Wild Bill

Don't you think that statement is a bit patronizing? As I read it, you're saying lower income people are prone to becoming criminals. I'm not that rich myself and I also know many people of very low incomes who are very honest and law abiding. They would be very offended by your statement. Are you saying that only those below the poverty line should be suspects? As for poverty breeding hopelessness, that could be a whole thread in itself. I would think that poverty would only breed such if there was no hope of escaping it! As long as we have a society that allows mobility between economic classes then there would be hope. If the opportunity for education and a good job is there then why should starting out poor be hopeless? Now, if you start out being branded as a likely criminal simply because you come from a poor family then I could see why you could feel like doors were being slammed in your face! Perhaps you should think about the ramifications of your remark.

And there we have it! The oldest political trick in the book! Someone makes a charge that may or may not be true. The defenders consider their position weak. They have two options. They can allow debate to explore if a fact is true or not OR they can seize on whether the question was posed in a fair (or in this case, racist) manner! Today it seems that this technique can work great! Everybody will get all tied up in whether or not they made a racist statement or frantically try to deny being a racist for posing such a question. The defenders can sit on their moral high horse and refuse to deal with specifics after being offended in such a fashion. The original question of course is never answered and promptly forgotten. More and more I'm convinced I've voted for Jennie at some time or other. She's better at this than Lyin' Brian!

How old are you? Enough to have been around when Trudeau put us through all that crap? I remember all of it - mainly because I didn't think we needed a formal constitution and resented my country being changed in that way. I still think it was a mistake. Now you come along and say it never happened? Down the memory hole, Winston Smith!

Great effort, Julienne! I began to watch your video and was immediately struck by your obvious passion for the subject. You give me hope that younger generations actually care enough to get informed and active! Still, while your goals are laudable there are a couple of real world "snags" it might be worth your while to investigate further. First off, population disparities have not been addressed because our system does not have a Senate that protects regional interests. Smaller provinces fight tooth and nail against any more seats and power to Toronto, Ontario and Quebec. They fear quite rightly that they are and will be more and more powerless within confederation. In effect, the "big guys" walk all over them. You might google up info on "Triple E Senate". Second, pretty well all of what you propose would require constitutional amendment. Many folks don't realize that when our Constitution and the Charter of Rights were rushed through in Trudeau's day the formula for constitutional amendment is such that the chances of getting the necessary agreement to do it are about as high as getting all politicians to keep their promises, which means next to impossible. This means that our constitution is effectively "carved in stone". Many feel that we may never, ever be able to amend it. This pretty well renders your proposals moot. Still, you deserve credit for the thought and effort you put into them. A lot of posters on boards like this one don't seem to have thought things out nearly as much!

Reformers debated this 20 years ago! It was part of their proposal for a Triple E Senate - Equal, Elected and Effective. Most western style democracies run a two House system as part of the checks and balances necessary to have good government. They have a Commons or Congress based on "rep by pop" and then a second or "Upper" House that is based on regions. Such as the American Senate where tiny Rhode Island gets as many senators as California or New York. We constantly hear talking heads in the media telling us that provinces won't accept changes to the Commons because of population demographics. If we had a real Senate that would protect regional interests from proposed Commons Bills that favour the more populated provinces and screw the ones with less people then we wouldn't have these worries. Instead we have an Upper House where old Liberal bagmen and hacks can snooze out their days with a great salary until they die. Even better, if the Liberals lose an election they can still block any Tory Commons Bills in the Senate. In effect, unelected parasites that have no obligation to represent the will of the people can act as an arm of a party that was rejected at the polls. No wonder the Liberals are always against Senate reform. No wonder Harper is at the point where he says that if we can't finally do something then let's just axe the damn thing! We'd still have an unequal system with no protection for regions but at least we'd save the money!

