dre

Well to the author "the left" is an imaginary construct that exists only in his own mind. I mean, just the fact someone would post something with that title would suggest they are either in grade 3, or a bit deranged.

I don't believe you

Right so a "No Niggers Allowed" sign on the front of Walmart would be just fine with you. You are free to think that, but don't act surprised when everyone else things you are a nut.

The overall design, and in fact the literally stated purpose - was to stop the government from preventing certain types of religious belief. Again you need to look at the context and the backdrop that these protections emerged from. As for it working "well" that is a subjective judgement. I think it would work just as well if Churches were treated the same as any other private club.

Its not by design. You need to look at the environment when these concepts evolved. It was about preventing the practice of religion, and the establishment of state preference. The founding fathers never sat down and said "Man! We need to make sure churches don't have to marry fags in a hundred years!". These laws were born in the British North America Act, and the Freedom of Worship Act, and the Treaty of Paris. The pre-amble to the FWA is "free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference". That does not mean the church should be immune from efforts by society to get rid of discrimination by age, gender, height, weight, race, or anything else. You interpretation is so broad, you could literally claim that a church does not have to conform to local building codes. You need to view these things through the lense they were viewed at the time they were created. After the 7 years war ended people in Quebec face a very real risk of being prevented from practicing Catholicism. We had just lived through a thousand years of religion persecution. These protections were born out of people actually being PREVENTED from espousing certain beliefs and ideas, and trying to spread them. Not to allow religious institutions to engage in anti-social behavior like racism or homophobia, or mysogeny.

I'm not sure I would attribute that to a pluralistic society though. I think that a few decades ago this kind of discrimination existed everywhere. Religion has used protections that were meant to prevent overt persecution, or preference by the government for one religion over another, to prevent society from demanding they act in accordance with modern common decency. The point being... its an accident. Not some good thing we as a pluralistic society determined was in our interests. They should play by the same rules as any other private interest.

I find the immigration debate pretty boring and unimportant, but when I wrote my last post it got me thinking... Maybe we should have a modern version of homesteading, where we can use immigrants and refugees to achieve national goals, and improve their lives at the same time. For example... "sure you can come and live here, but only if you spend your first 5 years at THIS location, where we are trying to develop a remote mining community". You will get a piece of land to live on, and if stay there past 5 years you will own it free and clear. If you don't... you go back to Asscrackistan. This might stop immigrants from only living our large cities, and help develop resources in areas where Canadians don't want to live. Right now its so expensive to get Canadian workers in these locations that companies end up paying double what they should be, or the resources don't get developed at all. This is just an example, and maybe not the best one, but the general idea is... Sure... you can come here... and you WILL have a better life. But you have to do what we want, where we want it done... for the first few years.

So what? That's the same reason Europeans came here. The chance at a better life, and the promise of some perks. European settlers used to get 150 acres for free, just for showing up.

As far as the arguments about subsidies go, and which industries get which subsidies, and which subsidies are direct, or the result of the public footing the bill for various externalities.... I would just let insurance adjusters figure that out, for everyone to insure against them. For example... How much would gasoline cost if these companies had to buy insurance against ALL of their externalities. Polution, climate change, diplomacy and war to secure supply, the enrichment of despotic regimes like the Saudis, or Iraq, and the cost of dealing with them later on. We are paying way more for gasoline than what you see on those little spinning numbers on the side of the pump. Energy providers need a more comprehensive approach to risk management, and all costs associated with their activities need to be internalized.

I think the writing is on the wall... I think even fossil fuel companies know that. These companies are investing heavily in renewable energy. Chevron is one of the worlds leading producers of geothermal power. Exxon was one of the pioneers of lithium-ion batteries. Enbridge (Known for pipelines) operates dozens of wind farms across Canada, and is the second largest producer of wind power in the country. TransCanada (also known for pipelines) invests heavily in solar, wind, and nuclear energy. They jointly own the Bruce Nuclear station, and just spent half a billion dollars purchasing solar plants. I do think 8 years is overly optimistic though. I think it would be reasonable however to expect that we will move off gas and oil as our primary means of powering transportation over the next 15 - 20 years, and that they will be a tiny bit player within 50. Infrastructure is a "thing" but certainly not a showstopper. The first smart phone came out about 10 years ago, and already most of the planet has been outfitted with wires and towers. The additional demand for electricity is also a "thing" but again not a showstopper. The demand placed on energy systems by electric vehicles would be elastic. Perfect for leveraging off-peak generation, and intermittent generation from renewable energy sources. Not to mention, mining, refinement, and other parts of the fossil fuel supply chain are huge users of electricity, as is. The EV technology thats available today is already superior to ICE in so many ways that it really is just a matter of time. Its probably a matter of more time than 8 years though.

