Wild Bill

You can prove anything with logic if you are missing facts that would contradict your argument. In this case, you are assuming that the concept of "Peak Oil" is true. Not everyone agrees and there is a lot of politics involved in that idea. We've been hearing about Peak Oil for more than a few years now, certainly before all those new deposits of shale gas were opened up. Some estimates have claimed that there is enough shale gas in Canada and the US to supply both countries for more than 300 years, at present demand! Also, we never ever develop alternatives ahead of time. We waste tons of money with government funded projects but they rarely are fruitful. Rather, it is only when we are nearly out of a needed commodity that we seem to get off our collective asses. It then becomes a crisis, with crash programs to find a solution. And we always do find a solution! I would give a Darwin Award to those who think they know what's best when they have only a layman's or worse yet, an academic's perspective!

You have an incorrect premise, Waldo. That's why you think you see a contradiction in my actions. I simply don't care if you don't believe me! Or anyone else, for that matter. I know what I directly experienced. I am not going to rewrite my own memory because someone like you or anyone else is better at finding foot notes 40 years later! If I go down that path, where does it end? You could then convince me that NOTHING I experience is real! That I need to rely on others more academically versed to TELL me what I should remember! So far, neither you or Michael has given me anything to make me repudiate what I directly experienced for myself. I can understand why YOU don't want to accept it! That's your perogative! If you or Michael did not experience it for yourself then I am in the position of Jody Foster's character in the movie "Contact", where she knows what she experienced but lacks proof. For that reason I will not question the validity of your "proofs", but I will not accept them either. I CANNOT, without denying the validity of my own experience!

If you had read my post you would have noticed that I specifically said that things were unfair with no upward mobility for the natives. Somethings were only for whites, or whatever race was the colonizing power. Historically, racism in China over the centuries often made the Confederate States of America look like Doctor King's Rainbow Coalition! However, that was only a few. I'm talking about telephones, mail systems, sewers, trains, buses.government departments, water and electricity grids and so on. I hardly think a sewage system could be "whites only". LOOK at all those African countries that won independence and became shitholes! Try naming those that were successful! If we think long enough could we come up with more than 2 or 3? I can't think of one! This all has nothing to do with race and evil white men. Sure colonialism often involved racism but more often it was simply a case of the native population being nowhere advanced enough to run things. I would agree that perhaps countries like Britain should have been more progressive in educating the native people of India to run their own country but that's a separate issue, describing a long ago time when NOBODY was progressive by today's standards! You can either run a railroad or you can't, no matter what your colour. Period and end of story.

There you go again! I ask you specifically why the NDP and the Liberals can't get voluntary donations like the Conservatives. You veer off into a rant against tax deductions, Harper, evil corporations and so on. I think you forgot to include Monsanto! Those were never my points or what I had asked. Obviously, you simply REFUSE to discuss why the other parties need free money rather than getting voluntary donations! You simply REFUSE to discuss why the typical Liberal or NDp supporter obviously won't give them a dime out of their own pocket! I won't waste my time on you anymore. I was sincerely interested in your viewpoints but life is too short for just another blind partisan.

Actually, I think some folks are too quick to blame colonialism for all the troubles. Societies in those old colonial countries may not have been fair, in that the native populations often had no upward mobility but as far as things like roads, utilities and the basic infrastructure of a country were concerned, colonialism wasn't the problem! Things DID work under colonial rule and did NOT after independance! The problem usually was that the native people were simply not sufficiently educated and advanced to cope, but they wanted their independence NOW! The colonizing power, whether Britain, France, Holland or whoever would come under such pressure that they finally would just up and pull out. Without them, things would fall into shambles. If a tech had have been in charge, long before independence the native people would have been encouraged and assisted to become sufficiently educated to so as to actually be ABLE to run their own country! As things advanced the colonial rulers could slowly hand over power until this was accomplished and then completely pull out painlessly. Except for our own country of Canada, this never seems to have happened. Instead, as I said the colonizing power comes under more and more political and perhaps violent revolutionary pressures until they finally just up and quit. Its like having someone in the back of your car drive you crazy with their back seat driving, claiming they could do better, until finally in frustration you pull over, hand them the keys and walk away. The person in the back has never driven but feels he is able to do so. You can imagine the rest and see the point of the model in countries like Zimbabwe. It's an offshoot of that old saying "Democracy is a system where the little guy knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard!"