I see. You're quite right! Like that old joke about Liberal solutions? "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

Well, I'm not a druggie so it really doesn't affect me personally but I must admit I find something illogical in your premise. I wasn't aware that potheads were the problem. Mostly they just seem to keep junk and fast food outlets in business. Crackheads are more the real issue. I'm reminded of a scene from years ago when I went along with my brother's lodge on a fishering trip. Of course there were evening poker games where in conversation we would solve all the problems of the world. The talk turned to drug legalization and one fellow (a cop, if I recall correctly) got all revved up about how legalization would mean the pushers would be in every schoolyard! I let the talk go round for a while and eventually the cop asked my opinion. I think that because I had been quiet he thought I might be on his side in the argument. Sadly for him I guess I disappointed him. I commented that it seemed to me the pushers were in the school yards already! They were there because they could make a lot of money! If there was no money to be made if drugs were legal why on earth would they continue to push the stuff? Religious conviction? All the evils of drugs seem to revolve around the profit margin fostering collateral crime from users needing money. I'm libertarian enough to ask "Why?". It seems many folks believe we have a duty to keep our neighbour from going to hell his own way. I've never felt this need. I support education and TRUE punishment for crimes committed while "under the influence". I don't buy in to the "inability to form intent" defense. You got yourself drunk, or stoned, or whatever. Also, for most illegal substances it seems to be only a small portion of the population that becomes addicted. This type of personality seems to always find SOMETHING! Take away their cocaine and they'll become alcoholics. Meanwhile, I'm getting kinda tired of being told I can't do something because SOMEONE ELSE has a problem! Witness the movement to block casinos and gambling. I'm also not a gambler, BTW. I used to work at an electrical distributor and all day long I would be selling the same kit of parts for lighting that was used for grow ops. Even the cops admit they find only a few percent of all the operations in the city. Meanwhile, I'm expected to smile in approval as I pay my taxes for what is essentially just a facade to buy votes from self-appointed "do-gooders". We learned nothing from Prohibition, apparently. There's even a good argument to be made that, like booze runners such as Al Capone, drug lords donate money to various well placed politicians to keep drugs illegal in order to protect their billion dollar income. It would seem that Harper's crew is not much different from the old Liberals. They seemed to believe that the Gun Registry Act would actually make a difference with ILLEGAL guns and Harper's bunch think they can make a difference with the amount of illegal drug traffic with a finger in the dike. I'm not sure if they're trying to fool us or fool themselves but it just doesn't make sense to me!

Sorry! I just can't resist giving the info anyway! The author of the quote was Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1963. He was then a journalist, 5 years before he was leader of the Liberal Party and won a sweeping election victory. The quote is taken from a book y David Olive entitled "Political Babble - the 1000 dumbest things ever said by politicians. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Copyright 1992.

All physical structures need continued inspection and maintenance. It is understood from the start that materials can age and weaken. Nothing is expected to last forever. Since most politicians haven't taken any hard science since their 5th grade bean seeds in that jar of toilet paper died instead of sprouted, they haven't enough wit to understand the perils of cutting back inspection budgets for infrastructure. Until something falls down, of course. Then they're instant experts on why SOMEONE ELSE should get the blame! Some years ago near Hamilton we had a fire in a huge old tire dump. It became a media frenzy as a pollution catastophe and was the highlight of many a news hour. In the months that followed the cleanup became quite the environmental issue. Everyone was crying that the toxic chemicals would totally pollute the ground water for miles and all children born in the area would be hideous mutants! I had left the testing lab where I used to work but happened to run in to my old boss and we ended up having lunch together. He told me that they were quite busy running a mobile lab out at the tire fire site but gave a loud snort and commented: "What a bloody waste of tax dollars!". I asked him what he meant and he told me: "Everyone's worried about all the combustion products from burning tires. Toluene, ethylene, ene-ene...they talk about it polluting the water table. None of them know basic chemistry. All these products have a specific gravity of less than one. They FLOAT on water! They'll all evaporate with no lasting problems." I then asked why they took the contract for the mobile lab and he pointed out quite reasonably that the government was determined to give the contract to somebody so it might as well be them. He then went on to tell me that if a qualified engineer or scientist were to announce that this spectacular fire was not really any pollution problem there was no way the ordinary citizen would believe it. However, when the government threw $10 million dollars of the citizen's own tax money at it he'd then be impressed that something worthwhile was being done! Now I was a young tad then and my first impression was that my old boss was just being cynical. I've learned a lot since then and I have to admit that today I would say that he was absolutely right! I'd also be thinking about how many hospital beds we could keep open and how many nurses we could hire with that money. Anyhow, as far as government inspectors go, among the circle of private engineering firms where I had worked one of the standard jokes was that if someone was incompetent in engineering or inspection he could always get a job with the government!

