Wild Bill

Gee, it sounds like the "Club of Rome" all over again. They based political and social decisions on expensive changes to entire countries on one of the earliest computer models that was to prove totally bogus!

To our shame! Yet Canadian Jewry developed much of the Montreal textile and electronic business. They also made Canada their home and the idea of retaining dual citizenship with whatever european country they came from was unheard of. They were and remain Canadian. There is something fishy about how this concept of dual citizenship has been allowed to develop. We also see cases every day of refugee immigrants who have no problem going "home" for summer holidays! It's become so blatant that you have to wonder why it's allowed to continue...

The major opposition to the music companies' copyright claims has been that they always took the stand that consumers should buy their product again and again when issued in different media. In the days of vinyl they railed against reel-to-reel tapes. When cassettes came along they successfully got Sheila Copps to enact a bill that put a small tax on every blank tape to go into a fund that supposedly would be used to repay Canadian artists who had lost royalties due to unauthorized copying. Of course, no one has ever managed to find a Canadian artist who actually received some of that money! Sheila always seemed to have a lot of folks following her around at the Juno Awards - sniffin' after that money, we suppose. Of course, while there have always been commercial pirates most copying is done by folks who have purchased the product on one form of media and made a copy for another player. Cassettes were dubbed from home libraries so they could be played in the car. Later CD's replaced cassettes, DVD's replaced video tape. So the question really is: how many times is the consumer expected to buy the same product? Politicians tend to be unaware of this facet of the copyright situation because with only a few exceptions like the late Chuck Cadman they are notoriously technologically behind the times and truly inept! I mean, these are people who need assistants to handle their email! They would likely be genuinely unaware that someone could rip tracks from a precious old (and legally bought!) LP and dubbed onto a CD or loaded into an MP3 player. Being an old guy I remain firmly convinced that most good rock was produced before 1972. For that reason and also as a bit of protest I tend to listen to my vinyl collection. Much of it was never republished in CD form. Has anyone ever found a Perth County Conspiracy album on CD? What CD's I do buy I tend to purchase direct from the artist. There are many blues musicians with their own websites that sell their own songs. The major labels abused the system for nearly 2 decades. The 45 single had disappeared and we found ourselves paying $20 in the early 80's for an album that contained only one or two decent songs. The rest were just filler. We paid the same price for re-issues of albums that had long paid off their production costs in the 70's as we paid for brand-new releases of current artists. Incidently, a google will show a few companies that will release new material in vinyl. They are doing surprisingly well! Remember album cover art? Anyhow, the Tories had better tread carefully and get themselves educated up to speed quickly before they make any binding decisions on this one.

I think you're totally misreading the reason for some disagreeing with you! You keep talking about the way the world SHOULD be instead of the way it is! Most of us were against the Liberal gun registry not because we wanted total lawless freedom to put gun racks in our pickup truck back windows but because we saw it as a diversion from actually doing something effective! We felt cheated and betrayed! It was obvious from the start that only law abiding citizens would register. We always DID have registration! This was just an extra layer and NOT the first and only level of registry ever introduced! When we read the bill when it first came out we were struck by not only the fact that it didn't add a single day's guaranteed jail time for someone using a gun illegally in a crime but the penalty for not registering was greater than the typical rap for holding up a variety store! The only possible explanation was that the Liberals were either totally on another planet or they were just grabbing a cheap photo op in the wake of that nutbar Mark Lepine's killings at that school in Quebec. And before you claim that the registry was just part of the solution and that tougher sentencing and such was to follow you should understand that few believe that! Bitter experience has shown over our lives that politicians always go for the facade, knowing that most voters never look any deeper. There was never any indication of any kind that the Liberals were going to follow up the registry with getting tough on actual illegal users of guns. More people likely believed in the Easter Bunny than the Liberals ever actually would do something "real". So the opposition to THIS gun registry comes from a lack of respect and confidence in its true goals and attainability! You're arguing for the need for SOME kind of gun control when we always had it! When people disagree because they feel that THIS effort at gun control was a VERY expensive waste of time and a diversion to avoid doing something truly effective you seem to confuse that with being against any form of control at all! Sorry to jump on you but it's been very frustrating watching you dance all around an imaginary position from those who disagree with you.

