ReeferMadness

Getting back to the original topic. I realize I'm a bit late but I wanted to comment on this. I've long wondered what motivates people to abandon their homes and travel 10 thousand miles to a strange place so that they can sacrifice their lives to kill random bunches of people. Is it that they hate us for our way of life? I suppose anything is possible but in all honestly, that explanation doesn't feel right. I've long believed that driving someone to engage in a suicide attack required something deep, something visceral, something elemental, something personal, something like this. Gwynne Dyer, a journalist and historian, has written extensively about 9/11. He posited that the entire intent was to get the US to react. Having American troops killing Muslims in Muslim countries is the best recruiting tool if you are looking to attact people to extremist causes.

So, you're agreeing that these guys are terrorists? Great. Bring on the executions. Town square hangings. Can I sell popcorn?

I don't know why we spend so much on our legal system when we have people who can pronounce guilt and assign a sentence on the basis of a newspaper article. All in favour of firing all the judges and having Mr. Canada decide guilt? He could do it all from his computer. Let's queue that up as Harper's first act when he gets his much-coveted majority. I never cease to be amazed that it seems that some of the blood-thirstiest bastards when it comes to law and order call themselves "Christians". The term literally means "followers of Christ". I'll be the first to admit that I never paid rapt attention during all those religion classes I had to attend as a kid. Still, I'm pretty sure that Jesus never led a lynch mob. And he didn't seem to be big on judgement either. In fact, he seemed to be all about forgiveness. Meh. What do I know.

Wow. I feel safer already, knowing these terrorists are locked up. But isn't jail too good for them? They're terrorists after all. Maybe summary executions are in order. But, wait, they're terrorists. Maybe that's too good for them as well. I just hope the prosecutions don't get bogged down in meaningless process like "trials" where prosecutors are required to present "evidence" and stuff. Let's skip right to the punishment.

I agree. Dog, you're way over the line. That's an ad hominem attack.

fellowtraveler, I think you make a good point. Alberta has a reputation of being rabidly right wing but you have to be careful about drawing too many conclusions from the makeup of the government. It's true that 87% of the MP's are Conservative or Wildrose alliance but if you look at the numbers behind the election,, you can see a different story. Like the rest of us, Alberta uses a crazy, undemocratic, first-past-the-post voting system that badly distorts the wishes of the electorate. In last year's election, the Conservative Party actually got just under 53% of the vote and the Wild Rose Alliance got not many more votes than the Green Party. Compared to other provinces, 53% may seem pretty solid but Alberta isn't the homogenous province of knuckle-draggers that a lot of people see. The voter turnout was incredibly low at just over 40%. That means that the Conservatives actually got a little over 20% of the votes of eligible voters. This is a story of apathy and disengagement. I'm going to form the 'none of the above ' party and kick ass.

I dunno, bambino. Why don't you ask your hero Harper? It's his ramblings that we're trying to understand.

Well, that's one way to look at it. But Canada's very existence in its current form is due to one country subjugating other peoples to its own interests and Canada continued that subjugation for decades afterwards. Many would argue it continues to this day. So another way to look at it is that Harper's statement was quite hypocritical. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Harper wouldn't be Prime Minister of anything had it not been for colonialism. So, maybe that's one button he ought not be pushing. But then, Harper goes on to say this: Two major cultures. Where does that leave the indigenous peoples? They don't have culture? Or they weren't really part of Canada because they were just in the way? So, I would expect that the first nations might be a bit put out. And they are. I'm not part of a debating team so I won't defend the original poster. I will say that it's quite possible that this won't cost Harper any political points. That proves nothing except that most people don't pay attention to politics (or history) and don't care about the plight of the first nations, past or present. Reality is secondary. If Harper offended a group that could hurt him politically, he would be bending over backwards to apologize instead of having his flunkies claim he was taken out of context.

Well, first of all, Harper didn't say that Canada never colonized anyone. He said that Canada has "no history of colonialism". In fact, Canada was born out of colonialism so clearly, Harper's statement is false. WRT blaming the crimes of a parent on the children, the first Canadians were colonists, including those who administered the territory on behalf of Britain. Confederation changed nothing for the native peoples. They were marginalized and subjugated before and continued to be after. Colonization is a process, not an event. It was begun under the rule of the UK and continued long after Canada started to be self-governing.