Years ago I was a field inspector for a construction materials and engineering firm. I can tell you that no engineer would ever skimp on safety. Engineers have to sign off on all such projects and are legally liable to the end of time! They can be called into court and lose their professional licence. Now contractors are quite another story! Like with anything there are good ones and bad ones. I caught all kinds of grievous tricks and to this day there are buildings in my town where I refuse to ever walk out on the balcony! Municipal governments in Ontario used to rely heavily on 3rd party independent inspection firms. This avoided conflicts of interest and having to take the blame themselves for problems. The province had their own team of inspectors for the provincial roads and highways, with very strict standards. Even then, often a private firm would be hired by a contractor for the job, just so that they would have their own engineering reports available in case of future problems and litigation. The problem today is that politicians have cut too many budget corners! In order to finance their own vote-buying projects they've cut and cut from civil engineering inspections. A good friend of mine worked for the highway department for years and quit during Bob Rae's term. Bob saw the department as merely a job venue for welfare cases. Politics quickly trumped engineering. Old hands knew that you didn't do concrete repairs in the dead of winter's cold but with Bob's programs we saw teams of new labourers doing this all the time. Of course, the repairs didn't hold and had to be done over and over again but no one seemed to care. My friend wasn't the only old hand to quit. They lost a ton of experienced personnel and some say the system has never recovered. During my stint working for a private firm I still recall our getting a job for the city of Dunnville. They had built a water tower and when first filled it fell over! Terrible mess! The city hired us to prove substandard materials and worksmanship on the part of the contractor. It wasn't hard to prove at all. Big chunks of concrete could be broken in your bare hands and you could see in the rubble that there was nowhere near as much reinforcing steel as there was supposed to be. Yet when our report went in suddenly the city clammed up, sent us on our way and never mentioned it again. My boss had figured out the real scoop and explained to me that our company was supposed to have the original inspection contract during construction but at the last minute some of the Dunnville councilors had the idea that they could just give jobs to their sons and nephews that were needing work experience for their education from civil engineering schools. The rumour was that these young pups were left to their own devices and had spent all their time in the construction shed playing cards, just signing all the inspection reports as the work was being done as "A-ok!". Of course the contractors took shameless advantage of the situation. Our report proved this beyond any doubt but what the politicos suddenly realized was that with all the inspection reports having been OK'd by their own inspectors they had no legal leg to stand on! They quickly hushed it all up. The good citizens of that city paid for two new water towers and a cleanup and likely all but a few never knew the true story! Plus ca change, plus la meme chose...

Quite right! This is the danger of too much game playing amongst political advisers. They can get so wrapped up in one area they forget about others or take them for granted. Also, Harper came in with many new players to his adviser team. There's a tendency in all groups for new guys to think they know it all and to disparage previous players. In effect they believe that the mere fact that they needed new blood is proof that ALL the old blood was wrong! This of course is totally illogical, being based more on arrogance than clear perspective. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! A clear example of this would be the John Tory campaign in the recent Ontario election. A noted observer and Tory adviser named Michael Bliss quit Tory's team of advisers and was quoted as saying that the team was made up of a bunch of young Turks who thought they knew it all and had no knowledge of the history of the reaction when separate schools were first funded and the danger of making it a campaign issue today. Bliss was proven quite correct, in spades! Meanwhile, all those "young Turks" are going to frantically try to erase the record of the worst campaign in Ontario's history from their resumes. After that spectacular free fall plummet to total abject failure in the polls, having to admit you were one of the advisers is like a tv network exec admitting he was one of those who first cancelled Star Trek...

