Shwa

Actually, from the reports from the pricey consultants hired to review those primary causes, it isn't only far-fetched, it is pure bullshit.

Until they eff up your welfare cheque. Then I bet you care about them. Or when your residence is on fire. I bet you care about the firefighters when that happens since they will be caring for you.

Which is what the incentive packages are all about. I don't think that City Staff are currently at capacity with regard to their work levels, so there are likely efficiences to be gained. Please note, the City isn't firing staff, they are offering them voluntary packages. They aren't, but that is beside the point. However, MLW has a few threads about this already.

No it doesn't and you aren't reading the Indian Act properly. Let me quote it directly so you can get a clearer picture: Thus "an Indian" can request the raid and it be perfectly legal within the context of the Indian Act, itself a "Federal" law. No doubt that many Indians, aka the band, asked for this sort of legal action to take place, which was in conformance with provincial law. Here is a test for you: without any reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Constitution of Canada nor the Indian Act - all "Federal Laws" please tell me - with accurate citations - what "Aboriginal Rights" the "First Nations" possess. Take as much time as you need. Not quite, as per the Indian Act, which I have already pointed out. Red herring. This has nothing to do with poppy fields in Afghanistan. Stick to the issue at hand.

Thanks for the review, I appreciate it and, after a brief look at some of the graphics the two 'August Underground' movies, I will happily avoid it. I prefer to be entertained, not disgusted and saddened. A little disturbance is thrilling, my first viewing of Texas Chainsaw Massacre - the original back in the day - was like that. But I don't find being continually disturbed, sick or saddened to be entertaining at all. I am a category 2 kind of guy.

Nope, not at all. However, according to some news stories, the areas being looked at by the consultants are mostly core services. Do you think that perhaps Toronto has a spending problem with core services? Did I say that? Do you have proof that every civil servant has a bloated salary? Do you want to argue your ideology with me? So by "steep tax hike" do you mean a car tax or something?

This is the closest to the truth in my opinion.

For what it is worth to you: A Terrible Sickness Among Them

For what it is worth to you: A Terrible Sickness Among Them

It is baffling. It doesn't even seem that these measures of austerity will even cover off the the money the City lost when they repealed the car tax. I think they will quickly find that to make the sort of promised gains, this will have to shut the City down for a few weeks each year.

Offering buyouts is not the same as "most city staff" taking the buyouts. All things considered, only someone close to retirement would agree to a package and that is simply accelerating attrition and then not back-filling the positions. This ia s huge presumption. First of all, you are presuming that the workforce is currently at capacity for the delivery of their services. Secondly, there is the presumption that efficiencies won't be gained throughout the whole process. Somehow I doubt this. Especially this early in the process. I went through a similar exercise with the Federal government back in the day and it was a fairly orderly process that did not reduce service levels that much and, in fact, spurred on the idea of "shared services" which was a cost saving efficiency. Hyperbole much?

The Indian Act IS a federal law, so how can it supercede itself? Section 87 refers only to taxation and is subject to a "nothwithstanding" test. Section 88 refers to legal rights that say, "...all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with this Act..." Section 89 refers the illegal seizure of property and is modified so that "...in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band" means that if the Band themselves agreed to the raid, it was perfectly legal seizure. Furthermore, Section 90 also defines "personal property:" It would be a tough sell to say that dope grown on the reserve would constitute "personal property" especially since it was obviously trade goods. Finally, if the dope was actually grown on the reserve, section 93 would apply: No doubt that there are standing agreements between the Minister and police forces.

Well a 'boomtime' suggests that it will not always be that way, and in this case - coupled with the 407 being extended deep into the Durham Region - I can see there being some pretty significant economic benefit and urban expansion in the Region. However, I'll reserve judgemet at this point as to whether that is good or bad.

I tend to agree with James and when I read about all the "cuts" to be made with an estimate of the savings, I had the same thoughts. This is nickel and dime stuff. James: Rob Ford’s gravy train running on fumes Nice line here though:

This is sure to stir the shitstorm in Pickering and likely all over Durham. Now that the 407 will come across, I imagine you will see the GTA get a little more serious on it's easter frontier. Boomtimes ahead. Pickering a ‘prime location’ for new airport: Transport Canada I am sure The Right Honourable Alexander, at the time of a looming election, was indeed opposed to an airport. But I am betting his "resolution" now includes the airport... Background: Transport Canada Pickering Lands Wikipedia Pickering Lands

