Icebound

Well, we have God and the Americans have war. Which is easier to live with? But I do particularly like The Star Spangled Banner's 3rd verse, sending slaves to their grave: And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country, should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. ....

Half of American Muslims have best friends that are not Muslim. That's leverage for influencing their thinking.

No, we beat them in back alleys, but the outcome was the same.

Muslims make up 1% of Americans. Pretty hard to make up 28% of the population from that

How many Muslim stonings have there been in American? I fully concede that Islam is a long way behind the times, which is maybe why so many flee its abuses to America. And there is no doubt that some of the abuses follow. But Christians were pretty happy bashing gays just 35 years ago, and some still are. Affect the evolution, don't force its retrenchment. ..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx graph shows 28% claim homosexual activity should not be legal.

I was talking about 3 out of 10 will join the stoning... because 3 out of 10 Americans still think that homosexuality should be illegal.

Right. Muslim People as in People who identify themselves as Muslim. Similar to Christian People.

... and 3 out of ten mainstream americans will join them, I suppose.. based on Gallup's poll

Not its not.... but then, what percentage of MAINSTREAM Americans think that homosexuality should be accepted? And will the thinking of the American Muslim Population.... not the thinking of the "religion".... but the thinking of the PEOPLE..... over time, will the thinking of the People become somewhat like the rest of American society? ...

NOBODY finds gay-bashing "all that shocking", because it happens all the time, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.. in spite of our supposed "progressive" attitudes.. Since 39% of American Muslims actually say that homosexuality should be accepted by society, I will go out on a limb and say that they would be just as disgusted as the rest of us. And that number is growing. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

Perhaps true. But also true that they will be influenced by the people they live around. Half of US Muslims claim closest friends that are NOT Muslim. 30% don't find Religion to be particularly important in their lives. And interesting comment on the research by Pew is "By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians", As their history in America evolves, it should follow similar paths.... reduced fertility with increasing prosperity... greater secularization ... more tolerance. With our tolerance (or our pushback), we probably hold a greater power over that evolution than we know

We have mostly agreed that Islam is a religion far behind the times. But It is only 35 years ago that mainstrem Canadian society discriminated against gays, even as a point of public policy (Toronto Bathhouse raids).... Even after that episode sparked the gay rights movement, we can find significant cases of gay bashing right up to the present time, and not all of it by Muslims. https://www.google.ca/search?q=latest+gay+bashing+incident&oq=latest+gay+bashing+incident&aqs=chrome..69i57.6769j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Pew Research is finding that the Muslim attitude toward gays is softening... "As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

I knew what you meant, but the irony..... ...

Are you saying that Trump and the Republicans are going to become the de-facto defenders of LGBT? ...

.. Ah.... isn't that the SOP for those bastions of democracy such as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov ..... .. ..

Well, at least all that they are calling for is Hillary's imprisonment... Not at all like what Republican senators (and others) are suggesting for Obama: http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/06/10/david-perdues-quip-about-barack-obama-prompts-swift-social-media-reprimands/ "We should pray like Psalms 109:8 says. It says, ‘Let his days be few, and let another have his office.” Of course, the rest of Psalm 108.8 quoted here from the King James Bible on-line .... goes like this: Let his days be few; and let another take his office. 9Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow . 10Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. 11Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. ... But hey, it was all a joke, right? No sitting Republican would wish the President of the United States harm, right? Indeed, it IS a new paradigm. ..

The following two articles pretty much summarize Trump's chances: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/there-is-no-trump-campaign/486380/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html The first describes his campaign. There is none. The second describes his dealings in Atlantic City. The casinos died, but Trump made a lot of money. When this is all over, one thing can be predicted with a good level of certainty. Trump..., even if does not profit directly from the presidential run.... will have huge name recognition. In a country like America, that usually translates into dollars... somewhere along the line if not immediately. If, like the casinos, the presidential run were to die, it won't matter. Like the casinos, somebody else will have to pick up the pieces. ..

Yeah, I can quote the Toronto Star and the Broadbent Institute and they will say something different. But Stats-Can themselves, say something different: Between 1999 and 2012, average income rose at more or less the same pace for the middle three quintiles (between 14% and 16%). The increase was slightly lower (8%) among families in the bottom quintile and somewhat higher (22%) among those in the top quintile. Hence, in 2012, the average income of families in the top quintile was 13.3 times the average level of those in the bottom, compared with 11.7 times in 1999. The ratio of income for families in the top quintile to that of those in the middle quintile changed little (from 3.0 in 1999 to 3.2 in 2012).Note8 Similar results were found when median income values rather than average values were examined.Note9 Between 1999 and 2012, average net worth increased in all income quintiles, but rose faster in the top two income quintiles. The average net worth increased by 80% for families in the top income quintile—from $721,900 to $1.3 million. In comparison, the average net worth among families in the middle quintile rose by 73% (from $261,800 to $453,300), and by 38% among families in the bottom quintile (from $79,500 to $109,300). As a result, families in the top quintile had 11.9 times the level of wealth of families in the bottom quintile in 2012—up from 9.1 times in 1999. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14194-eng.htm ...

Oh, REALLY???? Where do do get THAT information? http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx suggests quite the opposite. Anyway, WEALTH inequality is even more important than income inequality. And YES, government policies DO help mitigate. Which kind of makes my previous point about the greater complexities of 21st century society vs "smaller" government. ...