I think it was more 'Boomer stuff! The CF-18 project that was mentioned involved a maintenance contract deal that was tendered by the gov't. By all the normal rules of gov't tenders it should have gone to a firm in Manitoba. They had the resources, the experience, the expertise and the lowest bid. Mulroney's gov't still awarded it to a firm in Quebec! This was a standard practise at the time, still used today. Quebec was perpetually unhappy with being part of Canada and whatever government was in power would try to bribe them with such deals to keep them loyal. This had evolved to such a blatant extreme that other parts of Canada were becoming quite bitter. The CF-18 deal was the last straw in Western Canada. We had had a politico come out of the wilderness called Preston Manning. He preached reforming our Canadian political system to make it more populist and equal to all provinces and citizens, as opposed to the old-fashioned "bring home the pork" style of our incumbent parties. He spoke of a system where party policies came from the grass roots level and the use of plebicites, referenda or whatever for Members of Parliament to take the views of their constituents to Ottawa, instead of the other way around. He formed what was known as the Reform Party (not to be confused with that of Ross Perot) and it was rapidly gaining steam from folks tired of being expected to hammer in all those campaign lawn signs but ignored by party brass. The unfair awarding of the CF-18 (F-18 jet to our American friends) contract sent new membership in Manning's party into warp drive! Stephen Harper was the Reform Party's philosophical guru and policy wonk. He constantly railed against the patronage politics of Mulroney and also the other parties. Hence the irony of him cozying up to Mulroney today. Prior to the emergence of the Reform Party Canada had developed vast numbers of disaffected citizens, not happy with any party. Reform was the first real alternative they had ever seen and Man! Did they ever go for it! It quickly all but swept the West and within one electoral term had garnered over a million votes in Ontario, whick with Ontario's population was a significant percentage of the popular vote. Not only did this gut the support of Mulroney's Conservative Party but the type of people joining Reform were all the folks who worked hard for other party's campaigns. One wag quipped that in effect Reform left the other parties their generals but stole all their privates, corporals and sargeants, the folks that did all the work! The Conservatives found donations were drying up. They were all but wiped out in the next election, down to only TWO seats! The splitting of the conservative vote left the Liberals without an effective challenger for over a decade. Finally, the Reform Party (which by then had become the Alliance Party) merged with the remnants of the Progressive Conservative Party, which held only a handful of seats in Atlantic Canada. The interesting turnabout is that while you would think that the larger Alliance Party would have swamped out the tiny PC rump, as the months went on the Reform/Alliance concepts seemed to disappear and the Party began to act as if once again the Mulroneyites held the reins! The populism plank disappeared and Mulroney was openly touted as a "elder statesman" in the party. It really began to look as if they were helping Mulroney to change his image and thus achieve a more favourable reputation in Canada's history books. Now Mulroney is caught in a scandal from his time years ago and it's iffy how its going to end up! it would all make for a good movie, except for the fact that most Canadians who watched it would probably throw things at the screen!

I don't think Mulroney was a crook, but it's obvious that vast numbers of my fellow Canadians do! It seems to be human nature that if you don't like someone you'll believe ANYTHING bad about him, without needing any proof. My generation hated Richard Nixon and heaped blame on him for far more than just the Watergate scandal. Why is Mulroney so hated? I lived through those times and I think I have a viable theory. You have to understand that after the Trudeau era Liberals the country was sick of the same old politics. Mulroney came in like a breath of fresh air and we followed him in droves! He won the two greatest majorities in our history, a fact which constantly seems to be forgotten. It was only after we knew him for a while that we realized he was just the same as the old boss, only slicker! He was the last of the old-style politicians, being long on blarney and showmanship and short on being honest in fulfilling his promises. We were hungry for change. We 'Boomers were perhaps the best educated generation ever, with access to quick and detailed knowledge of what our politicians were doing. We didn't want to be just patted on the back, tweaked on the cheek and bamboozled. We wanted to feel our MP's were responding to our wishes and not just making us feel good so they could keep our votes, stay in power and fulfill their own agenda! When we wised up to Brian there was no way we were going to blame OURSELVES for being so gullible as to vote for more of the same old, same old! No, we blamed it on him and when he bailed leaving Campbell in charge we blamed his entire crew. The Tory party fell apart. Many in the west wanted to try something new with Reform. Quebec went with the new BQ after Mulroney's most trusted lieutenant turned "Traitor", namely Lucien Bouchard. To this day Mulroney seems genuinely unable to understand why we hate him so much. He did accomplish a lot of great things but it was his failures that still stand out the most to us. We hated the GST because it was imposed while we were in the middle of a painful recession. Every time we paid a visible tax we never thought about how we used to pay invisible ones. We just hated it 'cuz we had just lost our job and couldn't afford to pay it! Mulroney told us to vote for the Charlottetown Accord in order to keep Canada together and we voted it down. I don't think he ever understood why. To us ordinary folk, it seemed a hard to understand deal with a lot of hidden points that could work out in a fashion we may not have wanted, being sold to us by a guy long on blarney who seemed to say one thing in Quebec and something different in the rest of Canada. We didn't really understand the damn thing but we just didn't have confidence in the guy trying to sell it to us! I vividly remember how we were being told: "There's no time for you to figure it out! You have to vote yes NOW or the country will fall apart!" Mulroney is rich enough he never HAD to be a crook! Still, to most of us he'll always be one. He'll be remembered like Robert Preston in "The Music Man", the guy who tried to con a small town, only we wised up to him and tossed him and his crew out. From the biggest majorities ever to the worst rout ever, down to only TWO Tory MP's in Parliament! Forever more, whatever happens we'll believe the worst of him.

