Cato

American Indians and Natives make only about 1% of the population. First Nations and the Metis make about 4% of the Canadian population. Still, their proportion in prisons is very high relative to their proportion in the population. The question is justified: why? Perhaps Americans shoot their criminal natives instead of incancerating them? Perhaps Americans are incarcerating so many people from the non-native population, that the native's proportion is vanishing? The incarceration rate in 2005 was 131 in Canada and 738 in the USA (over 1000 in 2008, but I don't know the Canadian number). This is always from 100,000 people (i.e. over 1% of the US population was in prison in 2008). But then the question comes up: what do the American non-natives do to be incarcerated in that high proportion? Alternatively: which crimes let Canadian pass without any serious penalty?

What you deem "best" or "worst" or "beautiful" are not natural qualities; they are in the eye of beholder. These characteristics don't have any "priority" in the genes. Most of those Jews you meet are Ashkenazic Jews. It is pretty much a matter of fact, that they are intellectually above average. If so, then you must be the exception. I fully agree with the dumb old German lady, that people should not put their feet on the public seats, neither black kids, not white adults.

Thanks for the info, but 1. Some incorrect statements, myths and outright lies need to be corrected, if for nothing else then in order to register the recognition of their falseness, This is particularly important, for many claims, pure lies of the Zionists and their supporters went uncontested and are now accepted by probably the majority of Canadians as true. Examples: the reasons for the failure of the Camp David summit; Ahmadinejad "threatened Israel with annihilation". 2. Even my worse opponents can and often do make statements, which I agree with or find they deserve serious response. 3. The person behind the posted opinions, claims, statements may be a nice individual in reality despite anything he/she posts.

For example members of a criminal organization, like the Hells' Angels, the RCMP, the Banditos, the Federal Liberals, etc.

I downloaded the stats for several years and the description of methodology. Even though the basis of the survey is fairly large, nationally representative sample of 76,000 households comprising nearly 135,300 persons (according to BJS criminal victimization data collections), I have some reservations. 1. The year to year variations in the "Rape/sexual assault" numbers are unexplicably huge, much greater than the variations in the overall numbers of "Crimes of violence". 2. The inclusion of the most minor incidents of "sexual assault", like "sexual touching" (which is highly subjective) and threat with sexual assault renders the stats a joke. This may be the reason for the huge variations: women may feel "sexually assaulted" depending on other circumstances, like the economy, war, etc. Feminist activists achieved the total mudding of the picture. 3. Some segments of the stats make me think that there is some problem with those having worked on them. Look at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv06.pdf It explains, that the data collection method has been changed during 2006. The result is not only, that the number re white victims increased more than 74% from 2005 to 2006, while regarding black victims decreased 51% (i.e. at least one of 2005 and 2006 is totally false). Worse: the number of rape/sexual assaults in the first half of 2006 is stated to have been estimated as 105,770, in the second half of the year (with the changed methodology of data collection) is was 166,570. The comment to this is The difference between pre-CAPI and post-CAPI is not statistically significant. This is, because the rate of this kind of "crime" changed only from 0.9 (per thousand persons) to 1.3. However, the second half of the year indicates a rise by 57%, and this is deamed statistically insignificant! Anyway, these stats are extremely phony, worthless as basis for any discussion aiming at objectivity.

Real estate tax, as it is in Canada is one of the most artificial, illogical, sick creatures of the society, nothing more but the epitomy of greed.

The value added tax is the most natural tax on earth. It should be applied to everything except monetary transactions (insurance, banking) and real estate transfer, and it should replace the income tax completely, though that would require a long transition. The PST has been misused for social engineering in a disgusting, ineffective, contradicting way. Supporting the needy should be done directly, not over tax manipulation - but the politicians don't want to give up their ways to bind some groups of voters to themselves. Anyway, I welcome the HST; better late then never.

For me the voucher system is the most natural structure, although there are many details to work out. The fixed funding is a particularly interesting aspect. At first sight one could think this eliminates competition; but the competition is "who can make the best result from the given, fixed funding". As "best" has different meaning for different parents and students, these schools can structure the education targeted to a certain group of students and parents. It would be nice to have such options everywhere, but the Canadian crabs don't tolerate anything like that. The Ontarians in particular have rejected even a much-much weaker form of this for a few years ago, namely the partial funding of denomination, not Roman Catholic schools.

This from a "radical leftist, Trockyist" (self-characterisation). Anyway, if NDP means "New Democratic Party" (as this is a Canadian forum), then this is an unashamed slender. I guess this is the very first time that I am stating something positive about them, but non-democratic methods in the elections are not on their menu. (Elections within the party have nothing to do with democracy, but that is quite the norm in North America.) There are some of them, for whom conducting a discussion with a 2x4 is natural, but that is limited to union meetings, strikes, picketing and alike. Creative dealing with the truth seems to be deeply ingrained in your character.

That's all right from a personal perspective. However, if someone is dealing with the underlying reasons and with possible preventions, then one has to have a close look of the generic aspects, like why black men are three times more often the perpetrators, than their population in the total justifies it. Or, how many different perpetrators were these; which group of perpetrators is more likely to repeat this crime. Of course a group does not have to be "black" or "white"; perhaps there are other, more important aspects of this, what we don't know.

1. The stats from 2005 and 2006 give very contradicting pictures. According to the 2005 stats, the proportion of black victims was much higher than their number would suggest (I guess that too is close to 1:6). According to the 2006 stats, there were much more than six times as many white victims as black ones. Those stats are incompatible. 2. Whatever, it is irrelevant. The issue of this thread and of the underlying article is, that black men are overrepresented in the pool of perpetrators.

