to mean a return to gas under $1/litre I think you would be surprised how many of our fellow citizens would cheerfully vote in a particular party! I'm not saying they should, just that they would. If gas hits $1.50 this summer as some are predicting, pay attention to what folks around you are talking about. I don't want to be right but I think I will be.

Well, hard to knock education but it seems to me that if that couple you mention are already living in squalor under the threat of legal troubles, too wound up in illegal means of getting the money for their drugs to keep a real job - isn't it a little late to hand them a pamphlet? I still haven't gotten a totally clear answer to my question but it's truly beginning to look as if at least with certain drugs like heroin and cocaine that while they are addicting the user could still function just fine in society, as long as they had easy and cheap access to their drug. Surely in this state they would be more receptive to education. At least, they would be far less likely to be a threat or a burden to me and my family. Granted, addiction is a terrible thing. Education could be a powerful tool in preventing addiction and perhaps ending some of it. The Law, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be a positive tool for anyone, except for those making money under it. It seems to be saying "If you do drugs, you will be beaten hard! So don't do them!" All stick and no carrot. I don't see much thought or wit in this approach. Not surprisingly, I also don't see much success. I DO see a huge portion of my taxes going to this braindead and futile situation and frankly I resent it! I understand I have to pay taxes but I only respect paying them for things that WORK!

Wars are rarely subject to a budget. The most expensive army is the one that turns out 2nd best! Also, you have to measure the cost of failure versus the cost of fighting. If the cost of a free Afghanistan is too high then we shouldn't contribute a penny or a drop of blood. We should let them be, sitting back and watching as their women are banned from education and treated like slaves. Fundamentalist warlords will run training camps to export terrorism around the globe. Meanwhile, we can be proud that we care more about money!

Looks to me like the Liberals have accepted that they are going to have to face an election sooner rather than later. All this muck being raked like Cadman, RESP and whatever is just desperately trying to get some shape on the campaign ball. They know they're starting from pretty far back. Anything and everything that might tarnish the CPC brand could mean enough votes in a riding here and there to make a difference. None of it has to be proven or make sense. It simply has to stick long enough to get through the election. Tories spending media time pointing out the absurdity of getting life insurance for a dying man is part of that tactic. Refuting the allegation is not success. Making it stick long enough to influence some votes IS! Remember, the Liberals may be broke, lacking an organized army and demoralized but NOBODY is better at machiavellian tactics to win elections!

Interesting. While I don't advocate such drugs I can't help but wonder - are addicts not in such difficulty more from the problems and logistics of obtaining illicit drugs than from the drugs themselves? If heroin was cheap and legal, how well could these people function? In other words, does our present legal system make things worse or better? I've always thought that Al Capone is smiling in his grave about the situation with drugs today. I'm also convinced that many politicians are on the take from drug lords to keep the price and profit so high.

Yes, and no! We've always had a number of cultures in the country. We never had OFFICIAL multiculturalism until the Liberals dreamed it up! There is a HUGE difference! If you're going to cite polls or give opinion about how Canadians feel towards multiculturalism, if you're not precise then you are misleading. It has been my experience that Canadians in general are extremely tolerant of different cultures, as long as they do not conflict with core Canadian beliefs, such as the rights of women and the separation of church and state. They tend to get very INTOLERANT of official multiculturalism, which is a politically correct vehicle to use tax money as a bribe for photo-ops and election votes.

Well, looks like Chauchee got hisself banned! Perhaps we should start a new thread over the changes in the entertainment scene. Are Abba fans more likely to be non-smokers? Was Wendy O Williams a threat to those with scent allergies? Inquiring minds might like to know...

Oh, the shoe appears to fit just fine! As for Chauchee's musical tastes, if he's familiar with the source of the name "bill...th!" then I suspect one of his fave artists would be Jimmy Thudpucker... As for SV and YM, I'm not a big fan of Yngwie. His tone is all preamp distortion, where the amp has a master volume turned down and the input gain turned up. This overdrives the preamp but it tends to sound "fizzy". The power tubes come after the master volume and they are barely working, sounding "hifi". In the Golden Years amps didn't have master volumes. You just turned them up loud! The real distortion came from those output tubes working hard, giving a glorious, thick distortion. Remember bands like "Mountain"? I'm showing my grey hairs again...