Now you see fair play. Good. You are minimizing again. These weren't "two British soldiers" and you know it. They were cadre for the British command in the colonies at the time and, in a larger sense, representative of the views of everyone under their command. The smallpox blanket issue is a small indicator, but an indicator nonetheless, about those Europeans. Red herring and an avoidance of the actual subject. The thread says "Europeans" not "Catholics." See? You are not dense. I just knew it. Red herring and a pitiful appeal to popularity. Come on AW, you can do better than that. My mistake and I apologize. I saw it as a dumb question and not just a simple one. Red herring. Find something worth comparing rather than apples and oranges. You are minimizing again with "a couple of Brits." After all, the Sullivan Campaign was only devised by "a couple of" Yankees. But of course, discussing the use of disease as a weapon means nothing more than casual conversation over tea. Innocent "couple of Brits" they were. Right? Nope. You are still minimizing and throwing out red herrings. Speak specifically of the acts and how they inform us about that time. It certainly does when you bring "the Muslims" into as some sort of reference point. As I said, through Hobbsian coloured glasses. Which would explain the defensiveness and references to "the Muslims." So you do recognize context. Good for you.

Where do you get your source of news on a daily basis and why? I get news from a variety of sources, newspapers, blogs, but I get my "news" mostly from on-line newspapers because of convenience.

Hmmmm.... good points here. I have an idea, but I am going to post it in the Media category...

Well it appears that his focus is TV news in particular and perhaps he has a larger view of journalism in all it's forms. But really, what is "news?" To me, it is a mere product of an institution that has commodified a social phenomenon, namely, people talking about one another or talking about events. In your daily conversations, how much do you talk about important and difficult to understand things? I am betting that there is some gossip and fluff, some exciting events you discuss. Whatever percentage of your discussions is 'serious' news only defines your expectations. And, it is a commodity after all. That corporate interests usurp "the story" is a well known fact which has been discussed over and over, even here on this message board. The good "news" is that - as it stands now and hopefully remains so - there are plenty of outlets for other types of news, about complex events and relationships, etc. And there doesn't really appear to be too many restrictions on that sort of reporting. So this fellow simply dropped out from the supply chain, similar to an autoworker dropping off the line as a conscientious objector to the manufacture of gasoline powered cars when electric cars are available to be made. The irony here is that his "story" became fodder for the very thing he complains about.

This is worth mentioning: Department of Finance Invites Comments on Proposal to Strengthen Regulation of Registered Canadian Amateur Athletic Associations I am supposing this is in reference to amateur sport bodies being caught in a tax shelter a few years ago: Taxman sacks Football Canada Not strictly attributable to Jim Flaherty, but it is his department. So he gets the cred.

Nothing in your post contains a shred of truth, you have made it all up including what I "understand", what I "hate" and what I will be "telling" you. In other words, you've soiled yourself because you are not capable of engaging in a discussion past your own nose. Now you simply wallow in it.

And a little ironic that for someone who complains about the distractions, why he quit his job has become "news." Self-fullfilling at the very least, with a hint of shabbiness at the edge. Ding! Ding! Ding! His 15 minutes are up.

And yet I bested you with an easy slam dunk. What does that say about you?

Your sense of moral indignation is noted. I don't consider you dense, so I will be as succinct and plain enough for you to understand. Look above, at the top of this thread, and take note of the title, especially the word "deliberately." Then consider the historical documentation which you, yourself, imply is accurate. Now put two and two together to see that there was intent - at the very least - to deliberately "destroy native cultures in their colonies." Where you get the idea that I "think" that the intent - the deliberation - whether the acts were carried out or not - was "responsible for the epidemic in the Americans that resulted in wiping out a large population of Native Americans" is really beyond reason since I do not make this claim, imply this claim or support this sort of claim whatsoever. Thus, any 'thought' like that rests only in your own mind, somewhat active and imaginary perhaps? ------------------------------------ This is an example of the minimizing tactic and simply won't do. What "many people" are "willing (wanting)to believe" is that official correspondence between the high ranking cadre on the American frontier in the 18th century shows there was deliberation about destroying native cultures in their colonies. The issue of the smallpox blankets more or less proves the attitudes - and knowledge of the devastating effects of smallpox on the Native American population - was established at a high level of the command of the day. Do you follow so far? Whether the blankets were actually distributed - in a manner that would have been effective by your own references - is immaterial. The intent and deliberation is the point. A simple red herring based on an active imagination. Seriously AW, you are better than this. Pointless moralizing. If you want to start a thread about your Hobbsian view of the world, please feel free. But your indignant moralizing does not minimize - in any way - the evidence that there were deliberate attempts to destroy Native American cultures by high ranking and very influential members of the colonial heirarchy. You know like, there were some 20th century Europeans who wanted to harm the Jews, but this type of behavior wasn't unique to the Europeans because the history of the world consists of people killing, attacking, enslaving, dominating, ruling and stealing land from others. But it is only the fault of the "nasty people."

You're free to dodge the issue and pussy out. Suits you. Especially the pussy part.