It is very hard to give footnotes for what is common knowledge. Or to cite what has been published in newspapers years ago. I am NOT going to do that kind of research simply because you don't get out much! I don't care if you believe this point about Chretien. If and when I trip across the old reference or if I see a new one I'll be glad to post it here for you. I was simply pointing out that I too had heard that about Chretien, so your opponent on that point was NOT the only one! So it's two against one and I'm willing to bet at least 2 beer that more folks could chime in that also have heard about this! While we're on the subject of Liberals, I'll leave you this quote: "The philosophy of the Lliberal Party is very simple - say anything, think anything, or better still, do not think at all, but put us in power because it is we who govern you best." If it interests you, I'll be glad to give you the speaker and the appropriate footnotes!

Was this your response? "The government ignores them unless Canadians are screaming at their governments. The government has ignored Six Nations for over 200 years. It's our turn to feel the pain. They are sovereign. The payments are their money in trust with Canada, and Canada isn't even keeping up with the interest payments on what it owes them in leases, let alone paying for the settled land. Of course, the blockades, all of the local discomfort could have been avoided if the 150 OPP officers had not attacked 21 unarmed women, men youth and children in the middle of the night with excessive force. I believe it was the Mayor and the developers and the local Judge that brought that about, so I guess they reap what they sow." ******** I spoke of how developers can never trust in starting any development in Caledonia again, how the townsfolk have lost many of their businesses and livelihoods, how the atmosphere between natives and townsfolk seems to have been ruined perhaps for generations and THAT is your response?! That because the OPP took what you consider to be unfair action against the protesters that the townsfolk became legitimate targets?!! We didn't hear about Marie Trainer being whacked with a piece of lumber! Or Fantino either. Just some old man. We didn't see video footage of councilors being yanked out of their cars and roughed up, just an old man and his wife. Haven't heard of anyone whooping it up and driving around on ATV's through the MAYOR'S back yard! I'm afraid I find your view rather callous. To me using innocents as cannon fodder in a war with others is just immoral. If I had a dispute with a native I would never consider taking it out on whatever natives I happen to meet! That would be simple racism and it works both ways. If that's your view, I don't believe we even have any common ground for debate! Forgive me, I'll try not to further waste your time.

Maybe it's a lack of that first morning coffee but I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Give it to me again more plainly. My brain worked better before the kids came...

Geez, I thought I didn't get out much anymore! I must've first heard this about Chretien 20 years ago and several times since then. It's often a good idea to take a walk and look around once in awhile.

Jennie, you never made any comment on my post #218 about how native protesters provoked their non-native neighgbours by using them as cannon fodder for their land disputes and have destroyed any hope of reconciliation with the townsfolk of Caledonia or Oka. I'd be interested how you think the two peoples will ever get along again. Or if you even think it important. Or if you deny it actually has happened! Whatever, I just wondered why you are so quick to debate other points and left mine in that post alone. Perhaps you consider the idea too trivial.