Well, I'd agree with you that much of Dion's talk is fear mongering, trying to keep Ontario turned against the Tories. Still, things are rarely black and white. There IS something there for Dion to work on! I was one of the first Reform members in Ontario. I vividly remember banging my head against the wall over the actions of the Calgary HQ in running campaigns in Ontario. They simply didn't get it! They wanted to run the show from Calgary and seemed to truly believe they understood Ontarioans on a nuts and bolts level. Local people were often pushed aside or ignored. The best example was the Sheila Copps byelection over her resignation vis the GST. Her riding was right beside mine and I watched virtually ALL the local riding people pushed aside by folks from the West, who were salivating at the thought of defeating "the loud one". They proceeded to run a national issues campaign in a riding where perhaps a third of the voters were immigrant mamas who couldn't read English newspapers. A riding where local presence was everything and Sheila had been doorknocking for years, speaking French, Italian and a bit of other languages. She was the local girl and Calgary had thrown all their local presence away. Reform went down in flames, of course. They actually lost much ground from the previous election. Now most of Harper's movers and shakers are from the West. Sure, they have Clement and Flaherty but their voices seem to be fainter than the others. Every region is different. Ontario is so large with such a huge population that it actually is made up of several very different regions, those being Northern Ontario. the South West, the 905 area code and Toronto proper. Toronto's demographics are so very different that calls to make the city an actual province are actually understatements. Toronto should be its own planet! When the writ is dropped Ontario will suddenly receive a great deal of attention, of course. However, it might be too little too late. Ontario is having its economic troubles and we have a federal government that doesn't have much regional perspective. The decision makers look out their kitchen window in the morning and they see the oil patch. Ontario is just a few articles in their morning paper. Their concept of Ontario is to take its manufacturing wealth for granted, a 1980's vision that is not as accurate today. Witness the fall of Northern Telecom and Celestica. Flaherty's shots at McGuinty seem pointless. He's right that Dalton hasn't been doing the right things. So what? The issue is not why Ontario voted for Dalton. Ask that of John Tory's advisers who were arrogant and ignorant enough to make religious school funding an election issue. To have been unaware of how this issue still resonated amongst Ontario voters after the actions of Bill Davis was a blight on their resumes as fierce as that on those NBC executives in the 60's who cancelled Star Trek. Brainless, simply brainless. No, the real issue is why should Ontario voters vote for Flaherty's party! Will a Tory vote likely improve the lot of the average Ontario citizen? What is Flaherty's point? We should first dump McGuinty before we have any hope? With an election apparently so close Harper would do well to get some real "feet on the ground" advice from Ontario. And LISTEN to it! Otherwise he may find himself bragging about getting 5 more seats in Quebec while losing 10 others in Ontario.

Good for you! This just lends more evidence to my point that much of the nico-nazi movement is just a power trip. This was YOUR house! Yet at least on this topic they felt free to judge you! You shouldn't have left. You should have shown THEM the door!

