tango

The philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy [rule by landowners, etc]. No one ever said that 'rule by the majority' is a principle of democracy. Democracy means that all people - all views - are equally represented. That requires more diverse representation, and more intelligent politics. We need that. badly

I don't have exactly comparable data, but the picture looks pretty much the same to me. It's the extreme high end that is really out of whack. http://www.esnips.com/doc/d7644f2a-0d98-44...ution_World_xlc

hahaha ... not so funny ... where does the 'growth imperative' end? not till we let the corporations poison us all ... oh wait ... !

give ya a wedgie! and it depends on how much you consume.

ya ... tell that to your buddies at faux news, eh? and shove yer patronizing manner, eh?

unhh ... yawn .... zzz

You're only on my list if you're over 1m. No seriously ... I think taxing ultra big consumption is the way to go.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada Doesn't look like they are going up much if at all, except at the top, of course.

irrelevant. we are neighbours. kinda stuck together ... but separate.

because you are our only neigbour! We are still here.

Oh do expound ...

so what? I thought the point was every asshole gets to speak?

'We' ... at this point in time, you mean? That can change.

No, it's our decision. Influence isn't the point. Staying out of the bloodbath is the point.

Canada has a say in whether we are there or not.

Ya well ... it's just how we feel, on the right and the left, I'd be inclined to think. I went looking for American invasions of Canada and got engrossed in this ... (perhaps others later ... ) A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified invasion plan available from the US archival sources. Centered pagination is that of the original document. The spelling and punctuation of the original document are reproduced as in the original document, even when in error by present-day norms. This document was first identified by Richard Preston in his 1977 book, "The Defence of the Undefended Border: Planning for War in North America 1867-1939" (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.) Preston's reference citation (p. 277) identified this to be archived at the US Military History Collection, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., coded AWC 2-1936-8, G2, no. 19A. It was located by the US National Archives and supplied on microfilm. The military planning context of this document is War Plan Red, which was approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy. War Plan Red and supporting documents are available from the US National Archives on microfilm, in the Records of the Joint Board, 1903-1947, Roll 10, J.B. 325, Serial 435 through Serial 641. In War Plan Red, the US Army's theatre of operations is defined to be: "All CRIMSON territory" (p.80), and the US Army's mission, in bold type: ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON (p. 84). CRIMSON is the colour code for Canada. In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured. In February 1935, the War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to "be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula" from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1. In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose "outnumbered and outgunned" when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army's pamphlet "Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History" (p.2). Now ... we know this is just 'war games' and we've already sold ourselves to the US without a war ... But the persistent omnipotent fantasies that Canadians want to be US 'Americans' ... (Those who want to ARE, and many are dual citizens.) The failure to comprehend and respect that there is a Canadian perspective that is totally independent of what the US does or is ... It has nothing to do with the US. It's just us. Canadians. Not 330m ... just 33m ... more in league with other countries of our size, and with many allies. We may not burn the whitehouse next time, but have you ever seen a condom full of paint fly out of a HUGE slingshot? Man, you can douse somebody's campfire 10 sites away! Across the Niagara river, maybe even! (beer later, of course) war? with guns? where? why? Link to terrorism ... are you nuts? Thank god for boring but sane old Canada! Ein Prosit!! Chimo!! Down the hatch!! SlurrrRRPP BurrrRRPP yawn zzz

The NAU is US, Canada, Mexico ... completely intertwined economically, but I don't believe being 'taken over' by the US is how it's being promoted. I agree with some of the trade and border barrier stuff, but I don't like the US's attitude that we are an appendage of THEIRS ... ... that goes to Iraq with them (they were REALLY pissed) ... that allows the Ballistic Missiles to fly over our heads (really surprised!) ... etc. There isn't enough respect. Too much of the neighbourhood protector/bully, who is 'so hurt' when we don't just go along with his paranoia and conspiracies of global warfare ... space wars. I don't know about the NAU ... SPP ... needs a LOT of work ... and a LOT of public input. And we all saw how much public input there was at the (SPP protests) G8 in Quebec. NONE. Just government and other corporate input. We weren't allowed. We've never been asked for input. We have to 'protest' outside locked gates and windows that don't open to draw attention to our concerns. They send 'agentes provocateurs' to raise the ante so the police can disperse us. But ... it's just a 'business deal' ... nothing to do with democratic rights, of course, just a confidential business deal that we're not allowed to know. kinda gives ya chills ... if they really are giving Canada away like that ... lock stock barrel ... and sovereignty. and gun registry ... ? yikes!