The Globe & Mail is also using figures from the 2001 census. My question is why is everyone using outdated figures? Are the Stats Can estimates not sufficiently accurate for this purpose? And if they're not, why not use the 2006 census? At any rate, I suspect the government took the later, more accurate figures into account. I don't think it's mere coincidence that the ratios of population to MP's is so close based on the latest figures.

The more I read this crap, the more these arguments sound like those of a sleazy lawyer trying to get a murderer acquitted on a technicality. Your honor, my client is innocent because at the time of the alleged murder, he was somebody else. The argument that Canada has no history of colonization is absurd. In fact, I'll go you one better. Here's a quote from Paul Tennant, professor emeritus of UBC, on the subject of BC first nations: In BC, almost none of the first nations have signed treaties. I would say that the above statement implies that colonialization is still going on today.

Now, you're asking me to defend what someone else said. I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories but mostly for entertainment value. If the commercial media isn't talking about it, it's because they've gauged (correctly in my view) that it won't generate a an audience, and in fact will turn people off. Between the media and our education system, Canadians have a very poor understanding of what was done to the native peoples and our current relationship with them. As far as the CBC goes, I don't know whether they have or haven't picked up on it or the reasons behind it. As far as Iggy & Jack, I think you've answered your own question. It's a losing position that will win them very little support. A lot of people in this country see Canada is morally superior to some other countries (in fact, this was the point Harper was attempting to make) and don't want to be reminded of the unpleasant fact that we stole the land we live on. Is the entire basis of your argument that just because nobody in the establishment is making an issue of this, what Harper said is correct? If it is, that's a pretty weak argument.

Wow. If if my IQ depends on agreeing with Harper on this, I'm much dumber than I thought. Harper's statement said that Canada had "no history of Colonialism". When I was took Canadian history, I definitely remember covering the time when Canada was a colony of Britain so right there, the statement is a wee bit suspect. Canada was created out of British colonies and many of the original citizens were colonists. How can we claim to have no history of colonialism? It's the basis of the very existence of the country! So having been created out of colonies by colonists, the very first thing we do is start to absorb more colonies. Then, just to demonstrate how sorry we are about it all, our government embarks on a plan of assimilation of the natives. Arguing that Harper was technically correct because it was technically the British that did the colonizing is trying to get Harper off on a technicality. Harper stuffed his foot in his mouth. If nobody's talking about it, it's because not many people know much about history and even fewer give a crap about the first nations.

Quebec's population is not declining - it just isn't growing as fast as that of Ontario, BC or Alberta.

I don't understand how the Edmonton Journal could have arrived at these figures. Refer to the latest estimates from Statistics Canada. According to Stats Can, Quebec has 7,828,879 residents. Divide that by 75 seats and I get 104,385 residents per riding, not 96,500. I understand that the current proposal is to add 21 seats for Ontario, 7 for BC and 6 for Alberta. Ontario, with 13,069,182 residents and 127 seats would have 102,907 residents per riding. BC with a population of 4,455,207 people and 43 seats would have 103,609 people per riding. Alberta, with 3,687,662 people and 34 seats would have 105,362 people per riding. To reproduce the Edmonton Journal's figures, I had to use the 2001 census figures. Given the disparate rates of growth since then, it seems pretty sloppy for a major daily to use such outdated numbers.

I listen to CBC radio and they've done a fairly good job of dealing with this in a balanced fashion. For example, they pointed out that in the "People's Republic", the people aren't allowed anywhere near the celebration. I don't watch a lot of TV but if the commercial media are being soft on China, it's likely due to the fact that they or their parent companies or their advertisers are afraid to offend the Chinese. Official criticism of China has died off over the past few decades and the reason isn't hard to figure out. China has become a major player in the world economy. Any country that criticizes it runs the risk of having its businesses shut out. China also holds a 800 billion dollars of treasury bills and another trillion plus in American mortgage-backed securities, corporate bonds and US dollars. It could sink the US dollar if it chose to do so. A lot of people think that's going to happen anyway, but that's another topic. The bottom line is that money trumps morality. So it is. So it's always been.