That's from the 2006 stats; the paper linked from the opening post refers to the 2005 stats. There are huge differences between them; in fact, the differences are so great, that I don't believe both are correct; or, the method of data collection changed. Already the basis is stinking: white victims in 2005: 112,490, black victims: 36620. In 2006: white victims 194,270; black victims: 17,920. Perhaps tomorrow I take the time to look at the other years. Well, I do think. There are 6.25 times more white men than black. Even if the 2006 stats are correct and the 2005 not, the black "participation" is still more than two times higher than the white. Based on the 2005 stats, this is 4.7 times. One has to be racially blind not to see here the point.

This number must be your own creature; it is certainly not from the stats mentioned in that article. Btw, as there are about 6.25 times more white men in the US than black men, already the 3:1 ratio would mean that black men are strongly overrepresented as perpetrators.

Yes; it is obvious, that white men are rassists: they raped/etc. exclusively white persons, while black men raped/etc. 36,620 black and 37,460 white persons - more even-handedly is not possible. (Or are white men more choosy?) I noted a more interesting aspect: white women have been raped/etc. by strangers in 41.6% of the cases, and in 15.4% of the cases by intimates. Black women have been raped by strangers only in 10.7% of the cases, while the proportion of rape/etc. by intimates was 46.7%.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that; the problem is drowing wrong conclusions. 1. IQ measures only one kind of intelligence, namely the analytic one. This is the intelligence, which is important in many occupations and in math and sciences. Its measurement is often faulty, biased. For example I saw such a test (an "official" one), with questions aiming at the recognition of analogies, but someone would have to have some certain knowledge specific to USA history and politics, in order to understand the question. Thus anyone not having the necessary background/education would score lower. Plus, practicing with such tests enhances the result in very high degree without increasing the analytic intelligence. 2. Other kinds of intelligence are independent of the analytic one (musical, interpersonal, linguistic...). They are more important than the analytic intelligence in certain occupations and situations. 3. The statement "intelligence is linked to race" is true only in statistical sense. It does not mean, that every individual of one race is more intelligent than every individual of the other race. Thus, even though the statement is correct, it is pretty irrelevant as an argument for or against anything.

One spin-off of patriotism with huge negative impact is the loss of critical thinking; this is particularly characteristic to the left-leaning crowd, who are anyway inclined to save thinking in favour of ideology. Canada has the best education system in the world. Canada has the best judicial system in the world. Canada has the best penitentary system in the world. And, of course, Canada has the best health care system in the world. At least that was true a few months ago; but then opponents of the planned mixed system in the US have declared, that the best health care system in the world is that of the US. Alabama’s Senator Richard Shelby: the best health care system the world has ever known Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell: America has the finest health care in the world now

You could have saved it, for I did not have any illusion regarding your education.

Much of this is rubbish, characteristic to those using it. Anyway, it is their problem. Good for them. This reflects more on you than you would like to publish. They are at least as much the "true representatives" of the people as the Bush administration was. I guess that's how they are thinking of Israelis and Americans. Isn't this symmetricity funny? I wonder what the source is of your feeling of having to lie. Is it in your culture? Are you paid for it? Does it give you some satisfaction? I don't believe that you don't know, that the elections were democratic and peaceful, according to Western observators.

The distinction exists only in theory. The "emotion" aspect makes it particularly dangerous; it means, that people are highly manipulable, for they turn off their critical thinking. The past 150 years have shown repeatedly, how easily such emotions can be turned into full-fledged nationalism. For example jbg's concept of national pride, An appendix of England? A dependency of the U.S.? Have you no pride in your country? requires outright denying certain facts. One example: the "freedom fries" vs. "french fries" issue. France and many other countries have been opposing the UN sanctioned invason of Iraq in 2003. American "patriots" turned this into a nationalistic issue.

Your moniker "bush..." is apt, at least from the intellectual aspect. Yes, I am enjoying all the consequences of nationalism, like wars, hate, exploitation. murder,...

My contribution was paying very much tax; nothing to be proud of. I would be proud if I had managed to avoid that, but I had not. Anyway, I did not and do not have any intentions to aim specifically at contributing to any national pride. I don't think you got the gist of it. I am an "anti-nationalist", I don't need any excuse not contribute to nationalism. Before you come up with that wide-spread nonsense: Communism was/is not anti-nationalist. They claimed to be internationalists, but a closer look reveals, that nationalism was always present. For example the Soviet Union was a union of equal people under the Russians.

How could they be both? I wonder which claims you are doubting - perhaps both? Anyway, Hamas rose at the end of the 1980's with Israel's active support (the direct support consisted of cash, hundreds of schools, universities, mosques). The parliamentary elections took place in January 2009; Hamas won more than half of the seats, almost twice as many as the Fatah.

We must have very different concepts about the essence of pride. I don't have pride in anything, which I did not contribute to be something worth of being proud of. Pride in one's country is the core of nationalism, which is nowadays the worse curse of humanity. For example your concept of "national pride" dictates you to deny facts, which may negatively affect the basis of this pride.

If you have difficulties with comprehension, you better ask.

I gather from the above post, that you will be surprized to learn: the impact of violence on real people is almost always moving, not only on those with whom you happen to sympathise. It is a sure sign of hypocrisy when you are trying to make the impression, that only those actions, which you qualify as terror are causing horrendeous effects. The "intolerant, dominating and oppressive world" is performing acts, which can be declared as terroristic; it's simply the question of definition (and you and alike believe to be appointed to make the definition). When looking up-close, those actions, which you don't see as terroristic have identical consequences; the only relevant difference is, that you are not sympathising with those victims. It is like your intelligence agent is a spy, while my spy is only an intelligence agent.