Maybe Waldo but you haven't given me reason to change my opinion. Frankly, it looks to me like some people today are trying to rewrite history to support their present premises.

Look, take off your partisan tinfoil hat for a moment! Let's say we got rid of the entire tax deduction thing! All of it, gone! The CPC would still be richer than the other parties! That's because the other parties can't or won't get more than a pittance from ordinary Canadians as voluntary donations. If they don't have a system where it is just handed to them from tax money or wherever then they go broke! Period and end of story! Stop dodging the issue and explain how the opposition parties can claim popular support when no one will give them any money unless the law just takes it from them and hands it over! You're using the morality of a tax deduction scheme as a diversion to keep people from noticing that the opposition parties obviously have far lower committed support from their so-called supporters and in reality are just moochers and deadbeats!

Sorry Micheal but the resolution of my screen or perhaps my old eyes is simply not good enough to show the dates on these Time covers. You say that the warming idea is older and pre-dates the Ice Age idea of the 70's. I never heard of global warming until well into the 80's! Perhaps I missed it but I truly have no recollection of it at all. That's not to say there wasn't the occasional voice from one corner or the other trumpeting global warming but certainly they couldn't have formed a very large choir or it would have been common enough in popular culture that I think I would have heard of it. These covers themselves represent only the fact that there is popular interest for media to exploit. If you could give me some of the dates of these covers it would make your point clearer to me, assuming that they are indeed covers of issues published in the 1970's.

Michael, I fear you are falling into the trap of picking apart someone's model and ignoring their point! Perhaps indeed the OP was poorly worded but the intent was clear! Indeed, it sounds racist but the point underneath was valid. Meanwhile, it seemed to take 2 pages of posts before you could get past that flawed model and truly start to address the point! One might well ask "why?" but that again, would be ignoring the point in question. We should really do that in another thread.

Well, those were my gallivanting years Waldo and my recollection is different than what you describe. To my memory, it was NOT just a fringe opinion! If you are not already familiar, you might want to google up "The Club of Rome" which was another idea from that time about population growth and ecological issues that proved totally wrong. Unfortunately, many high level political leaders bought into it, including our own Pierre Trudeau. They wasted a great deal of our tax monies but it got them many votes! So my view is that I lived it and that's what I saw and experienced. Your view is that it is just an untruth repeatedly dragged up by the "naive, the uninformed and the purposeful disinformers". I don't know how old you are so I thus don't know if you too lived through those times and have direct experience to contradict mine. It's entirely possible that my impressions back then were wrong, I will admit. After all, back then I was literally looking at the world through rose coloured glasses!

I think what he's really getting at is not so much "black government" as primitive, ignorant and/or unsophisticated government, Michael. The confusion comes because so many of the examples are predominantly black populations, at least in Africa. The blacks are oppressed, they rise up and take over. Unfortunately, they can't run things properly and a once prosperous country becomes a basket case. This happens regardless of race. Most colony countries have become virtually primitive after receiving their independence. Their people were simply not well enough educated in large enough numbers to properly run things! India is a good example. After the Brits pulled out the country became a joke! Nothing worked because no one was skilled at managing or performing maintenance. The electricity, the water services, the telephones, all fell apart and became hit or miss. Corruption in the civil service became rampant. It took 50 years for India to adapt and overcome their problems! Today, things are relatively modern and well run, no better or worse than any other developed country. Still Michael, it was 50 years! Look at the pitiful state of Zimbabwe. Or Tanganyika. Zimbabwe was once one of the most prosperous countries in Africa! Or South Africa! As black rule becomes more entrenched the economy keeps sliding. Again, this is not truly a racial thing. It happens and will happen in any undeveloped country or one that has been run by some outside culture. You can't pull out the folks who know how to do anything all at once and expect those left to be able to cope!

You are not painting a clear picture. There are limits to the size of individual donations. It is a level playing field. And to get a tax deduction on a donation you first have to make a donation! And it is NOT all deductable! Again, all parties are in an equal position. There is nothing stopping the Liberals or the NDP from working to get donations just like the CPC. Reform's average donation was likely around 10-20 dollars. We got FAR more of those than the minimum $100 dollar donation to get a tax deduction. You haven't addressed my main point! What is wrong with the other parties that they can't raise money from ordinary people, making modest donations? Everyone will take something for free. It takes commitment to part with some dollars! The only explanation I can see is that NDP and Liberal supporters are really not that committed to their party! They will only ride the Orange or Red bus if someone else buys the tickets! Or more simply, they are lazy, mooching deadbeats! Now, explain to me how that isn't self-evident!