I just don't see what the big deal is about registering your guns, long or short. You register your car don't you? You register your new appliances (for the warranty) don't you? What's the big deal? Some bull crap about 'the right to bear arms' without the state knowing? What about the cops' right to know when there's a domestic called in?

It never hurts to try! I think the idea of putting money into the hands of the poor so they can consume more is just what we need right now to get the economy moving again!

"tango calculus" ... very cute! And a very astute observation about incentive, benny. I would say ... perhaps about 20% of those on welfare might be chronic, many partially disabled but not enough to get disability, or semi-literate and they can't do the paperwork - ie, they are unemployable in today's society, except for odd jobs. And yes, they have lost 'incentive' because they can't keep a job. People on disability are a significant portion of those living in poverty too. Very difficult, with whatever limitations they have, to stretch a poverty budget. BUT ... we know that 80% of welfare recipients are OFF welfare within 2 years. Most of those are single Moms going to school and then getting jobs. (Didn't know that did you blueblood? Thought they were all just slackers, eh?) And then ... people earning minimum wage ... they all live in poverty if they are the only income in the household, and even with two if there are children. And then the rich ... so much easy money profiting from the labour of others, and no incentive except to make sure no poor person or underpaid worker gets near their stash! Whatever turns your crank! Gee ... I haven't heard a GOOD argument against my idea yet! Come on boys ... BRING IT ON!! I expected better arguments than this! In my opinion ... sure the rich deserve to be rich ... but only if all the poor people are taken care of too! The rich will still be rich, and the poor will then be consumers to help the rich stay rich! And those who want to leave will leave. Love it or leave it eh!

The Catholic Church itself has certainly never taken a vow of 'poverty'. I guess it's hubris for a few, poverty for the rest, eh?

Because you can take 5 households out of poverty and turn them into consumers. And the right wing fails at humanity. Depends which of those you think is the purpose of life. Some of us just have a different way of measuring success - ie, collective success - how well we take care of everyone in our society, especially the vulnerable. Rather than big-dog-eat-little-dog. Look at the data: 43%[/b of those living in poverty in Canada [b]are children under 18 years of age with singlemoms. 15% are single seniors. Some people are just not 'money producers' ( some would call them "useless eaters") but the elderly, the young and the disabled still deserve to live in dignity. Some MEN are so enraged because they think some other MEN are getting a 'free ride' ... that they can't see the truth about who is being hurt by those attitudes: Largely children, single Moms and Seniors, mentally and physically disabled ... kept well below poverty levels ... ? For what purpose? ... To PUNISH them for being "useless eaters"? And by the way ... all the men living in poverty? ... I'm sending them to you for a job. You'll hire them right? Mentally/physically disabled, addict, or not right? You gonna hire them all, right?

That's the point of halfway houses. There should be a better system for young offenders with serious problems like this kid who are still a danger to others.

It's based on households. Here's some hints about who is 'low income' Low income (<$25,000): Unattached persons 65 years of age and over Males 14.0 Females 16.1 Unattached persons under 65 years of age Males 31.2 Females 37.1 Persons under 18 years of age In two-parent families 7.7 In female lone-parent families 32.3 In all other economic families 9.5 Thus, 'Low income' households are largely single people with or without children. If a single Mom with 2 children is raising them on $25,000, she won't complain about getting another $25,000. The point of the exercise is not to do another 'means test' or sliding scale of expenses ... but simply to point out ... We could get rid of poverty entirely if there was no household income under $50,000 And ... We can do that easily by taking from the top ... preferably via additional consumption tax but by income tax if necessary. $175,000 from each person earning over $1m/yr. I think it would be a great experiment!

He was convicted in November, 2000 sentenced to three years closed custody, (spent about 4.5) with an additional seven years of probation (starting in supervised halfway house) Not sure what else could have been done, though he should be wearing an electronic bracelet, perhaps.