kimmy

This is a superb analysis of the discussion. I really appreciate your effort to provide an objective look at this. I really can't think of anything to add to it. -kimmy

Dear Fleabag, I'm a 21 year old from Alberta. I'm sure that there could not be a less qualified person on the entire forum to define culture. I shall leave it to more Mature Residents of Civilized Regions to address your questions. I am sure that even at this moment, a team of Ottawa academics is hard at work trying to formulate a definition of culture that doesn't disprove Canada having such a thing. -kimmy

In response to my message questioning the registry's outrageous over-runs, your reply was: From from your current tone, I gather you're now conceding that the answer to your questions is "not much." That's lovely! You must be thrilled to have someone willing to listen to your ranting for at least a couple more years. -kimmy

Just curious... what sorts of things would you consider a basis for a national identity? Really, I think that any national identity would appear absurd if the elements comprising it were stated explicitly. That's an interesting question, You Miss Trudeau. Clipped from one of my posts to Eureka, here are some of my thoughts, and why I believe these things fail to do so in Canada's case. Feel welcome to comment. -kimmy

On isolation of population centers in Australia vs isolation of population centers in Canada... I did indeed look at a map, and it's quite apparent that the bulk of Australia's population is not isolated at all. Australia's population is quite concentrated in comparison to Canada's, a high proportion of it being along the eastern coast, and in particularly the southeast coast between Brisbane and Melbourne. I suggested a trip from Brisbane to Melbourne would be comparable to Winnipeg to Edmonton. I was a fair bit off; Brisbane to Melbourne would be 2020km; Winnipeg to Edmonton is only 1360km. However, I'd point out that a trip from Newcastle to Melbourne is only 1120km, and would pass through 4 (Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Wollongong) of Australia's largest 10 cities and pass by over 8 million of Australia's 20 million people. An equivalent trip in Western Canada might be Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, taking 1330km, passing through 3 of Canada's 10 largest cities, and passing through about 5 million of Canada's 32 million people... but coming nowhere near Canada's major population center. If one wanted to make a longer trip in Canada, one could see capitals of all 4 western provinces by going through Victoria, Edmonton, Regina, and Winnipeg... 2541 kilometers. In Australia, one could travel an extra 2 hours-- 2740km, and visit 4 capitals (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide) plus squeeze in the national capital Canberra en-route, passing by well over 10 million people in the trip, over half of Australia's populace. But of course, this is somewhat apples and oranges. We're comparing Canada's remote west to Australia's densest region. Checking the maps again, I find that Perth, Australia's western capital, is about 3500km from the center of Australia's populous center. Coincidentally, this is about the same distance Edmonton is from Canada's populous center. At any rate, I dispute the claim that Australia is either more diverse or more separated by distance than Canada's. And as I mentioned, Australia additionally has 2 factors going for it on the unity front that Canada simply doesn't. -Australians do not have the divisive "French fact" to contend with. -Australians might be isolated from each other, but they're far more isolated from everything else. Surrounded by a sea of Muslim nations who don't speak english, it goes without saying that the Aussies feel inclined to stick together. -kimmy

I'm not denying that opposition to the registry contributed to costs. I cited a couple of examples myself: the advertising effort to encourage people to register, and the apparent need to perform "surveillance" of registry opponents. I will even suggest another one: the government presumably had legal expenses in anticipation of legal defense of the registry. None of this, in my estimation, can explain how anything close to the insane cost over-runs has occured. You, on the other hand, seem unwilling to consider anything beyond your own pet agenda on this topic (or any other.) "Provincialists! Provincialists! The demagogues, children! The demogogues! " In your effort to tie your ongoing battle with provincialists to the cost over-runs, you've offered up the half-baked suggestion that the over-runs were because the registry staff was sitting idle while the program cleared final hurdles to its implimentation. Huh? What? Why? Was the program more expensive to operate while sitting idle? No? Well then wouldn't it have also gone far overbudget had it been operating? Nor do "the provincialists! " explain why the program has needed emergency infusions of cash even since it was (supposedly) operating full-steam. You're the one who is closed-minded. You're the one who seems unable to acknowledge information that doesn't conform to your political agenda. You're the one making a ridiculous reach... don't put out your back, grand-dad. -kimmy

For those not sure what this is in reference to (and I was among them until doing some looking) here's some of the story. (The complete article was posted in a thread at another forum. Is linking to other forums allowed? Can be viewed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/top...ic,23986.0.html ) Norman Spector's blog posted additional information, also from Pugliese, which explains the "Bombardier crying foul" part of IKB's post: The Ottawa Citizen has gone to a subscriber pay articles, so I can not provide direct links to the articles, and nobody other than Pugliese appears to be covering this. -kimmy