Well, that's the official line! I don't recall ever hearing if anyone actually asked waiters and servers. They could have made a choice about what kind of venue they wanted to work in. Many were smokers themselves! I DID talk with many servers who lost their jobs when their place went out of business! That process seems to have mostly worked itself out by now but through the entire 90's it was quite commonplace. I still remember anti-tobacco activists in the media answering this point with claims that there were thousands of non-smokers who only stayed away from clubs and restaurants because of the tobacco smell. Once they were smoke-free these patrons would flood inside and the owners would actually not just have replacement business but even MORE trade! I can only speak for my own town but this seems to have been a total crock. As I said, restaurants seem to have adapted, perhaps with fewer of them. It took at least 10-15 years. As far as clubs with live music, the hit was even harsher. Non-smokers never seemed to replace the lost business. So once the smoke cleared out you could see the empty tables. I guess for the most part non-smokers didn't go to clubs anyway! Makes you wonder what all the bitching was about. There are probably a lot of other factors to account for the decline but it is the club scene that saddens my heart the most. It was a huge cultural shift! We had 60 or 70 years of the custom of going out to clubs for dancing and drinks. As a boomer I grew up with rock and roll. Not only was it a large part of the social scene but it provided an entry path for young musicians. There was enough beer being sold to afford to pay a reasonable wage for entertainers. Even the "low caliber" band I worked for could go on a province wide tour for months at a stretch, playing 3 and 6 nighters in small towns from Wallaceburg to Hurst and Kappiskasing. We made ~$1600 for a 3 nighter and ~$2400 for a six night gig, at a time when gasoline was 0.25 a GALLON and a package of evil cigarettes was maybe 0.35. All that playing made you a much better performer. Canadian icons like Dominic Troiano and Frank Marino cut their teeth playing those clubs. Now 3 and 6 night gigs are almost unheard of. Clubs are much smaller. With maybe 40-50 people clustered around a few pool tables at the "neighbourhood pub" you can't possibly sell enough beer to pay for a decent band. You're lucky to get a Friday or Saturday gig. The going rate is maybe $250. After expenses and split among the band it doesn't amount to much. Especially when the politicians tried to help the hurting clubs by letting them stay open an extra hour into the morning. So you play to a half-empty house till 2:00 am instead of just 1:00. That's why most bands are only 3 piece in these venues. They can't afford a fuller band. So the world was changed over a single decade. We saved everyone's lungs whether or not they asked us to but we did pay a price. Sadly, as I had said the ones driving the social change paid nothing. They don't appear to have cared for that kind of entertainment anyway. I did know one old couple who had ran a bar/club that perhaps were typical of who paid the real price. They had owned the club all their working lives. They of course had no company pension. Like farmers, they depended on selling their operation to finance their retirement. Now they couldn't sell it! Any real estate agent will tell you that the hardest thing to sell today is a restaurant or club. Asking about financing will make them chuckle for at least 10 minutes! I feel sorry for my daughters. No clubs like their parents used to frequent. Just a few techno-rave dance clubs where you have to worry about someone slipping something in their drink. Or hiphop clubs, where someone might hit them with a stray bullet! Still, we saved their lungs, eh! Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to join the toast...

Yep! That's it for him then! "How to Win Friends and Influence People"----NOT!

Really? The whole issue of passive smoke danger could have been solved by requiring clubs and restaurants to post signs at their doors declaring if they were smoking, non-smoking or mixed. The patron could then have made his own choice. Of course, this was never even discussed. ALL places had to be smoke free! Yet the reason given was to protect non-smokers from unwanted passive smoke. We could have had choices for every one. Smokers would have their venues, non-smokers theirs and those that didn't care could have gone anywhere. Why didn't this happen? I believe the initial format of non-smoking portions of clubs and restaurants led to the more draconian solution. Anyone who patronized such places in those days would remember how no matter how large the non-smoking area it was always sparsely populated, with lineups to get into the smoking sections. This went against the unspoken but actual goal of discouraging smoking PERIOD! The idea of allowing choice and protecting against passive smoke was, if you'll pardon the pun, a mere smokescreen. So it would appear it was the non-smokers who were obnoxious. Smokers were obviously perfectly happy to avoid non-smokers in their non-smoking areas. I guess the non-smokers got lonely and by eliminating ANY smoking area they FORCED smokers to come sit with them!

So that's why I like your style, Rue! You're a lepre-cohen! Wish you had have grown up in my neighbourhood. We WASP kids had a system of getting our mothers to stagger the holiday meals so we could drop by each others' houses at the right times to cage extra holiday feasts. Having you in the gang would have meant extra holidays from the Jewish calendar and we all would have scored more scarf! I wouldn't waste my time trying to get through to Chauchee. It's obvious he's not treating this board as a group of individuals. He's just getting wasted and typing his thoughts into cyberspace, casting them out into the electronic winds. He's a bad poet wasted on too much absinthe, not a skilled debater.