Michael, if you spend enough money on studies long enough you can come up with negatives for anything! The point is that in the real world the negatives are proven trivial. The people who have experience with pot recognize these claims as just "reefer madness" from those with an agenda, like a virgin from a strict church who is not content with just making her own choice about pre-marital sex but who tries to convince everyone else that "it doesn't feel good if you're not married anyways!" I keep making references to social conservativism being a negative for Harper's electoral chances. I really think he's making a mistake with his approach to pot. Literally millions of Canadians disagree with him. The Liberals were always smart enough to at least promise legalization and then never deliver. Harper's crew is taking a moral stand that is NOT shared by a very large number of voters, especially in Eastern Canada and Quebec! Social conservatives tend to have a very naive notion that they actually are some kind of silent majority. They are emphatically NOT! They are about as mainstream as Laurence Welk re-runs; Walter Ostenak the polka player thinking he's more popular than Amy Winehouse or The Bare Naked Ladies. A better political analogy might be that Harper's Tories look like that lady mayor of Toronto who banned the Ladies from performing in the civic square, not being familiar with the name and assuming it was some vulgar punk band. Or Nixon not knowing who Elvis was - this is historical fact! Make no mistake about it. The Tories have misread this one big time and it would be a shame if we ended up with Liberals again because of it.

My God, how many times must it be said before some folks get it? NONE of your points about danger have to do with growing pot! ALL of them have to do with the HUGE PROFIT that comes from pot being illegal! It's Prohibition all over again! When they repealed Prohibition all the tommygun shootings stopped overnight. People fought over the money, not the booze in itself. I am seriously starting to believe that many of the people against legalization are on the take to drug lords to maintain their obscene profits. Why not? It's historical fact that Al Capone gave money to politicians for exactly that purpose. I'm sick of paying taxes for a futile war on drugs. I don't believe that pushers will try to get my kids hooked if there's no money it it for them. And I don't believe we've ever had more than token successes anyway. The vast majority of people who use marijuana and cocaine never develop an addiction. As for those who do, these types of personalities are hell bent to get screwed up on something! If not grass, then coke, or booze, or toad-licking or whatever. Let them go to hell their own way! If drugs were legal and cheap there would be no crime involved. Most of the problems would immediately cease. If we absolutely had to get involved in someone's right to screw themselves up it's a certainty that rehab would be FAR cheaper than what we waste in the "War on Drugs!" today! And make that rehab money voluntary and not from taxes! Don't take it from me! My kids are too hungry for me to support some social conservative, Stockwell Day, naive "Barney the Dinosaur" ill-considered bonehead attempt to force their lifestyle views on other citizens! Prohibition is ALWAYS a cure worse than the disease!

Exactly! Governments do this all the time. They skimp on protecting us so that they have the budget for pet, vote-grabbing projects. Cops come out to write reports AFTER crimes are committed! If your house is burgled in Hamilton they don't usually even come out! They just give you a report number for your insurance claim. When's the last time you saw a cop walk a beat?

yeah, and going after dealers has proven so effective in the past! Al Capone is laughing in his grave... More money down a rat hole to appeal to a particular voting demographic. I might as well have voted Liberal!

Tell it to the Neutrals! If you can find any of them. Did the Iroquois even leave them a grave site?

Continue what? Listening to you hurl insults and claim you've made logical points? Claim you would refute points but you can't be bothered? Once again, thank heavens for the "ignore" button! I'd just as soon argue with a Witness at my door - NOT!

You may be proven right! Neither party has an inspiring leader. The scary thing for the Tories is that Harper has suppressed the rest of his caucus to the point where none of them have any public image towards leadership. The Libs have the same gang that originally ran with Dion and also, if it looks like they might actually win there are a lot of other big party figures that would jump back into the race. If there were a draft Manning campaign I wonder what would happen...

Maybe, but it's more likely that he will just make Dion wuss out on so many non-confidence bills that the rest of the Liberals will force Dion to take the government down.