Oh, Linc is still alive! He's one of Hamilton's icons. He lost his wife to Alzheimer's a couple of years ago. I sympathize with his loss. He's a fine old gentleman. Still, I must confess that he wouldn't be my first choice to hang out with on a summer evening pub crawl. I'd get more of a kick if I could spend some time chatting with Jackie Washington. There's an old guy who's had his share of hard knocks and racial changes! Yet he's a sweetheart to people of any colour or persuasion, although there's a rumour he was a bit cold to the lead singer of an ABBA tribute band.

More simply, what is meant by "black culture"? That experienced by B B King or Bob Marley? The cultures are VERY different! To group them together solely on the basis of shared skin colour to me makes about as much sense as equating Frenchmen and Inuit 'cuz they're both white! Being a new comer I read this entire thread. Harking back to the opening post, I'm reminded of a classic Doonesbury cartoon, where the college dean is looking out his window at a black student protest. It's the late 80's, as this was the second Doonesbury run, and the dean is remarking to his assistant: "You know, when I was younger I marched with Dr. King to support his 'rainbow coalition'. I took a few hits from the cops' night sticks but thought it was worth it to achieve racial equality in America. Now it seems they want their OWN drinking fountains!"

Interesting thread! The initial post was much different from my own perspective! I was one of the first to get a Reform membership in Ontario. I was a Director for the local riding for a couple of terms and was a strong follower of many of the initial party planks as expressed in their "Blue Book". One of the biggest inducements that inspired me to get involved was Manning's concept of MP's representing their constituents views to Ottawa and not the other (traditional) way around. Free votes and less rigid party solidarity were like a breath of fresh air to not just to myself but to over a million other Ontarioans who voted Reform in several elections. When the Alliance and PC parties merged all the talk seemed to be about how the poor PC's were being swallowed up by the great big Alliance portion of the new Conservative party. Old stalwarts like Joe Clark chose to leave in disgust, claiming there would be nothing of their values or beliefs left after the merger. Well, it seems to me that the little PC tail is now wagging the whole dog! Garth Turner and others have been turfed for not toe-ing the party line. Party solidarity is more rigidly imposed than I've ever seen before. The new Conservative Party has driven a stake through the heart of Manning's dream of a populist party! Folks like myself seem to be left with a clone of the Mulroney/Campbell party we had bailed on almost 20 years ago! Except for some talk about the Senate we hear nothing about those Blue Book ideas, or even any references to Reform roots! All that history is "down the memory hole, Winston!" and can't be forgotten fast enough. There used to be a term bandied about in the 80's called "disenfranchised conservative". It referred to a voter who may not have liked the Tories but had no other place to park his ballot. There were always workshops for the troops who did all the grunt work every campaign to develop party policies but they were specifically non-binding and ALWAYS ignored! Well, while the originator of this thread may have his own perspective to me it seems like things have turned out quite the opposite! I'll now vote for Harper's bunch for the same reason I voted for anyone else over my life - they smell the least, not the best! If another Manning comes out of the wilderness I'll be gone like a shot! I'm curious to know if there are appreciable numbers of other voters who feel the same as I do. The thrill is gone, to coin a phrase. Meanwhile, I've got the blues!

Well, I can only speak for myself. I don't consider simply disagreeing with Jennie enough to make me a racist! I can accept that God might be female but I doubt if she's Jennie. I think her problem and that of many of the native people is exactly that. They have a total faith that they are absolutely right in everything they believe and that any non-native must automatically be wrong. Doesn't leave much room for argument, let alone land claim negotiations. That being the case, I suspect Jennie will never find a "conservative" site that meets her approval. If you've already defined conservatives as racists and nazis for not agreeing with you then by definition ANY political forum that expouses free thought will not measure up to her standards. It's an interesting accusation about this board for me, however. I've been looking for a politics board for some time that is relatively "civilized" in the manners and tone of the posters. It doesn't have to be conservative. I'm NOT a conservative myself! It just has to have posters mature and sophisticated enough to not use cheap, ad hominem insults and profanity as a substitute for defending their points. I was pleasantly surprised to discover this one! I've just bailed on one board that might be more to her tastes. Here's the link: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php For those who don't know, this board is mainly leftwing and obstensibly claims to be a "home for progressive thought". In actuality it's more like a priest who only preaches to his own choir. I found many of the the posters to be rude and profane in their disagreement of any challenge to their "catechism". Anyone on this board who has complaints against the moderators should take a gander over at Babble. It would seem that despite their rules against such negative behavior on Babble the moderators only enforce the rules on those who do not agree with them! I was reminded of an episode of the classic Star Trek series, where Kirk shouts: "Not just for the Yangs but for the Comms as well! The Holy Words must be for EVERYONE or they mean NOTHING! Do you understand, Cloud William?" Anyhow, I'm sure they would welcome Jennie with open arms. What's more, they will totally agree with her and never, ever force her to defend her points. If she does go there however, I just hope she doesn't eventually die of boredom...

