kimmy

Beverly McLachlin is Alberta-born, but her legal career was in BC. It appears to me that there are currently 3 Supreme Court judges Quebec, 3 from Ontario, 1 from BC, one Maritimer, and Major is from the prairies. If regional balance is a consideration, then Major's replacement would likely come from the prairies as well. Martin will no doubt have his crew of legal experts out scouring the prairies for the gayest, most liberal judge he can find. Or better yet, he could search the Territories to find an Inuit judge! That would be way cool! -k

Canadian peacekeeping efforts in Cyprus went on for a generation, didn't they? -k

Agreed. But why do we need new laws? If you're not paying attention because you're yapping on your cel, or not paying atention because your drinking coffee or (as I have seen) reading a book, then you're being careless. Careless driving is already an offense. If this is a huge issue, then the cops should simply step up enforcement. Doesn't the same logic obviate any sort of impaired driving law? I think people are simply too stupid to recognize they're being careless. They're ignorant of how much their driving deteriorates when they're talking on their cell-phones. I can only offer anecdotal evidence, which is that whenever I'm riding my bike (the non-motorized kind ) or passenger in a car, and a car does something careless, I look at the driver and more often than not the driver has a cell-phone stuck to his or her ear. -k

If it's true, it wouldn't exactly be surprising. August1991 speculated right from the start that people might do this. (shrug) Men and women sometimes get married for reasons that aren't pure of motive too. Staying in Canada or getting cheaper car insurance, for instance. I was at a wedding once where two very successful young professionals were married. The bride gave a speech where she said "Someone asked me what 'marriage' means to me. I thought about that, and I think to me, marriage means..." She took a dramatic pause, then said "Tax shelter." Everybody laughed. She was kidding, of course. Something else that August posed in these debates was, if homosexual relationships can now receive all the financial considerations that used to be reserved for heterosexual marriages, what about a situation where (for instance) elderly sisters live together and care for each other. What's the difference between that and a lesbian couple? Does it just come down to sexual relations? And if so, what happened to the old rostrum about the state not belonging in peoples' bedrooms? -k

If what he said on air would have been inappropriate to say of any other woman, then it was inappropriate to say of the GG as well. If it was something that he wouldn't have been criticized if he'd said it about Pam Anderson, then I don't care if he said the same of the GG. And, on a related note, wouldn't Pamela Anderson make a good GG? Her medical problems might mean she doesn't have many years left, and it seems sad that this Great Canadian might not have the opportunity to be Governor General. -k

Perhaps it would just reflect profound frustration. But it is not the process which has created such cynicism, it is the results. No matter how imperceptible your changes were, they would help if they prevented some of the negative outcomes that continue to churn stomachs from coast to coast. People are not crying out for more decorum in Question Period, they are crying out against actions that seem to run counter to fundamental notions of fairness. Could any amount of Question Period shenanigans have created the kind of utter disgust and disillusionment that the CF-18 maintainence contract did? I strongly think not. Why does every Prime Minister come from Quebec? Why does every prominent civil servant have a name like Marc-Andre or Jean-Paul? Why do federal grants and programs and contracts seem to be so heavily biased towards Quebec? Why do auto-manufacturers get a carte-blanche exemption to Kyoto emissions, while key industries in other regions don't? Why do issues from "the regions" always fall well behind Quebec sovereignty as priorities in Ottawa? Why do patronage appointments and improper contracting procedures continue? These are the sorts of things that people wonder about, and contribute to the growing cynicism toward the federal government. It's an end to this sort of result that people want to see, not more decorum in Question Period. -kimmy

"One man one vote" has never been a part of Canadian democracy. If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Ontario, Alberta, or BC has approximately 0.86 votes. If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or the Maritimes has aproximately 1.4 votes. If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in PEI or the northern territories has about 3 votes. -k

Why must electoral reform be launched from Alberta? BC has studied and voted on electoral reforms, and the federal NDP has aggressively advocated for electoral reform; the Liberals have had no response to either. What about senate reform? Alberta has been aggressively advocating for senate reform for many years, and offered ideas such as "Triple E". Alberta has provided lists of elected senate nominees to the federal government; these lists have been used as toilet paper by the Prime Minister. The notion of electing senate nominees was rejected as a patchwork solution, but there was never any dialogue on what might be a more substantive solution. The notion of triple-E was rejected as unacceptible to Ontario and Quebec, but there's never been any dialogue on what might be a more acceptible compromise. You criticize people for turning to separatism rather than working on reforms. But when people in "the regions" have taken the initiative in advancing these issues for national discussion, they've been met with total indifference. -k