I just can't believe that Mulroney's problems will stick to Harper for any length of time. After all, it was Harper and Reform that nearly destroyed Mulroney's party. Despite the best efforts of the CBC anyone over 30 would have to have lived in a hole in the ground all these years not to see the disconnect. The same with the reactor problems. Whenever such incidents crop up the immediate reaction is to blame the party in power but as time goes on the effect wears off. Some would like to believe that voters start to look more closely and realize that it was more the fault of older governments that set up or appointed the management of an institution but more likely voters just have short memories. When you really think about it, most Canadians have come to expect that ALL politicos are incompetent! That's just "situation normal"! The only thing that can get us to carry a long-term grudge is out and out criminality or a severe economic shock, like Mulroney introducing the GST immediately before a very painful recession or Adscam, which is still a far stronger meme then the Libs would like to accept. I'll bet 2 beer that after Christmas the polls will bounce back in Harper's favour to the levels of a month or so ago. Still not great but enough to ensure a stronger minority than he has now. We should not forget that polls don't show us the "incumbent" effect, where when an election is actually called voters have to take a close look at their choices. Harper might start with only 39% or so but if no party is actually attractive people will likely hold their nose and vote for him as the least "smelly" option. As a people we vote against what we see as a poorer choice, since we rarely have some one who actually inspires us! Whether or not you liked their politics our successful leaders these past few decades have been Trudeau, Mulroney, Klein, Harris and such. I don't include Chretien because he merely had the advantage of a fractured opposition. The names I cited garnered respectable percentages of the popular vote, at least compared to Clark, Turner, Campbell, Miller, Ives or any other of the leaders who let their advisers mold their public image into something "common denominator" and like something from a marketing firm. Voters are at least smart enough to know that when they're given a suspiciously loud sizzle there IS NO steak!

I dunno, it just doesn't look that way to me. It's been my experience that voters aren't looking for the nicest guy but rather the most competent. A leader has to be seen as tough enough to do unpleasant but necessary things. Being too nice makes you look weak. If looking nice is all that Dion can trumpet then he's not likely to get voted PM. Such personalities can do well as deputies but not as sheriffs. As for reforming their fundraising machinery, why should Harper give them the time? It's not as if the Libs were generous in a similar vein to Harper in the past. Do unto others as they have done unto you seems to be the motto on Parliament Hill. JMHO

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure folks are going to do their best to not only stay off the disputed lands but to stay as far away from you as possible! For generations to come! How well would your historical system work on its own, with no outside money? Or do you expect to be independent but "on the dole"? Or do you consider the money to be tribute? Incidently, could you be kind enough to educate me further on native contribution to Man's progress? Perhaps with better tools, like saws? Or even nails? Or electric lights? Or something to lower infant mortality? Or a tractor to farm more efficiently and feed more people? Or extend human lifespan in better comfort? The only new contribution from native culture I've seen recently is Derek Miller. The man is an amazing blues artist! Everyone, native or non-native owes that man homage! Other than being cranky, is there anything you personally have done that we should know about?

Well, although I've been a science buff since I was 5 years old I wouldn't claim to be an expert, much less one that was only 2 weeks old. However, I will say that when I read the alarmist reports in the media I'm struck by similarities that go like this: "Global Warming is real because most scientists agree, there is no longer any need for debate of any kind, it is all Man's fault and he must immediately spend huge sums of money to change his evil ways and all of that money and effort must come from developed nations who should give the lion's share of the money to undeveloped nations who do not have to spend the money on CO2 emission reductions because they missed their chance to pollute for being late starters. Geez, I couldn't have written a longer, run-on sentence if I was writing in German! I freely admit to being a layman at best only marginally more informed than the average Joe. Still, it is the hysteria and the left wing politics that shakes my confidence in such reports. What I find is that the "deniers" usually seem to be appealing to my "head" and the GW supporters tend to tell me to just shut up and swallow their position and accept them as being larger in numbers and inherently smarter than me so therefore totally right and any doubters must be totally wrong, if not actually evil. Add to this the fact that I grew up through the 70's where I was constantly told by the same type of people that by now every drop of petroleum should be long gone and we should be well into the next Ice Age. When the issues are too complex for an individual's own level of education to understand he is forced to rely on the apparent character of whoever is trying to persuade him to a particular point of view. To me, a choice between Al Gore and Kary Mullis is a no-brainer.