This is an interesting point! It does seem strange that often Natives make a claim on land but seem to expect to get to keep all the development on it. The incident at the Douglas Creek Estates started just as the homes were nearing completion and not when the first backhoe of land was dug out. If we do return disputed land, should we not give it back in original condition? If it is developed, should there not be a value set on this development as part of the negotiation? And if the natives refuse to allow this, should all such developed land be razed and returned as farmland? I seem to recall one native lady protester making a media claim on a proposed wind farm development not too far away. When she was told that the turbines were all leased and if the natives were successful in claiming the land they would not be able to keep them the issue just seemed to fade away...

I'm new to this forum so please bear with me as I start a learning curve on the mechanics and etiquette of posting here. I've just read this thread from start to finish. There have been no new posts for a few weeks. Since then that poor old gentlemen has come out of his coma and been allowed to go home. Somehow it didn't seem to me to be much of a fair fight between him and some native teenagers. I was surprised and puzzled by Jennie's constant citing of the rock throwing video from Oka. I'm also puzzled by the reaction of her and others on her side about such negative actions from non-native communities. They seem to label this as blatant racism. I'm not steeped in aboriginal relations but my job for many years as a salesman has given me some insight into human nature. I think Jennie and her supporters totally missed the point. The rock throwing at Oka came about because the natives had frustrated the townsfolk for so long with their blockade that the resentment could no longer be controlled. The reactions from the Caledonia townsfolk have been remarkably few and gentle but there is obviously a great deal of anger and resentment towards the native protesters. The town is now an economic basket case and people's equity in their homes has been wiped out. Even the landmark "Oasis" hamburger/milk shake stand of many decades is now likely to close, due to the almost total disappearance of tourists. The key factor common to both Oka and Caledonia would seem to be that the protesters allowed their tactics against various levels of government to make the non-native surrounding populations into "cannon fodder". Folks in Oka had an aggravating LONG detour that added hours to their work day that went on for months. The people of Caledonia not only had an aggravating road blockade but lost their power when towers were torn down and transformers were blown up. It may be true that it would be impossible to prove it was because of native protestors that the power went out but it would be absurd to suggest the townspeople would have done this to themselves. No, it seems obvious that the native protesters just didn't seem to have any foresight about collateral damage. Footage of some of the native spokespeople talking at Caledonia makes some of them seem totally blind to why the townsfolk were upset! You can't punch someone in the face and then say "Hey, you mustn't get mad at me! I only pasted you because the Government FORCED me to do it! You should be supporting ME as my cause is just!" It is just simple human nature to resent being used in this way. Even if the protesters at Caledonia were to win everything they've been demanding it's a virtual certainty that they will be considered pariahs when they go into town for a long, long, time. I also have a problem understanding references to Natives being "sovereign". To me, you're either sovereign or you aren't. You can't demand to be treated as your own nation and yet be financially dependent on another country. For them to keep giving it to you then becomes not aid but tribute! It's really a shame. Six Nations gave us people like Robbie Robertson and some mighty fine blues musicians. Now few people would consider heading into Caledonia for some night life, or tourist shopping during the day. If I were a developer I don't see how I could ever justify developing any where near Six Nations lands, disputed or otherwise. How could I be sure that even if I completed the project it might become a war zone ten years later? If I were a politician how can I settle land claims without looking like an appeaser to all the other voters who I need to keep in power? The natives have lost so much of the "ordinary Joe" support. It has actually turned negative towards them! Anyhow, just couldn't resist throwing in this post, for what it's worth. I'd be interested in any comments.