Sure it is, but I remain unconvinced that the "Transparency International" survey contains a substantive methodology, or a definition of corruption which would encompass the government activities that Canadians (not just westerners) find most nauseating. If you look at the things I mentioned in my last message, I think you'll find that not only are few of them at all secret, most of them have been justified using the excuse of protecting national unity. But his misadventures were an integral part of his evolution. Government's already disrupted. The difference between Quebec separatists and Alberta separatists would be that Quebec separatists have sufficient numbers to make their presence felt; Albertan separatists wouldn't, even if such a thing were sent to Ottawa. There is no separatist political power in Alberta; there's only cynicism and dissatisfaction. Separatism has gained some support in Alberta not because any significant number of Albertans sincerely want to leave Canada, but because many people see it as the most blunt message they could deliver. Of course not. But no other aspect of federal government would be significantly different either. But, as I keep asking, is just being better than the Americans good enough? You yourself have contended on many occassions just how low a standard that really is. -k

1) The US has a much lower voter turnout than Canada. Does that mean their electoral system is busted? Australia has among the highest voter turn outs yet they have exactly the same system as here. Poor voter turn-out is a measure of the venality of the citizens not the health of the political institutions. uh, I had to look up venality... but having done so, I'm not sure why you'd say that. The most striking thing about the American results you provided was the gap betwen the voting-age population, and the number actually registered to vote. Voter registration has been a controversial issue in the United States for some time. I think it's entirely fair to question whether their electoral might be busted, based on the large number of voting-age citizens who aren't registered and the controversy surrounding the issue. Is comparing ourselves to the United States a good measure of how we're doing? Some would suggest that when it comes to elections, that's setting the bar pretty low. Just guessing, but I suspect Australia's high voter turnout might have something to do with the fine for not voting. If I'm not mistaken, the past 4 Canadian federal elections have each set new record lows in voter turnout percentage. The 2004 election barely cracked 60%. Are any credible politicians in Ontario or Alberta talking about secession? This index sounds like little more than a self-esteem test for bureaucrats: Hardly convincing methodology, from the sound of it. Not that it matters: I don't think Canadians give a crap how their institutions rank in comparison to Austria, Luxembourg, and Germany. I will further point out that the description "the abuse of public office for private gain" does not include (as far as I can tell) the two issues which have become such contentious issues in this country: -the abuse of public office for political gain. -the abuse of public office for the benefit of friends, relatives, and associates. Defining corruption as "the abuse of public office for private gain" would exclude (for instance) the legendary CF-18 maintainance contract that caused such furore in Manitoba and beyond... because that wasn't private gain, it was political opportunism. Nor would the description include funnelling seemingly endless public money into projects in Quebec. Nor would it include the preferential awarding of government contracts to government-friendly firms. Or using HRDC grants and incentives to encourage businesses to relocate from opposition-held ridings into government-held ridings. Or appointing party cronies to the senate and ambassadorships and consulting jobs. How about the civil service language policy? Argus has written some excellent messages on the subject, describing how jobs can arbitrarily be reclassified to French Essential at the whim of supervisors to exclude candidates. None of this would fall under your official definition of corruption, but all of it contributes to the widespread and growing cynicism that Canadians feel toward their institutions. Nor is pretending that the malaise and cynicism that has gripped this country isn't real going to solve anything. People have become so sick and tired of listening to our Prime Ministers utter empty promises and broad, vague generalities about these issues that they've come to believe And, why wouldn't Albertans dabble with separatism? After all, it seems to have been quite lucrative for Quebec. And, far from terrorism, it's completely harmless. In fact, it would have no consequences at all. Even if Alberta sent a full slate of separatist MPs to Ottawa next election, there'd be no consequence. Our 28 MPs are too small a number to matter, no matter which party they're from. Really, what would it hurt to send 28 separatists to Ottawa? Would public discourse in the commons be any more appalling than it already is? No. Would regional frictions be any worse than they already are? No. It is of no consequence. We'd still have a Liberal government. The country wouldn't break up. Parliament would stumble along just as it has for the past year. Have you ever seen the movie "Groundhog Day", starring Bill Murray? It's about a weatherman who is cursed to live February 2nd over and over again. Whatever he accomplishes in his day will be wiped clean at 6:00am and he's sent back 24 hours earlier to repeat February 2nd all over again. As he realizes his fate, he becomes quite anti-social... punching people who annoy him, committing robberies, stealing a car and driving it off a cliff, committing suicide in a variety of ways... whatever amused him, because he knew that whatever he did, it didn't matter. Whatever he did, he'd still wake up at 6:00am, February 2nd cursed to do it all again. And it is exactly so with regard to Albertans and federal elections. Whether we sent a full slate of Liberals, Conservatives, separatists, Scientologists, mental retards, or a mixture of all of them, it doesn't make any difference. Canada will go on exactly the same regardless. So supporting separatists can't be likened to terrorism, because terrorism is destructive and violent. Supporting separatism, for Alberta at least, has no possibility of achieving anything at all. -k