Well, that's your POV and you're entitled to it! All I can say is that Reform at least had some practicality in the methods they were developing to inject some populism into the system. I also find the idea of calling Reform a communist party kinda funny! I suggest you look closely at your description of "the way things are SUPPOSED to work"! What happens if NONE of the parties take the stand that you wanted? Who do you vote for then? If you're a Tory type of voter do you vote NDP just to punish your party for one or two issues? No, you just grumble quietly. There's really nothing else you can do. The Reform concept of MP's representing their constituents instead of the party was really an attack on party solidarity. Under our traditional system the party whip tells the caucus how to vote. If an MP knows that this would be very unpopular in his own riding then he's trapped between a rock and a hard place. If he goes against his party he stands the risk of being booted out. We've seen lots of examples of this happening. Sometimes the whip will do a quick nose count and allow him a dissenting vote if there's no danger of the government being defeated. In effect, the MP gets a "token" vote and the party will trumpet this as proof of caucus "freedom"! There was even a term for this situation back in the 80's during the Mulroney years. They spoke of a "disenfranchised conservative". This meant a conservative who didn't really agree with lots of what the party was doing but had no other choice for his vote. The "back room boys" were well aware of this term but didn't care. They were openly quoted as saying "the troops will go along with it. What choice do they have? We don't have to worry!". Of course, when Reform came on the scene and stole literally millions of their votes almost overnight they ended up with worries indeed. It's historical fact that by the time the Tories woke up they had lost not their generals but all their sargeants, corporals and privates. By that I mean that all the loyal troops that did all the grunt work and had been taken for granted finally got a chance to vote with their feet! Any sales person understands that you can rig the market to limit customer choices and be successful. However, you run the risk of creating a resentful customer base that if they ever do get a more attractive choice will not only drop you on the spot but bear a grudge that may take you generations to overcome. This was the position that the old Tories found themselves in before they finally gave in and merged with the Alliance Party. I'm just suggesting that the wheel has gone full circle. We are back in an identical situation to the mid 80's only many tasted a more attractive way. I'm surprised that no politico has tried to tap into that demographic but in historical terms it's relatively recent. It may happen yet. Many of those old Reform voters aren't sticking with the new CP out of inspiration but out of a lack of real choice. It would be very interesting what would happen if someone came along and gave them one...

There are conservatives and there are conservatives. The problem with our system is that when we vote for a party we have to swallow the entire platform, including the bad with the good. In effect, THEY tell US! Reform was the first and only party to ever champion the idea of the people telling the PARTY what we want, on an issue by issue basis. So you could be a fiscal conservative in favour of marijuana legalization. This concept scares the hell out of the typical politician, of any party. Notice how after the new Conservative Party was formed they couldn't bury this Reform idea fast enough! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This one's just a little easier on us, that's all.

You're implying that the law is effective. It's not. It's just a tragic joke. It's about as effective as Prohibition and simply serves to ensure obscene profits for drug lords. Which would lead one to wonder why some folks seem to think the status quo is a good idea...

Why bother? This idea of establishing some sort of legal limit of intoxication has always seemed a very clumsy instrument, at least to me. You get into arguments about individual tolerances, body weight and most important, a distinction between a legal tort being committed by someone sober or drunk/stoned. Why not simply deal with negative results? If you cause an accident involving death, injury or damage to someone else then you pay for it, period! Who cares if you were intoxicated? You got YOURSELF intoxicated! We get distracted by whether or not the accused was "capable of intent". We also have incidents where someone who is LEGALLY intoxicated as opposed to being truly impaired taking the blame for an accident involving a sober but STUPID driver! If you blow over .08 then you usually take the rap, end of story. Is this fair? Some claim that our present approach is justified for its deterrent effect. I'll let its own success stand as a rebuttal.

Oh, please don't assume that I've never gotten active! I started as a teenager banging up signs in a municipal election. Later I got swept up in Trudeau-mania but his first term educated me strongly in how "the name is NOT the thing!", meaning that the term "Liberal" in Liberal Party was merely a convenience and had nothing to do with their actual philosophy. Not being a socialist that eliminated the NDP. Besides, I had first hand knowledge of a local scandal involving an NDP MP and the underage sister of one of my friends that soured me forever for "posturing do-gooders". So I banged up signs for Mulroney when he won his first majority. By the time of his second win I began to realise that I was not supporting change but rather the last of the old style politicians. His party still took the "troops" for granted, with endless committees on party policy that were totally non-binding and ALWAYS ignored! I might as well have been a Liberal! When Manning came on the scene I actually got a membership before the party had officially voted to move eastwards into Ontario. I helped organize the local riding and served as a director for a couple of terms. Our riding actually got one of our committee's planks adopted into the Blue Book of the party's platform. Then came Stockwell Day. The party had been warned a few years before by Stephen Harper in a convention speech that if we allowed the social conservatives to rule the party we would be doomed to electoral oblivion. Day won the leadership and we promptly saw Harper proven right. Who could forget the "Barney the Dinosaur" label pinned on him by Warren Kinsella, the Liberal flack? That was when I dropped out. I still watch from the sidelines but never again would I commit my own money, time and resources. I had learned that politics is the art of compromise and that people as a whole get what they wish. My own tastes are such that it's not likely I can see all but a small amount of my own values in a particular political party. That's understandable, of course. As a populist I've always believed that "the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard!" but with no inspiration to attract me I'm not going to divert personal resources away from my family commitments. So perhaps today I AM one of those who "bitch but do nothing" but I believe I've paid my dues and now am ENTITLED to do so!

