Wild Bill

Fear? I suppose. However, I don't think you understand what kind of fear or from where it stems. It's really an expression of a deep lack of confidence! Back in my hippy days we called them "head people" and "heart people". Head people tend to always ask "HOW will that idea work?" or "Sounds nice, but have you figured out how we can afford it?" Heart people think more about the goal than the process. They have confidence that we can find answers to such questions as we go along and look at the very asking of such questions as attacks on the "goodness" of the goals. They view such questions as code for not wanting to do it at all! Like it or not, the NDP has never tried to expand their support by appealing to head people! Worse, often they have come out with programs that that just appear to a head person to be a huge expensive waste that would actually hurt more than help. Part of this may have come from decades of being the 3rd place party every election. The NDP was forced to take the fringe areas for their support. When you never expect to take power anyway this can seem a safe thing to do. You never expect to have to repay any fringe groups by adopting any of their goals. Today, that has changed drastically. The NDP now has a real shot at the brass ring! If they are not careful, they might lose their traditional fringe support without gaining enough from the mainstream. If the NDP wants to take support from more head people they will have to dramatically change their approach. They never actually were as flakey as they appeared - their leadership was more pragmatic than their public image. Still, to a head person, a Peggy Nash will never inspire confidence. If you needed a strong fireman to rescue you from a burning house, it looks like Peggy would be responsible for you seeing a 100 lb woman hired under some gender equality program coming up that fire ladder to your window! No, the NDP always appears to be the party that when your lifeboat is sinking wants to form a committee to investigate if the choice of who should bail out the water is gender neutral! It doesn't matter that this is an exaggerated perception. Politics is all about perception! Ask any NDP supporter about how they thought someone might have gotten rich and odds are they will tell you the person must have stolen or cheated! If you want to get elected, it is much easier to change your image to make it more appealing than to try to change the values and perceptions of perhaps millions of people. So it is not so much fear, WWWTT, as a deep lack of confidence! The NDP will need many more head people if they want to win the throne in Ottawa. Scolding or ridiculing head people as "hard-hearted, greedy mean conservative bastards" is not likely to work! They should be stressing issues like attracting business to provide jobs and avoiding like the plague those that deal with bike lanes. Please understand, I am not trying to be negative towards the Left, just realistic as far as how to win support.

Actually, I still believe that the NDP has a marvelous opportunity, even without Jack! This is their chance to finally modernize past the 1960's union goon philosophy and become like the Tony Blair Labour Party! Jack appeared to understand this. If the NDP were ever to achieve power they had to move beyond taking their support from unions with declining memberships and whatever fringe groups were not already scooped up by the Greens or the other parties. No, they had to seize the "a bit left of centre" position, formerly occupied by the Liberals. Fluke or not, they have won an excellent power base! They just need to hold on to it! Their choice of new leadership will tell the tale. If they look to the future they will squeeze out the Liberals and be free to rival the Tories. If they go back to the past then they will lose much of what they have won. It is far more likely that Canadians will respond to a modern Labour-style party than they will to one stuck in the 70's. They should recruit from some of their prairie provincial brothers and dump some of the old farts that have hung on in Ottawa all these years.

Would American subs nuke Iran if the target was not clearly American? And the source was not clearly Iran? What if Iran nuked Israel? Does Israel have nuclear armed submarines? Is their response ability guaranteed? I would think that Iran would be far too smart to let things be clear and obvious. And even if they were, who says retaliation would be guaranteed? Suppose Iran nuked Israel. Being such a small country, the damage would be very extensive but a first strike could very likely eliminate retaliation. Would America launch a nuke on behalf of Israel? It wouldn't undo all the death and destruction of an Iranian strike. What if Iran used a terrorist group as a proxy? Without proof, could any ally take the responsibility of raining nuclear destruction down on Iran? On citizens who had no say in the decision anyway? Meanwhile, the Iranian rulers KNOW this! They may face some heavy retaliation, possibly even being ousted from power. Still, Israel would be wiped from the earth! Even with surrounding Arabs as collateral damage, to some it could seem worth it. Things are not so straight forward as some think.

The worst thing about a liberal arts education is that it can lead one to the false impression that just because you have read about a thing and can be articulate when discussing it, you actually understand it as well as someone with hands-on experience! You believe that you are qualified in making decisions to do with the subject and thus often make some very inappropriate ones. I'm NOT disparaging liberal arts education per se, merely stating that many liberal arts graduates form mistaken impressions!