Well that was riveting. You cut'n'pasted pages off some web-page to support the point that Wahabbism is rooted in strict, literalist interpretation of Islam, then add a few sentences about a student having contact with shadowy european bankers, and somehow this proves your view that the movement is "rooted in Western politics"? sigh -k

Status quo. You know. A busted electoral system that has created the lowest voter turnouts in the democratic world. The "democratic deficit™." A ridiculous senate whose primary role is to provide patronage jobs. A corrupt, inefficient civil service that serves as make-work for Francophones. Grants and contracts awarded without transparency. You know. Stuff that everybody from Preston Manning to Jack Layton has pointed to as needing reform. I know, I know... "Belinda will fix it!" -k

So who's suggesting the mass internment of Muslims? I didn't get anything like that from what Blair actually said. Did I miss something? Up until now, Britain has been tolerant to the point of allowing its own citizens to openly preach violence and insurrection and now that this absurdity has come to an end people are criticizing the loss of civil liberties? The stupidity of it makes me want to ram my head into a plate glass window over and over again until peaceful oblivion washes over me. -k

There is no compromise on the table because of the separatists in Quebec will shoot down any reasonable proposal by making absurd demands and branding any Quebequer who attempts to make such a compromise as a 'sell-out'. Alberta finds that its desires for reform are ignored because it is impossible to deal with Alberta's concerns as long as the Quebec separatists are poisoning the debate. It is a vicious circle that can only be broken by rejecting seperation as option.An anology to consider: is it possible to negotiate compromise with terrorists who are willing to blow people up if they don't get what they want? Absolutely not. Seperatists are constitutional terrorists whose positions that easily lead to violence by undermining the integrity of the state. Ah. Most sensible. "We will not negotiate with terrorists!" Rather, we shall lavish upon them lucre, grift, economic development grants, contracts, government offices, petting-zoos and monogrammed golf-balls, and special status within Confederation. That'll certainly keep others from turning to separatism to vent their frustrations! -k

So just out of morbid curiosity did you actually read up on the roots of Wahhabism? Or did you just assume this position based on intuition? OMG, that's amazing, I was going to ask you the same thing! In fact, yes. I have read enough about the Wahhabi tradition to know that claiming it's rooted in Western politics seems completely illogical. If you wish to convince me otherwise, please proceed. Yaro? Hollah back, playah! I had been hoping to hear back from you. I assumed from your message that you had information that was going to blow my proverbial socks off, and I'm very interested to hear it. -k

In your own words, Culturally, Canada is not terribly different from the United States either. One can't demonstrate a difference based on language, religion, or customs... the differences between Canadians and Americans are primarily in government institutions and political views. -k

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Global oil production is expected to peak within the next 5 to 10 years: that means supply will diminish. The tar sands won't matter for a number of reasons: first, tar sands extraction requires over five times more petroleum products than regular heavy crude What's mor eis that the tar sands have about 300 billion barrels of oil in them: more than Saudi Arabia's reserves (which are diminishing), but only enough for about 10 years at current global consumption rates (which are increasing). And that's assuming that all 300 billion barrels are extractable. So it seems to me, you're whistiling past the graveyard. The oilsands will far outlast conventional reserves: that's simple math. The much slower rate at which the oilsands can be utilized ensures it. At some point, conventional reserves will come into serious decline. At some point, our civilization's dependance on petroleum will diminish as we find alternatives. But between those two points, the oilsands will be very very lucrative. The Chinese and Americans view the oilsands as vital to their futures. Don't imagine for a minute that they didn't look at the long term viability before investing their billions. -k