Well, I'm a Utilitarian. Anything that doesn't really work is just BS, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if its liberal or conservative. I've quoted your words because it strikes me that you are missing something obvious. Many prisoners are ALREADY professional, life-long criminals! The popular idea of the average criminal being an innocent who simply went astray and can easily led back to the proper path is just that, an idea. Or more properly, an opinion! Like most opinions, it can be true in some cases and way offbase in others. I have a couple of relatives who have been life-long criminals. Not with violent crime but in things like stealing trucks full of refrigerators or consumer goods, mis-directing deliveries that were supposed to go to department stores and the like. They have been doing such since their teens and are now in their 50's. They would consider this idea that they are simply wayward innocents to be insulting! They are very intelligent people. It's actually funny at family get-togethers how amiable and likeable they are. The old ladies of the family will say "What a nice boy! Too bad he's a criminal!" They've told me that they work for organized gangs. The crimelords running them actually pay for dental work! They have been at it for years without being caught and believe it or not, they have one or two elderly former "workers" who they give a modest pension! I will admit that in some cases your impression may be accurate AusKanada but not in all. I don't even believe that it is right in the majority! I think it is a naive and "pollyanna" view of the situation. It all boils down to the self-evident fact that it is harder to commit crimes inside a prison than without.

Not at all, Waldo! I didn't believe in a coming Ice Age back in the 70's and I don't believe we're all going to fry today! As I replied to Michael, my point is that when BS becomes part of the popular culture politicians are obliged to cater to it and make decisions often involving huge sums of tax money based upon it. I've no doubt you are well aware that to this day there are American ststes that have laws giving equal credence to Intelligent Design in classrooms. One of them actually had a politician introduce a motion to round off Pi to 3, to make it easier to work with! Millions and millions of people read about a coming Ice Age and not only believed it but demanded politicians ban CFCs and take other expensive actions to prevent it. Then they went back to their newspapers to read their horoscopes!

No, you explained that in scientific circles such things don't carry much weight. That was never really my point. My point actually is that such things carry a great deal of political weight! When such ideas are so strong in the popular media they represent part of popular culture. People believe it and they expect their politicians to cater to it! Or do you believe that is not true, either?

Well, as always it depends upon your point of view. Your argument about not getting involved is exactly what allowed WWII to develop into a much bigger conflict. Being unopposed, Hitler was free to take military action to higher and higher levels. By the time America finally entered the war it was a raging conflagration. As for Iran being entitled to having the Bomb just because America does, you can extend that to any country. How about Somalia? Or better yet, Ruanda? Couldn't you just imagine what would have happened in that Hutsu/Tutsu slaughter of millions if one side or the other had had a Bomb or two? Like it or not many foreign leaders do not share your impression of the leadership in Iran. In a word, they think they're nuts! Fanatics, with little or no regard for life. You might (and likely would!) say that those Iranian leaders are nothing like that. Even if that were true, Iran has made absolutely no effort to prove that impression false. Their sabre rattling over the Straights of Hormuz is an example of how they look even more belligerent. It's easy for you and others to sit here and say "We shouldn't get involved and it won't be necessary anyway." You have no skin in the game. If you're wrong it's not you who will suffer.

You know, Stephan Hawking said that it is imperative for Man to colonize the Moon and other planets, that if we don't go into space we may snuff out the one chance of Life in the Cosmos. All our eggs in the one basket right now, as it were. So what does Obarmy, the American President, do? He slashes even more away from an already gutted NASA and its space programs! I agree with you! It's not just the Americans, however. There's always some berserker who's prepared to die! And take millions with him! Take a good look at Iran! Man escaped much of the war devastation in Europe by moving to the New World of North and South America. Now, going into space would also be such an escape! Once we are permanently living up there, Mankind will never have to worry about being wiped out. If we're spread out enough, most of us would always survive.