Jerry, I would also love to see a Canadian plane! Sadly, I just don't think we can afford it! When the Arrow was built we had large scale aircraft production factories left over from the war. We also had a large cadre of the engineers and craftsmen. After Diefenbaker we lost pretty well all of that! The plants became parking lots and the engineers went down south to help the Americans put a man on the Moon. Today what we have are small scale specialized industries, like Garrett/Allied Signal or Litton Systems, who produce specialty components like "head's up" cockpit displays. They have nowhere near the capacity to design and manufacture a Canadian plane comparable in performance to an F-22 or F-35. So unlike in the days of the Arrow we would be starting much farther back. You are talking billions and billions and billions of dollars, Jerry! I do not believe it is even remotely feasible for us to afford it! If we HAD an existing industry we could attract other partners. Perhaps the Israelis or the Swiss would participate and share the load. However, we don't! That also died with the Arrow. Derek is right that we are far better off as far as jobs are concerned to produce a percentage of parts for the entire F-35 production, rather than just a few entire planes for domestic use. The world has changed! Economies of scale cannot be ignored in favour of patriotism! One dollar and one dollar makes two dollars. Period and end of story. I don't believe you can equate building our own military ships with literally inventing and then producing our own F-35 level aircraft. It's apples and oranges. But oh I wish I COULD agree with you, Jerry! Many times in my calls as a salesman selling electronic parts during the 80's and 90's I would be with a buyer or an engineer and see a model of the Arrow on their desk, or a picture on a wall. They told me wonderful stories of those days. There were many such people who had been involved back then and the dream was still dear in their hearts. We can't go back. Too many bridges were burned. Perhaps we will someday find something in another field or area of technology where once again Canada might shine. I hope so. But it won't be a plane!

I have posted many times about how I believe that many if not most old, incumbent companies are incapable of embracing change, of how it was not Timex who invented and mass produced the LED digital watch or Underhill the typewriter company who became the leader with word processors. Basically, if you made buggy whips you were incapable of changing to making car parts. At the start of the process, when you were a rich company with many resources, you were oblivious to the new situation. By the time you woke up, you were too poor to be able to change anyway! What has happened with Kodak is EXACTLY what I have been talking about!

Sounds simple, Jerry. Still, there are a LOT of details that frankly any one of which would make your suggestion impossible, IMHO. I've been both a buyer and a seller into the military electronics manufacturing industry in my time. I have some direct experience. First off, Canada's military equipment has been totally integrated with designs and standards used by our NATO partners for generations. There's no way Russia or China will be able to build compatible stuff, particularly when they would often need classified information to do it. If we gave them that info, our NATO partners would consider that akin to treason and rightly so! So that leaves having something totally independent from all our other stuff. This makes a nightmare for maintenance, repair and overhaul. It would be like having a car you're expected to maintain that has all the bolts reverse thread. Every time you had to work on it you'd need special tools, special spare parts and special education. If you got your way, Jerry, every aircraft mechanic we have or ever will have would curse your name! This would dramatically add to the costs. It has already been pointed out a number of times but seems to always be ignored in this thread that the F-35 has been designed for much lower cost maintenance, saving us beaucoup loonies over the life of the aircraft. A Russian or Chinese solution would blow that out of the water. Worse yet, once you start down that path you will have irrevocably severed those NATO ties. Buying from China or Russia would necessitate close cooperation on engineering and design matters. It would be impossible for Canada to avoid becoming a security risk, as far as the other NATO countries would be concerned. They would be forced to cut off all such ties with us, making ALL our military materiel "orphans". Now we would have to replace EVERYTHING! Also, we can't forget that the Russians, Chinese or anybody else for that matter do NOT have a plane anywhere near the performance of the F-35! So any other solution would mean an aircraft that would always be considered inferior by the public at large and those that have to fly them in particular! It would send a loud and strong message to our warriors that a political solution is more important to Canada than something that actually WORKS! It would be like buying OLD Sea Kings in the first place! No, given the options, I would say that if we decide not to have the F-35 we should go with NOTHING! Anything else would be just a symbolic, propaganda "solution" that would be a worthless addition to our forces in the real, modern world. We should admit that we have no intention of being a useful partner or any sort of effective player on the international scene. We could go back to having a very small cadre of brave and well trained snipers that have to bum a ride from other partners to get to the scene of any action. I really don't see any other options! Unless you know of a plane somewhere that has the capabilities of the F-35 and is compatible with our NATO specifications, your suggestion I'm afraid seems bogus.

I thought we'd been through all this and found there were no other options, other than lame ass ones ineffective for Canada's needs. Still, if you think differently Jerry, perhaps you could name a few for us to kick around?

Better education? Once again, I don't understand, CC. 'Better' is not an absolute descriptor. It is an opinion. Is it your premise that a degree in anything from anywhere must be automatically accepted by everyone as worthy of respect? I always thought that respect must be earned. It is not a right! What's more, I thought everyone was entitled to their own opinion. I wasn't aware that a phd from somewhere was a gospel.