What "compromise" has been offered, other than to shut up and accept the status quo? -k

Well, I think the difference might be that people view the Bank of Canada as being an important part of our monetary system, while the GG just jets around and attends parties and ceremonies. -k

So just out of morbid curiosity did you actually read up on the roots of Wahhabism? Or did you just assume this position based on intuition? OMG, that's amazing, I was going to ask you the same thing! In fact, yes. I have read enough about the Wahhabi tradition to know that claiming it's rooted in Western politics seems completely illogical. If you wish to convince me otherwise, please proceed. This statement makes no sense, please rephrase. It makes perfect sense. For Wahhabis (and other Islamists) attempting to discuss political objectives without reference to their religious philosophy is nonsensical. For Islamists, religion encompasses and permeates politics. By definition, in fact. Actually it is largely true, the fact of the matter is that for the last couple of hundred years we in the west have systematically suppressed every other region on earth. This has been done not out of maliciousness but out of self interest; there are two ways to maintain dominance over another nation, by raising yourself and by pushing them down. We have done both, there are thousands of examples of this to many to discuss here but I can suggest some books if you like. What are you trying to say? That Islam is just aggressive because the west was aggressive toward them first? If that's what you're saying, what has that got to do with what I said? I repeat: many in the Muslim world are not motivated by creature comforts. Many are very sincere in their religious beliefs and have goals beyond material goods, luxuries, and political notions. We in the west brazenly assume that "they" would come around to our way of thinking if they just had a soft couch, a tasty microwave dinner, and a nice TV to watch Seinfeld reruns... but such goals are far from universal. -k

Delightfully ignorant? Describing Wahhabism as rooted in western politics seems about as delightfully ignorant as it gets. Surely somebody who isn't delightfully ignorant about the Wahhabis understands that attempting to unlink religion from warfare and politics is false. If anything, the mainstream media is scared to death of discussing the religious philosophies of those involved in the violence. People in the west want to be safe in the illusion that everybody else is just like them: people primarily motivated by comforts; that everything will be a-ok once their temporal needs are taken care of. And I'm sure a great many Muslims, especially those who now reside in the west, are just the same. But clearly that's not true of all. -k

Believe it. I find it depressing to think that public opinion polls in Quebec could determine who leads this country, but sadly you might be right. -kimmy

ok, so if we're agreed that religion can't be overlooked in this discussion... if we can agree that the insurgents are sincere in their religious beliefs... shouldn't we at least look at what those beliefs actually are? The roots of Islamic terror The author goes on to assert that Al Qaeda's ideology was also influenced by European fascism. -k

How about this one, from the same source Yaro linked to earlier: Ilyushin IL-76 It appears as though it's very economically feasible to buy "westernized" versions with western-made engines and mechanicals and avionics, or buy used ones and do the conversions ourselves. He says the cost of the fully modernized and westernized version is $50 million per plane, which sounds expensive until you consider the near $300 million per plane cost of the American C-17s that they're apparently looking at. -k

My original point talked about transportation, _population_ and climate as factors that would limit Alberta's potential. Critical mass is more related to population and with a population of 3 million limits Alberta's potential in that department. We've already addressed transportation. And I think climate is being greatly over-rated as a factor: if people are willing to live in Ottawa's sickening climate, they'll obviously tolerate just about anything. Think about this for a moment: how was it that Ottawa, not even 1/4 the size of Toronto or Montreal, became Canada's technology boom-town? If it was just a matter of raw population, Ottawa would have never stood a chance, right? Having a large number of people is not the issue. The issue is having the *right* people. In Ottawa's case, between government/military and Bell Northern/Northern Electric/Northern Telecomm, there were many skilled engineers and programmers in the National Capital Region. In Edmonton's case, as happened in Ottawa, the combination of lots of skilled people, superb post-secondary institutions, and lots of money is going to result in spin-offs and diversifying of the existing industry. Alberta without oil would look a lot like BC: an economy that is does well most of the time but has to make tough choices between social services and taxes Well that's not so bad. Anyway, the "Alberta Advantage" is going to be with us for quite a while, and we need leadership that will think big picture; Jim Dinning sounds a lot more capable on that front than Ralph Klein has been. -k