I just can't agree with you! I don't believe that a party should get any of my tax money without my approval. I can vote for someone without giving him money! This just seems to me to be mooching from parties that are very poor at getting financial support from their own membership. When I was with Reform, we had a high level of volunteer financial support. We had riding public meetings and we always passed the bucket for donations. We had volunteers phone people for donations. We had car washes and yes, even bake sales. Meanwhile, the NDP just took money from unions and the Liberals from big business hoping for some favoritism when the Libs were in power. Neither of them really bothered to work hard for public, voluntary donations. So sure the CPC is rich! They EARNED it! Now we should give tax money to the other parties out of pity? Talk about your worker ant and spendthrift grasshopper morality story! I just can't get past the idea that a party that can't get people to VOLUNTARILY donate to them really doesn't deserve support!

Topaz, I thought the Auto Pact was long because of the World Trade Organization declared it illegal. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Automotive_Products_Agreement "The Auto Pact was abolished in 2001 after a World Trade Organization ruling declared it illegal, though by that time the North American Free Trade Agreement had effectively superseded it." Now as far as I knew, Harris did not run the World Trade Organization. I also always thought that NAFTA was a federal agreement between Ottawa and the USA. Still, I could be all wrong. Wiki too! They've been criticized before for being inaccurate sometimes. Perhaps you could explain to me in more detail how Harris is at fault. If things get too tiring you can checkout this youtube clip:

You may be right, I guess. This Senator obviously is just working from his own viewpoint. He can't be working from mine - I never had a chance to elect him! Or any other Senator. So while they are having all those sober second thoughts, we can be confident that they are THEIR sober second thoughts! Not ours! As I said, elitism.

I was rather hoping you might address my point about the Quebec government's role in all this and how critics here don't seem to care in their zeal to blame everything on Harper. Instead Eyeball, you only reinforced my point! I would like to hear why you think Harper takes virtually all of the blame for this - certainly, all of the criticism. The anti-Harper crowd couldn't be quieter about Quebec's role in this issue than if Charest was paying them! Can you blame me for thinking this is just blatant partisanship?

I'm still confused! Where do the wishes of the majority of citizens fit in? Where is their representation? I don't recall any of us ordinary joes voting for this or any Senator. Unless I misunderstood you, you seem to be describing the senator's role as being part of a process where a group determines what's best for Canadians and then will proceed to impose THEIR view on us! This doesn't strike me as an issue like a common law tort or dispute, where some impartial judge is supposed to determine what is right or wrong, as far as breaking or not breaking a law or decided what is fair compensation or an equitable division of assets. No, I thought the Senator was involved in a process that will MAKE law! Should not laws reflect the will and values of the citizenry at large? If that is not true, then how is what the good Senator is doing different from elitism? Is having populist input always to be discarded as partiality? Isn't elitism wrong not just when you may agree with a particular principle imposed by an elite but rather as an universal, undemocratic action? Waldo...you're making me despair even more for our society!

You raise an interesting point, Cameron. Nobody has said "boo" about the Quebec government's role in this! As always, they all pile on Harper. Harper isn't my favourite cup of tea either but I can recognize partisanship from any side when I see it! If anything, Quebec politicians are FAR closer to the blame than Harper! He's just giving them some money. If he didn't, they'd just get it from somewhere else. Actually, I don't know why Harper is bothering. He will get little credit in English Canada, because of the toxicity of the asbestos. In Quebec, politicians like Charest will take all the credit for the jobs and the money made for the mining town and the province. Seems to me it would have made more political sense for Harper to give Quebec diddleysquat on this issue! Still, that's a collateral issue. The main and obvious point is that if someone stole Harper's car and smashed into a busload of nuns and orphans, the usual critics here on MLW would be attacking Harper for having a car in the first place and raising money to help the thief with his medical bills!

I wasn't aware there WERE official parties in the Senate! Have you a cite or too to prove this? I'm not saying you just plucked it out of your butt CC but I would like something to back it up!

Well, again we have a problem, CC. Many people no longer blindly trust statistics! We have seen many times how stats have been manipulated, or presented only in portions to misrepresent conclusions. Not everyone believes that crime rates have gone down. Or that they have gone down equally in all areas. Or that there are problems with how reliably crimes have been reported. Or with who and how the data has been collected and "crunched". This is entirely subjective, of course. Nevertheless, that doesn't make such beliefs untrue! Just not easily unprovable. The situation has become so tainted that it is difficult if not impossible to change the minds of many with pronouncements from StatsCan.