And that's a perfectly valid opinion, Guyser! The best thing to do is test the premise! Let's hope Mulcair wins and then we'll see if anyone cares! Again, I'm not talking about folks like us, chewing and nitpicking the details and legalities. I'm talking about voters!. Guyser and others have said that it won't make a difference. Others disagree. It is impossible to solve opinions. As I said, the premise would need to be tested in the real world.

Topaz, could you not ask that question of ALL the MPs, regardless of party? It might be instructive to know the numbers/percentages in all the parties.

You know Scrib, I pointed out quite clearly in one post that the nitpicking details of MulCair's dual citizenship were irrelevant, that what matters is how many Canadian voters will have their choice affected by it. So far, all I've seen from Mulcair's champions is more nitpicking details! NONE of them have made a comment on the public perception of it as an electoral factor. Either they are obsessed with nitpicking, which I've also pointed out to be a common trait with many socialists, or they simply don't want to go there! Either way, it's pretty boring when no one will talk about what actually matters! Punked can beat up somebody like me all he wants with his eloquence and force me to agree with him but who cares? I'm only one vote! It's obvious that the issue will affect a great many Canadian voters, perhaps enough for the NDP to lose their Opposition status.

Yeah, that's why we took so many of your members in those days! At the time, we were the first and ONLY party to be governed from the bottom up! I'm glad to see the NDP has finally followed our example!

No kidding, Boges! Her husband hung out with murderers! What more needed to be said?

Then you would have loved the Reform Party!

<sigh> There you go again! I must be a conservative, 'cuz I'm not a socialist! For about the 4 billionth time, I'm NOT a conservative, I'm a classic liberal! It's not my fault that the Canadian federal Liberal Party no longer fits that definition, if it ever did! Parties can slide all over the place but that doesn't change a definition in a dictionary. Just because someone wears the jersey doesn't make them a real hockey player. I always find it interesting though that so many guys keep making that mistake. Makes me wonder about their reasoning...

Mulcair moved the goalposts. Nobody cares about someone being born with dual citizenship. It's like being baptized as a baby - it wasn't your choice to join that church! No, the difference is that Mulcair made a conscious, adult choice to split his loyalties. Citizenship is more than just a bureaucratic convenience. It is a solemn oath of allegiance! If it means as little as Mulcair is making out then I think I would have good reason to question his loyalties. So being loyal to your country first and foremost is "profoundly parochial and insular thinking". And questioning divided loyalties is an attack on children! While we're at it, why don't we try to save the unborn baby whales from drunk drivers and nuclear bombs? Man, talk about your tight assed thinking!

You really think that those who don't like the idea of a PM or possible PM with split loyalties are even thinking about his or her children? Again, you REALLY like to make stretches!

Hey, in your party you have 72 hours of debate to decide where to get the coffee and doughnuts for the meeting! It's just something about the socialist mind that loves procedure, bureaucracy and minutiae. Hence the old phrase "He argues like a commie lawyer!" NOBODY can nitpick like a socialist!

Of course they'll reapply for a permit! However, they are obviously hedging their bets and proceeding immediately to make a deal with China. There is no guarantee that with Obama in power they will ever get an approval. If he is re-elected that could mean another 4 year wait. Smart business says, proceed as if the pipeline is merely a possibility. Meanwhile, go for the sure money! If the pipeline goes through some day, fine! Even better, if they are shipping to China they are in a better negotiating position with Uncle Sam - they simply won't need him as badly!

So people without dual citizenship find it a hardship to visit France? You're REALLY stretching here, CC! Have you been hanging out with CR?

Who said anything about his children? I don't see the connection. Are you saying that even though some voters may not like a leader with dual citizenship they will vote for him anyway for fear of making his children feel badly?

So? What does HOW he got dual citizenship got to do with how voters might feel about it?

Fortunately, since both Britain and Canada are constitutional monarchies, rather than absolute ones, the monarch has little or no overt power. Still, he or she does have a great deal of influence. I don't know what would happen if there were ever a conflict of interests between our two countries and the monarch was expected to take a stand. We have such history together that a serious dispute seems rather unlikely, to say the least. Still, we have evolved with this situation and really can't do much about it. However, your example is a poor parallel. Our PM is NOT our monarch! He or she will not be the PM of TWO different countries! And if he or she were, it WOULD be more than just an academic problem because a Prime Minister of Canada has REAL power! As for what citizenship means, it means being responsible to your own nation, first and foremost, with no competing interests. How could that possibly be true with dual citizenship? Particularly if the other citizenship is French. There could be another war in Europe, or a dispute with St. Pierre and Miquelon.

I would rather suck the lit end of a road flare than have anything to do with the community on Rabble!