Machjo

Honestly, though, seeing how diverse Canada is, I actually could agree with the idea of the Olympics focusing on the local instead of national culture. So in the case of Vancouver, for example, the focus would have been more on its local and indigenous cultures. The reason I say this is that when we try to showcase Canada as a whole, it will always be somewhat contorted. Obviously, la Malbaie-Pointe-au-Pic, Kitchener-Waterloo, Kuujjuak, Iqaluit, Vancouver, Tortonto, and Montreal are each quite different from one another culturally. Except for Iqaluit and Kuujjuak, I've been to all the cities mentioned above, and they each have their distinctive flavour that can only be controted artificially in an attempt to represent them in an entire national panorama. For example, if the Olympics were held in Quebec city, it would make sense to focus on its local and indigenous cultures, instead of trying to swallow up the whole complexities of Canada in one foul swoop. Now having said that, I also think the local community should be responsible for financing it too, and the federal government should but out.

It would also be more user pay too, which should be more attractive to the right than the current income tax.

If truckers must pay more tax, you're right that the cost of their goods will go up proportionately to the distance they must travel. However, your income taxes would go down too. Overall, they'd balance out. More specifically however, it could vary from person to person. You'd find locally produced goods go up in price, but only by a little, with your drop in income taxes more than compensating for it. On the other hand, the price of products from farther afield would go up much more than the drop in your income taxes. So if you play your cards right and buy more locally or at least regionally, you could get out on top. If on the other hand you have a flair for the exotic, then you'll pay the price, as you ought to. If you contribute more to the damage done to roads, then you pay more too. fair is fair. Also, I think any kind of resource tax is something both the right and the left could get behind, and here's why. If people make an effort to drive less, or buy more locally, then naturally there will be less need for road construction and maintenance, but that will go hand in hand with less revenue, obviously. On the other hand, if people want to drive more, or buy from farther afield, government revenue naturually increases and along with its spending on road construction. In that sense, it becomes a kind of natural system giving the consumer a choice. If he he uses more government resources like roads, etc., then such a tax will naturally hit him harder and so increase the revenue necessary. If he drives less the two go down naturally. So essentially, people have more of a say in how much government they want. Use more government services, and your taxes go up along with the services. Use fewer services, and the opposite. It woudl become like a form of natural shift between big government and small government according to social behaviours and needs.

If you're talking about the actual events, I agree. As for the languages chosen though, it is well established by policy that it is always French followed by English followed by the local or national language if it is different from either of the first two. According to that policy, it would be French followed by English, with no third language in our case. This has nothing to do with Canada as such, but simple IOC policy. As for the OP, it was addressing not enough French, implying the language, not the actual events. So maybe there should have been more Voyageur culture presented, but that would be an issue for a separate thread. But as for the language policy (which is what the OP seems to be bringing up), that did in fact have zilch to do with Canada. Even the Beijing Olympics started with French followed by English followed by Mandarin.

Seeing that French and English are included in every Olympic event in the world, even though together French and English-speakers represent no more than 12% of the world's population, don't you think we could share the stage with local indigenous cultures just this once. For crying out loud, we have French and English at the Beijing Olympics, Torino, Athens, Nagano, you name it... and we're still not satisfied?!

The IOC is based in Lausanne, Switzerland. What the hell does that have to do with French Voyageurs?

Again, this issue has absolutely zilch to do with Canada. French took precedence over Mandarin at the Beijing Olympics too. This has to do with IOC rules, and quite frankly I doubt the IOC has studied Canada's language issues in detail. It just went along with its traditional rules, figuring if they were good enough for other countries, they'll be good enough for Canada too. In fact, we had one language less than most countries do. Most Olympic events are in French followed by English followed by the local langage. We had only two languages. We should think ourselves lucky.

Perhaps we need to recognize that the IOC is not a Canadian organization and that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with Canada. French followed by English were present at the Beijing Olympics too, and as per IOC policy, it will be the same at the London Olympics unless there's a change of policy between now and then. The world does not revolve around Canada. Again, this has nothing to do with Canada. if they want to complain, then they should bring the issue up with the IOC to change its policy for future Olympic events.