Well, if there was a job for every Canadian who needed one.... And IF the fruits of that labour was shared sufficiently with the worker so it would sustain him over periods of unemployment and/or sickness and/or old age..... .... then things might be different and we wouldn't need pogey. But "industry's" priority has been profits and cost-cutting, REDUCING the labour force, Industry has done IT'S hare of "not contributing", by cleaning up as little of their waste as possible leaving it for somebody else... relocating jobs (and taxes) offshore .... even hiding and evading As for the native issue.... you can argue that they "contributed" quite a bit.... like most of the land that they used to have free access to. In any case, the chickens are coming home to roost after years of mismanagement through neglect and prejudice. And THAT fun is just beginning. By the way.... you may want to rethink your "sit around and get drunk" stereotype. It may be true that.... as a percentage of population ... the number of people who drink HEAVILY is higher among First-nations than the rest of us ... but also FEWER DRINK AT ALL, compared to the rest of us. Substance abuse among first nations is a problem, no question.... so are gangs in Toronto, child porn on the internet, and teenage suicide in Woodstock. People are trying to work on them all.... If we stereotype too much, people will start thinking that all Conservatives are drunks and crack-heads because of one former Premier and one former Mayor. ...

I have NO nostalgia for good old days. I was merely pointing out that today's problems are more complex as a rebuttal to your original thesis that they are not. I said nothing about poverty. High living density increases the complexity of housing, neighbour interaction, turf wars, sewage disposal, transportation and a host of other things. Fraud. Those tools for combating fraud can't be working very well. The BBB thinks over a billion was lost in scams in Canada, and that's not counting how much the banks lose., Nobody used to be able to steal a HOUSE. Fraudsters couldn't mass market their scams as easily so your chance of being hit was a lot less. The environment may be cleaner and safer than 100 years ago, but it took a lot of effort and regulation to get it there. It would not have happened but for regulation.... and it has to keep up with our new pollutants, such as plastic pellets, pharmaceuticals, oilsand tailing leaching into groundwater, etc... Corporate entities and service "at a fraction of the cost"... my phone bill has not gone down. I am paying mandatory rental on a modem which has been paid 10 times over for my internet. My internet address can change at a moments notice if my provider decides to sell out to somebody else. I have a cell phone which won't work in certain areas of the country because MY provider does not have a presence there. Even if service WERE "better", you cannot say that life is "less complex".

The problems are NOTHING like they have "always been". We are trying to drive a 2017 high-speed crowded highway with an 1980 Fort Pinto instead of a 2017 Buick Regal, . We argue: "no need" to add back-up cameras, blind-spot sensors, lane-departure warnings. progressive cruise control, emergency braking, or side curtain air-bags. Its all too expensive. It is not an "illusion" that we now live in higher population density than we ever were before, resulting in everything from stalled transportation systems to overcrowded slums. . Is is not an "illusion", that we are much more susceptible to fraud... internet theft.... financial manipulation ,... counterfeit goods and food, ... counterfeit and unneeded services. It is not an "illusion" that there are excess pharmaceuticals in our drinking water, extra CO2 in our air, and funny foreign fish in our lakes. It is not an "illusion" that the wealth which IS being created, is being held in increasingly fewer hands, while the remaining population's buying power is dropping. Back when... Most of my food was local, because transportation was not so sophisticated. I knew my grocer, and I probably knew the farmer he got his meat from. I didn't need a food inspector, because if my grocer felt it was good enough to sell, then that was good enough for me. I knew my banker; if I had a problem with my bank account, I could discuss it with him face to face, and most likely resolve it in ten minutes. If a cheque came in that looked suspicious, he would phone me and confirm.. Investments were simple, shares and bonds and real estate. Work was simpler. I worked for a corporation for so many hours a week for such pay, and at the end of 35 years, I got a pension. Education was simpler. The secondary or post-secondary schooling that I got, stood me in good stead for the rest of my career with a little bit of updating. There was no risk that in 10 or 15 years, my skill-set would be so out of date that I would be let go. In 10 or 15 years, I was the one with the "seniority" and was the MOST skilled, not the least. Or I ran a small business until I retired, and then my son took it over, and HE was my pension. Home life was simpler. My heating, cooling, energy, and communications needs were met by local tradespeople who I knew and dealt with all the time. They did not sell my contract to some new corporate entity every time I turn around like happens now. The only possible thing that is the same was the permanent fear. Communism was going to take over the world, the Russians were going to Nuke us, the Americans were going to assimilate us, the immigrants were going to overrun us. On that one point, your are right: nothing has changed. ... No... You will have a hard time convince people that "the problems society faces are the same as they always have been". .

If it is being over-run that you are concerned about, then you should probably be looking more toward China, not so much the Muslim middle-east. And yes, their fertility rate is 50% higher, but as I have said before.... fertility is always high in poor populations, and especially poor and religious. Even Canadians fertility was higher a hundred years ago. After a generation or two in the West, you will see the fertility drop like the rest of us.

Entering the 21st century, the idea of "small government" is not very practical, which is why most Canadians keep rejecting it. Society is larger (there are more of us every year).... and more complex... and is only going to be more so in the years going forward. Everything from health... to travel, communication.... to shelter ...to food supply ..... even exposure to crime and fraud .... Everything is more complex, more prone to corruption, more subject to hazardous mistake, more difficult for the individual Canadian to evaluate. Supposedly, the promise of "small" government is to "make things better"? So how do people reconcile reduction of funding for..... standards .... education ..., research... regulation, safety inspections.... health care ... etc., etc. in the face of a larger and increasingly complex society...... ??? I suppose that small government DOES "make things better" for someone.... the question is for WHOM?