Well, to me it's not that simple. Please understand that I'm a science buff. My first real book of my own was a science text gifted to me by my first grade teacher, who was impressed at how deeply I had already cottoned on to the subject. My schooling always was heavy on maths and sciences, I've worked in labs and high tech enterprises, I make my living with electronics. So I'm not one of these people who dropped maths and sciences as soon as was allowed yet feel qualified to comment in these areas. First off, I don't have the confidence in the "medical community" that you do. I've been reading tech articles on the dangers of smoking since the 70's. I won't quarrel with the dangers of smoking but I've always found articles on passive smoke to be "stretched", more political than scientific. After the American Surgeon-General Koop submitted his report on passive smoke those decades ago and then was forced to admit his evidence was flawed I began to believe that the whole issue of passive smoke is simply a very powerful lever to make it more difficult for smokers, in an effort to get them to give up their habit. That's beside the point. I stopped believing in anything I was told to do by someone in a white coat about the time of the tainted blood scandal. A few botched and very painful "routine" tests done in some local clinics made the issue even more personal. The medical community is made up of human beings, subject to human failings and like-mindedness. They are not gods and can be mistaken but even if they were perfect it is still my life and how I choose to live it, not theirs. My children are my responsibility, not theirs. I decide if I am endangering them, NOT some government body or lobby group! The point is moot in this case since I'm not a smoker anyway but I'm sure you get my drift. I liken it to those parents who never bothered learning about computers and then started crying when they discovered their children had gotten in danger from chat rooms. The first cry we always hear in these cases is "Why doesn't the government do something?" Crap! Get off your butt and get computer literate BEFORE you let your kids near one! Stay current on what's going on, understand the technology, keep tabs on what your kids are up to and most of all, BE A PARENT! DON'T ABDICATE IN NAIVE FAITH TO A FACELESS SYSTEM! I don't buy the passive smoke argument, as I've said. So if I was a smoker I would be upset with this car law. I simply don't share your faith in other people deciding what's best for me or my children. I do my own research and I come to my own conclusions. You're entitled to your own view. I'm not the one pushing any such laws onto my fellow citizens. When you say "Ok, so if I know my neighbor is doing something that's harming their kids, I'm a bad person if I try to intervene?" I say that it depends on the specific issue. If your neighbour is letting them play with live hand grenades I'd agree with you. If he's smoking while his kids are in his care then I would not. I might take exception if I ever saw you drink alcohol in front of your children but I would never support a prohibition law to take that right away from you. Again, I'm not advocating compulsory tobacco use or arguing that the damn stuff is actually good for you! I'm simply saying that it appears a good many folks are seizing an opportunity to force their neighbour to do what THEY think they should! I find that disrespectful and frankly, offensive.

Allow me to quote Prof. Bernardo de la Paz when I say "I can get along with a Randite!" Myself, I agree even more when he describes himself as a "rational anarchist", this being someone who totally rejects the idea that he should just do what he's told but rather should make an intelligent, rational choice for himself about everything. So unlike the traditional irrational anarchist who breaks laws willy-nilly, a rational anarchist would first have to ask "tell me what law you're talking about and set the situation and only THEN can I decide if I'll obey or break it!" The beauty of such a philosophy is that it is the ultimate expression of individual responsibility. A rational anarchist could never do evil and hide behind the excuse that "it was legal!" or "I did what I was told!" Not likely you'd find a lot of corporate lawyers of this persuasion! (Wonder if anyone other than Angus will catch this reference?)

You know, sometimes he almost makes sense! Then again, I listened a lot to Firesign Theatre when I was a lad...

The poster sounded like a Libertarian. One of their beliefs is that your body and your life is your own and no one has the right to tell you what to do with them, particularly governments! They believe strongly in individual freedom, with the role of governments being to clean the streets, protect individuals and their property with the courts and cops, keep the wolves away with sufficient defense resources and not a lot else! The Tories are far from this philosophy but at least they tend towards smaller government in our lives. To whom else could he cast his vote? The NDP, the ultimate in government planning? Certainly not the Liberals! They have been Liberal in name only for generations, if not forever. Rather than tease him, I think you should have commended him for finding SOME choice for his beliefs among the available options!

Have you considered the possible magnitude of the friction between these women and Muslims from some of the more fundamentalist cultures? The costs of policing and protection? To some "fundies" the very idea of a female Imam would be like a red flag in front of a bull.

I've heard 25% of adults smoke. Guess it's who you listen to and what point they're trying to make. Coffee shop drive-thrus sprung up as the nico bans began to kick in. Made sense. Smokers could no longer sit at a table inside and have a cig with their coffee (and maybe buy an extra doughnut) so their car became their refuge. I do remember just before the drive-thrus came to town watching smokers buy their coffee and walk out to their cars to drink it with a cigarette. Tim's was smart to provide the convenience. Makes me wonder about the calls here in my town to ban drive-thrus as a blow against the pollution from cars idling in the lineup. I can't help but question if the real goal is just to take yet another refuge away from the smokers. We already here have made having a roof over a smoking area illegal. The idea obviously is to make them as uncomfortable as possible. I guess if they refuse to do what they're told they deserve to catch pneumonia! As I've said, I'm not a smoker myself but in the days when smoking was allowed in bars and restaurants I always would forego the non-smoking sections to sit with the smokers. I found (and still find!) too many non-smokers to be a preachy, cheerless bunch!

Topaz, are you familiar with the term "enabler"?