Not exactly the same. Imperialism is a means, not an ideology. It would be like a monument victims of terrorism. But how about a monument to the victims of "free enterprise"? Here's just a short list of victims from modern history. hundreds of millions of natives of the Americas and Australia, murdered, enslaved, and/or forced off their lands the entire African continent subjugated and left in a state from which it is yet to recover millions of blacks enslaved and forced to spend their lives in forced labor the subjugation of the Indian subcontinent by the British East India Company the millions of Russians who lost their pensions or were otherwise forced into abject poverty when the "new capitalist class" (which strangely resembled the old communist class) were allowed to rob the state blind after the fall of communism untold millions of people around the world whose lives were spent (and in many cases still are spent) working in brutal, unsafe working conditions for poverty wages untold millions whose lives have been cut short due to pollution and other forms of environmental degradation I could go on but I think that's enough to convey the idea.

I'm not sure what you mean. According to what I've read, Ontario stands to gain up to 21 seats. The 25% minimum was proposed in the Charlottetown accord but the accord was voted down. According to the latest Stats-Can figures, and my own calculations, the average population per seat is 109,545 for all of Canada (33,739,859/308). Increasing parliament by 34 (21 Ontario, 7 BC, 6 Alberta) would change that figure to 97,514. It would also leave the four largest provinces in a narrow range of between 102,900 (Ontario) to 105,350 (Alberta) people per seat. On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable proposal. However, when you factor in the political aspects, there are two issues: 1. Clearly, the reason the Conservatives are pushing this is that it will help them get their much-sought-after majority government. 2. Our current FPTP system exacerbates regional differences by suppressing minority regional expression. For example, you tend not to see Conservatives from downtown Toronto, Liberals in Alberta or NDP in Quebec. This issue could well hasten the demise of the country and Harper's proposal does nothing to address it.

No. Change for the sake of democracy is change for the sake of democracy. Change for the sake of change is change for the sake of change. See the difference? Why are you so afraid of electing representatives?

I don't want change for the sake of change. I want change for the sake of democracy. Getting a seat in the senate because you're a buddy of the PM is just plain wrong.

What a ridiculous, simpleton proposal. I know of very wise, uneducated people who follow issues very closely. They would be non-voters. I know of well-educated people who never read the newspaper except for the sports pages. None of the factors mentioned are reliable indicators of engagement.

Dying for affordable health care What I don't understand is why the uninsured people aren't showing up at the town halls.

Pliny It's clear that you've lumped everyone whose views you despise into the category of 'left'. It lets you lump all of your opponents into one category and smear them by association. Of course, this is much easier than actually reading the points someone makes and debating them on their merits. I encourage you to abandon this lazy and pointless debating style. By the way, the Swedes (those clever fascists! ) have managed to allow choice while still maintaining a level playing field. How is that a monopoly on anything?

I think the result would be a stratification of schools. The best schools would be for the richest (as already exists in our society). They'd have the best equipment and the lowest ration of teachers to students. Then there would be the upper middle class and middle class schools. 'Free' public schooling would be looked down upon and marginalized. It would become a ghetto of the poor. In other words a great way to rebuild a classist society. The effect would be very corrosive to our way of life. Life is already staggeringly unfair. Some kids grow up with all the advantages while others have a struggle just to get to school every day. There are two great equalizers. One is access to health care and the other is access to education. As long as you are healthy and can afford a decent education, you can dream of improving your lot in life. Take this away and you'll create a lot of disillusioned kids. Kids who just might grow up to be angry revolutionaries. Equality of access to healthcare and education are both under attack. Those of you who support the attack, whether your motivating philosophy be economic darwinism, libertarianism, or just plain government hating (or, in many cases all of the above) are helping to undermine Canadian society. The Swedish model is an excellent example of a healthy tradeoff between choice and equality of access. Leave well enough alone.

In other words, we legislate with legislation and you legislate with firearms. Makes perfect sense.