To take Hasegawa Teru as an example, though she was fighting on the Chinese side against the Japanese Imperial Army, she was also fighting on Chinese soil, not Japanese soil. So she was fighting against the occupation of foreign land by her nation's army, not fighting to help another army occupy Japan. So to take a parallel example, let's say Joe Smith opposes any kind of imperialism on principle, then it's reasonable to suppose that this same Joe Smith could just as easily fight along side the Canadian army, or even join it, when on Canadian soil fighting an aggressor, yet still turn on Canada when on foreign soil fighting Canadian aggression. Now of course this still doesn't deal with the issue of the German resistance in Nazi Germany since many of them were undermining their nation while on their own soil, but aware of the injustices of the Nazi regime. I suppose on that front, if Joe Smith is aware of injustices that the Canadian government is committing, at home or abroad, then is he a traitor if he should stand up against it? The question then is, should we fight for our nation, or fight for justice? Clearly the two are not always mutually incompatible. But when they are, then the question is important. The one fighting for justice will fight for his country only when it is compatible with justice, otherwise not. The one fighting for country will fight for justice only when compatible with fighting for country, otherwise not. This could also help to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot would turn his best friend, or even his own mother, in to the police, out of love for his friend or mother, in the hopes that the experience will make that person better. A nationalist will stand up for his best friend or mother even if it means they can get away with murder. A true friend corrects the faults of his friends, and doe snot cover them up. A trure patriot corrects the faults of his country, and again, doe snot cover them up.

I suppose one solution if the First Nations refuse to grant voting rights to non-Mohawks living on the reserve, would be to make them tax exempt on the one hand, but be on their own on the other in terms of having to pay for their own children's education, etc. This would still not change the fact that while living on their land, they would still be subject to the education laws of the land. however, it would still be reasonable to grant voting rights to anyone who has chosen to integrate by learning the local language and culture.

A few points to make: There are people working in Canada on work visas who pay their taxes and yet still can't vote. So, should we give them the vote too? My answer would be yes, on the same grounds you just pointed to above. Somehow though, I suspect some would feel more comfortable with a double standard. Uhm, many First Nations do not even consider themselves Canadian. What price should I pay for something that's been forced on me. Isn't being Canadian the price they're paying? That's fine. Meanwhile, will we give them their land back?

What has history got to do with it? You can have a thousand year old currency and ruin it in a month by printing at full throttle. Inversely, you could have a relatively new currency managed conservatively. Really, what does history got to do with it?

How do you define loyalty? If I catch my best friend stealing, I'd ask him to go to the person he stole from, give the thing back, apologize, and offer fair compensation. If he refuses, then I'd call the police on him, not because I dislike him, but for his own good, precisely because I want to better him. I remember one story of an old woman who turned got a man arrested for breaking into her home but guess what, she visited him in prison, made friends with him, and helped him get back on his feet once he was out of prison. Or we can also take the example of Hasegawa Teru who fought on the Chinese side against the Japanese iperial Army even though she herself was Japanese. I'm sure there are plenty of other stories of the sort from Germany and Japan. While certainly betrayal also betrays love, we have to be careful how we define it. A person who turns on his country on principle is not the same as one who turns on his country for personal profit. The one who turns on his country on principle does so in the same vein as a friend who turns his best friend in to the police, or a loving mother who turns her daughter in in order to help her. Such a person turns on his country precisely out of love for his country. He's essentially applying the tough love principle. This is not to be confused with the soldier of fortune who sells himself to the highest bidder, for instance.