Let's assume that someone else picks up the entire tab for developing the party. That of course is a might big assumption when you're starting from scratch but for the purposes of argument let's accept it. Now, I have a mortgage and bills TODAY! Who pays them? I make my living with a guitar amp repair/build business out of my home. Part of the reason it works is that it is a niche market. This market runs with vacuum tube technology, a technology that has not been taught in schools since 1960. This means I have little competition. It also means that there's no student available I can hire as a helper. If I train someone from scratch I can't afford the months of lost time and income. "How much money would you lose on an MP's salary?" - That's assuming you win and become an MP. Where is the income if you lose? How badly does your business suffer and how much income do you lose while you try to build it back up again? This is the reason that professionals tend to dominate as elected representatives. They can afford to lose! Suppose you had an ordinary job working at an order desk somewhere. Would you take it for granted that the company would hold your job for you while you took a flyer on a campaign? Suppose you won for a term and then lost. Would that company automatically take you back? Now suppose you're 55. Despite the "official" line, age discrimination is a fact of life. Sorry. I just don't find your suggestion practical for my own position. In fact, I find it rather glib. Besides, new parties don't achieve power in a few weekends. Reform's timeline was considered incredible and that took a couple of decades. At my age I'd like to see the results before I die!

Did you run for an existing party? Or did you yourself start a new one? If you started a new one, how successful was it? We all have differing amounts of talent, energy, resources and obligations. At this stage in my life I'm not prepared to lose my house and walk away from my family. That's what it would take for me to even entertain the notion of starting a new party. At least, one that might actually achieve some influence. I admire the Libertarian Party for their platform more than any other but even a vote for them let alone helping campaign would be a waste of time in today's climate. Besides, I'm honest enough about myself to understand that I lack much of the necessary skill set to be successful. It would be pointless to just make a token effort. The last one to try who achieved any success was Manning. He had sufficient money and power connections to make more than a Don Quixote effort. He did more than prove that there was an untapped demographic desperate for a new political choice on the ballot. Perhaps I'll see another Manning before I die. Meanwhile, I'll do the traditional Canadian thing and vote for who smells the least!

Now let's see, I have to help feed my kids. I'm not wealthy. I'm middle aged. You're telling me that I should go start my own party. Thanks for your suggestion! Your memo is before me. It will shortly be behind me.

Seems to me that it is the criminalization that has resulted in the incredible profit! We've been told that marijuana is the largest cash crop in B.C. Don't know how they garner their stats but it makes sense. There have been dark rumours for years that many Florida politicians are on the take to drug lords to keep things illegal, in order to maintain the ferocious profit margins. That also makes sense. I'm not a druggie but I am a taxpayer and it has always seemed to me that I'm paying a LOT to finance a charade! Meanwhile, here in Hamilton, ON the morning paper has a report where they found grow ops in FOUR stories of a local apartment building! Since even the "powers that be" admit they catch less than 5% of what's out there that's a LOT of grow ops! I once worked for an electrical parts shop where we would be selling the same bill of materials for grow op lights 4 and 5 times a week, to different people. It would be very politically incorrect to admit that they were ALL Asians, so I'll leave everyone to their own ponderings. Stoned drivers I will agree with but when you claim that Prohibition is positive I'm afraid you will never get my support. I sincerely wonder what kind of sheltered life you must be leading. Do you really think pushers vend their wares in schoolyards out of some sense of religious proselytizing? It's been said that bootleggers were jumping out of windows the day AFTER they repealed Prohibition. That to me seems far more logical than "it is against the law for good reasons". Harper warned us over 15 years ago that if social conservatives were to win control of the Reform party they would doom it to political marginalism. You might want to ponder his words.