Yup need to fix that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx There's some interesting polling data. Despite all the screeching in this thread about Muslims in the ME, NA, and Asia supporting and encouraging violence, the numbers do not support that conclusion. Europeans, Canadians, and Americans are actually more likely to support terrorism than people in the middle east.

Yup... and that's not an accident. Selling a false sense of security to fear-dumb westerners is probably the most lucrative endeavor in all of human history. Where do you think the trillions of dollars we have spent on "terrorism" actually went? To build schools for girls in Afghanistan? No... Its all in the pockets of western corporations and people that own shares in them.

I cant speak for Michael, but for me evidence that it poses a statistically significant threat to me would be a good start. Or some evidence the solutions proposed by fear-dumb hyperbolists, actually do anything to mitigate the "problem". If I was an insurance company, I would insure you against the threat of terrorism to your person or property for about 2 dollars per year. I would charge about 8 to insure you against lightening strikes.

No you don't have to do that, but people will take you a little more seriously if you dump the "sky is falling" schtick, and talk about the problems we face in a substantive measured way.

Keep in mind history also shows us, that the doomsayers have been predicting this impending collapse ever since western nations adopted the Keynsian economic model. The "consequences" for us so far, have been having among the highest standard of life in human history, and relatively steady economic growth for many many decades. Some people are just predisposed to predicting doom. People should be wary of people who throw around terms like "catastrophe, collapse, etc".

There are actually places in the world that do things this way... Where the government can just execute people they suspect of things. Before you become a cheer leader for that approach, I suggest you move to one of these places, and spend some time there. If you survive, then report back.

A surveillance state is not WORTH protecting from terrorism. According to the FBI, your chances of dying from a terrorist attack are 1 in 20 million. That's 4 times less likely than being killed by a lightening strike. Now obviously the government and their security apparatus, see this as an opportunity to get stuff that they have wanted forever... less privacy rights for people, more powers for police, less judicial oversight, warrantless surveillance, email mining, phone records etc. People that are dumb with fear and emotion are really easy to exploit. The biggest threat associated with terrorism, is what our own governments might do in reaction to it. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" so they say. Look at what has happened so far... The "War on terror", is one of the largest misallocations of funds and resources ever in history. Trillions of dollars have been spent, and the threat of terrorism has increased. Trillions of dollars have been taken from the pockets of fear-dumb westerners, and placed in the pockets of large, wealthy, government lobbying industries. Its probably the biggest fraud and scam of all time. They don't want us to think rationally about it. In all the media and government communication on terrorism you will see that rarely is there any empirical numbers mentioned. When intelligence assessments conclude the GWOT has put us at greater risk, its never talked about. Half the people out there dont even know that groups like ISIS are a direct result of the botched war on terrorism.

Seems crazy to me. That would rule out all extra-curricular activities, like sports, and all kinds of other things. I think these things have value.

Not just the media, but government as well LOVES that people are obsessed with the culture war (race, religion, abortion, etc) and that it divides people into two camps. Because of people were not distracted by that, they might actually hold the governments feet to the fire over things that actually matter.

If you want to end terrorism against the west, then stop bombing the middle east with exploding ordinance, and instead rain down packages with food, liquor, bacon, and porn. Never mind blowing themselves up for Allah... these people wont even leave their huts.

That makes good sense to me! You need to look at the big picture. Key indicators like life expectancy and infant mortality rates, and key causative factors like age. For example... 1. The median age of Canadians is 42, but in New Zealand its 37! (We have an older population than the UK and Australia as well.) 2. In New Zealand 5.7 children per 1000 die before the age of 5. In Canada only 4.9. 3. The life expectancy in Canada is a full year longer than the life expectancy in New Zealand. The reality is a person in New Zealand is flat our more likely to die of sickness or illness than a person in Canada. And OF COURSE healthcare dollars are going to go further in a country where people on average are 5 years younger. Never mind the fact that a GP in Canada makes about 75k more than a GP in New Zealand due to our proximity to the UPG (Universal Price Gouging) system in the US which drives up costs here. Is their system really better? Are wait times a more important factor than a population actually being healthy and living long? Or is all this maybe a bunch of "Fraser Institute styled" cherry-picking of data and myopically focusing on hot button issues with the goal of privatizing healthcare? I wonder.... Any analysis that does not consider these things is not worth the paper its printed on or the bandwidth used to post it on the internet. None of this excuses wait times, and we should do what we can to alleviate them, but the reality is no matter what kind of system we have our population is getting older, and by extension of that sicker as well.

Any wild idea as to what might actually be talking about here?

Why on earth would you spend even one second worrying about how other people describe themselves. Dont you have any hobbies?

Not just that, but our treaties are voluntary contracts signed by two parties. If the government of Canada refused to honor its contracts, then it would have a hard time negotiating new contracts with the rest of the world. A lot of the nations we do business with think that honoring these types of deals with aboriginal people is pretty important... It would be a signal to the world that the government of Canada cannot be trusted.