Interesting. So it becomes quite difficult to discuss the notion of patriotism vs nationalism when people can all have such divergent views of the two. It always runs the risk of two people agreeing with one another but not realizing it just because they don't understand each other. I guess at that stage, there needs to be a clearer definition of the two terms to ensure we can all understand. Sure different people will have differing definitions of these terms, but I suppose as long as they define the terms clearly enough, then it is possible to understand each other. For example, if one defines patriotism quite simply as nothing more nor less than love for one's country, while this might be a simple definition, at least it makes it easier for a person to answer whether he's a patriot or not according to that definition. Likewise, if we define nationalism as a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another, again, it's a short, straightforward definition. When we end up with paragraph-long definitions of these terms, we find end up finding it difficult to answer simply because the definition is just not so clear anymore. According to the simple definitions above, I can easily say I'm a patriot but not a nationalist. On the other hand, if their respective definitions become too convoluted, I sit there finding it difficult to answer either one just because it's not so clear what it really means anymore.

I do agree that racism should not be tolerated of any group. We accept immigrants from around the world and simply expect them to learn our language and culture so as to integrate within our community. Could we not simply expect the same of the First Nations? For example, all persons living on Mohawk territory are expected to send their children to the Mohawk elementary and secondary school where they will be expected to learn the Mohawk language and culture, either as a first or second language, along with all the others, and be expected to pay their taxes to the Mohawk Nation and of course have the same rights to services as the Mohawks?

Similar, but not quite. It would be, for example, 4 years of university for 5 years of unpaid service, whereas in the RMC, it would be 4 years of university for 5 years of paid service. Some people might refuse to join the RMC on religious or other grounds but could still benefit from the same kind of structure. In some cases, their beliefs are strong enough that they would in fact choose the 5 years of unpaid service over 5 years of paid service, and that ought to be their prerogative, and it does not make their service any less valuable to society, while saving the government and taxpayers money. Some people, for example, even intelligent ones, fall through the cracks, either since they graduate from high school in the midst of a recession, or get tangled up in costs in immigration bureaucracy because they ended up marrying a foreigner, or other bureaucracy requiring them to move province because a family member doesn't know French, etc. etc. etc. There could be various obstacles to their getting an education even if they are intelligent, and this kind of civilian service organization could be a way out for some of them. It might not be very tempting for most, but for those who have been quite unlucky, it still wouldn't be a bad deal.

the current system allows students to learn what they want and then wonder what to do when they can't find a job. Under the concept being promoted here, they'd be learning skills the government actually needs. You don't go out learning religious studies for example and then the government tries to figure out what kind of job it could create for you to work in. It's got to be the other way around. The government figures out what kind of skills it needs, and then trains people for them, knowing these skills will fill an already existing need. That would be fare more efficient than the current student loan programme. By the way, a lot of private colleges with poor teaching standards have been known to exploit the programme too, with students leaving with debt and still not having learnt much. What a waste of taxpayers' money. I don't mind private schools participating in the education of these people, maybe through some kind of voucher programme, but the government must still keep a close eye on them. In the end, it might be easier just for the government itself to provide the education in reputable colleges. I suppose we could go for a voucher programme, but with strict government controls to ensure the quality of the education. Good question. Woud it hurt to offer the option? If a person has been unlucky in life and so failed to get the education he and society could benefit from, he might very well be willing to do that. Who are we to deny him that option because we wouldn't do it ourselves? Sure, why not. Let's say the deal was one year of education for one year of unpaid work. Then he goes to school for five years and then works for five years. Of course we could tweak it a bit. If no one applies, then we raise the salary a little. If too many people apply, then lower the salary, etc. until you find the right balance to get enough recruits for government service while still ensuring low cost. Strange that. That's pretty much what I had in mind. For example, if you want to be a teacher, physician, ambulance driver, mechanic for police cars, or whatever, the Peace Corps would train you and then you'd serve the community through placements through the Peace Corps, which could be in a school, hospital, police garage, ambulance, etc. etc. etc. Much cheaper than all the castle with student banckruptcies, student loan money going to courses in basket weaving, etc. and then having to pay an arm and a leg for skilled trades and professions from the start of their careers. That depends on how you look at it. volunteering doesn't pay the volunteer, but it does pay the one who receives the service, which in this case would be society. If anything, this would save the government and taxpayers money by not having to swallow the cost of defaulted student loans gone to courses in some cheap yet expensive career college that'sin it just for the money, or basket weaving courses in university or some other course for which there just isn't a market. Also, it would provide the government with a pool of trained professionals willing to work for free for at least the first few years of their careers. This would save even more money. The idea here is to not waste money on welfare on people who can't find work but want to work for example. If we're giving them salaries anyway, then we might as well get work out of them too, no? In this case, the government could recruit from the Peace Corps for anything from health care to mechanics to education, etc. all at low salary. Ironic, that. So you would rather the current system whereby student loans, social assistance, and government work are totally separate issues unrelated to one another and so each operating inefficiently when they could all be rolled into one? Right now, you've got the student learning basket weaving 'cause it's cool, the man on social assistance getting a pay check but who's otherwise bored out of his skull without work, and the teacher, construction worker, etc. always threatening the government with a strike for a raise. We could roll them all into one whereby instead of student loans, the government would pay directly for the education for skills it actually needs, much like the military. The unemployed who are willing to work could get that education so as to move ahead in life, in exchange for free work for the government. By fully integrating government work, education and social assistance in this way, we could essentially get rid of unemployment, lack of skills for the workforce, and unionized extortion of the taxpayer, and yet you oppose this?

This is ridiculous. Regardless of what rules we abide by, the government should not be giving one red cent to any party. I'm not a member of any party myself and so why should my tax dollars be going towards sustaining them? If anything, I find that such spending limits my candidate options in elections. There was not one independent candidate in my riding last election. And the notion that increased funding automatically guarantees a party a seat is blatantly false. I almost voted for the Green Party candidate last election (though I handed in a blank ballot at the last minute because I simply could not make up my mind, and perhaps because I was in too picky a mood at the time to, but what's done is done), and now you're not going to tell me that that was because the Green Party was the best-financed party in my riding are you? Quite honestly, party spending has little impact on who I'll vote for. I want to see substance, not glitz, and money just can't buy that. Just look at the independent MP in the House right now. Apparently he's the cheapest MP around when it comes to running campaigns, and yet he's won a few consecutive elections already! I can't imagine that glitz alone will win a party many seats.

Again, if that's the way you look at it, then give it to the MP, not the party.

Then instead of giving the money to the party, how about giving it to the MP. After all, it's the MP and not the party that won the riding, correct? This would also make MPs more independent of the Party.

First off, remember that this subsidy was to be cut not only for opposition parties, but for the Conservative Party too. Let's take the worst case scenario just for the sake of argument. Let's suppose the cut in subsidies caused all but the Conservative Party to simply collapse and disappear from existence. This would not automatically cause the whole population to vote Conservative. Honestly, again just for the sake of argument, let's say that in an election you have a choice between a Conservative Party candidate and a few independent candidates with varying ideas. If you were a former NDP voter, would you honestly start to vote Conservative just because of brand recognition? I think not. If anything, such a scenario would likely even lose votes for the Conservative Party as more people would vote independent in recognition of the fact that there is no organized partisan opposition to the Conservatives. Essentially, even conservatives would likely vote for independent conservative candidates simply out of fear of a one-party state. So in that sense, ironically enough, the Conservative Party itself stands to benefit from strong partisan opposition. A weakened party opposition would lose the COnservatives votes too as people began to fear a one-party system.

Again, I don't see why a political party is a necessary component of democracy. Nunavut is a non-partisan democratic system, and it's just as democratic as any other as far as I can tell, if not more so.

I'm not questioning your assessment of Harper's motives;he does come across more as a self-interested political tactician that a representative of the people. His intentions aside though, I still liked his idea of cutting subsidies to political parties.

And how does that subsidy benefit the independent MP in Parliament? He seems to be doing just fine without party membership and has even won a few consecutive elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Arthur Are you suggesting that his riding is lacking in democracy because their MP has no party affiliation?

Another advantage I could see is that this Peace Corp would essentially eliminate the need for government stimulous packages in recessions. If you can't find a job and don't want to apply for social assistance and don't qualify for EI, then you could always join the Peace Corp, where you'd receive the education you need to succeed in the upcoming economic recovery. It would naturally follow the economic flow. In good times, recruitment in the Peace Corp would naturally decline, while in recession it would natrually grow.