Holy, eureka, you're probably the last guy on the forum who should be criticizing others on that front. Ah. The registry cost hundreds of millions extra because the staff were sitting idle for an extended period of time. Waitaminute. You're saying the cost would not have gone far overboard had the staff not been idle? If they'd been happily registering firearms they'd have cost less? Why is that? Do they get "idle-pay" bonuses on days that they're not registering guns? This is most baffling. Despite what you might think, attempting to "big-man" someone by bringing their age into the discussion does not bolster your argument or make you look smarter. I'm also blonde, if you'd like some further ammunition for ad-hominem attacks. -kimmy

eureka, while you're accusing Jerry of dishonesty by attributing Caesar's fevered babbling to you, you've also been a little dishonest yourself: As Jerry quite plainly stated, he presented that information in opposition to your claim that most Albertans had prior connection to Canada. Putting his argument out of context and putting words in his mouth is also dishonest. I will contribute more as time permits. -kimmy

I keep mentioning Wales not in reference to division of powers, but in reference to this issue: I've bolded that part because it's what I've been arguing all along in this thread, in opposition to the thread originator, who views such feelings are illogical. I have sought to demonstrate that "Proud to be Albertan!" has analogues in other countries, and that such feelings are not necessarily the result of "rostrums" but are associations that people develop naturally. I feel that in at least getting this cleared up, we've found some kind of common ground in this discussion. Quite possibly it would not hurt at all. There are conceivably a number of areas in which it would be advantageous for the areas of federal and provincial responsibility to be rearranged. Perhaps we should begin a new thread to discuss that issue. Was it really the spectre of separatism that caused the CF18 decision? Or was it just Mulroney's interest in maintaining power? I think the widespread perception is that it had not much to do with national unity, but a lot to do with the greater Montreal area having far more political clout than Winnipeg. I personally feel suspicious any time the National Unity flag is raise in support of doing things that are politically expedient-- I feel it has become something of a Canadian equivalent to an American politician raising the fear of terrorism to justify anything under the sun. Be that as it may, whatever the root cause of that decision, I think it is the perception of it and the effect that is the important part. Whether people believe it was a result of the desire to appeal to 4 million-or-so Montreal area voters, or whether it really was fear that the separatists could make political advantage of the issue, the message to the voter in Winnipeg (and far beyond) was the same: "You aren't as important." Elsewhere on the forum you can find similar frustration. Take Digby's thread about the fisheries quota system. Underlying it is the same feeling: we Maritimers don't have any say; we can't make the federal government listen to us. I disagree. I once drove from Winnipeg to Edmonton in a single day; had I been in Australia a trip of the same length could have taken me from Brisbane to Melbourne, through most of the major population centers, with Adelaide just another part day of travel beyond. Only Tawasakm's home, Perth, can be said to share the kind of isolation that we have in Canada. Tawasakm and I earlier discussed this quotation about Perth, which I found in a Wikipedia article about Perth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth%2C_West...stern_Australia Now, change "Perth" to "Edmonton", replace "the Eastern states" with "Central Canada", and tell me if that doesn't sound awfully familiar. Nor do I agree that Australia is as diverse. While I realize many immigrants have come to Australia over the years, there's no confusion as to Australia's historical roots. We, on the otherhand, have the "two founding nations" crapola acting as a wedge issue within this country. And while Australians might be isolated from each other, they're far more isolated from everything else. And again, back to the common interests. The kind of national institutions that would have me saying "Proud to be Canadian!" instead of "Moderately Pleased to be Canadian!" And unfortunately for us, those common interests are so poorly articulated. Why do people cling to the trivial (donuts, hockey, beer) in trying to express these things that are supposed to unite us? I believe it's because the more substantial things that are supposed to unite us are actually contentious in this country... -government? ongoing corruption issues, fractured on regional lines. Should be a uniting factor, but is actually a divisive factor. -national identity? the 2 founding nations rhetoric that dominates substantive (ie, non-Tim Horton's) discussion of Canadian identity is a divisive issue, not a unifying one. -language? we've got two of them, and the status of the languages in the areas of the country is a source of fiery divisive debate. -culture? I'm not even sure we have a culture. -our Constitution? has been another divisive issue since 1982, and especially during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Not only is the Constitution not a unifying factor in Canada, but the only way Canada can remain unified is to Not Talk About It. I think that these are the sorts of things that in most nations are the common threads that bind the country together, but in Canada they're TNT. When we as Canadians try to discuss the things that are supposed to hold the country together, we wind up in fist-fights. -kimmy

People should stop insulting Caesar. Address the issue as Argus just did: by producing relevant facts without resorting to personal attacks. -that is all. -kimmy

How did the critics cause hundreds of millions of dollars of extra costs? Liberal MPs have offered this excuse repeatedly, with no plausible suggestion as to how any expense was caused by the critics, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars of extra expense. I do recall some TV advertisements designed to point out some features of the program and remind Canadians of relevant deadlines. But using TV advertising to inform people about some new government initiative or regulation is commonplace, and I can't imagine how a few TV promos could have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, unless they were handled by Quebec ad firms... Same question... What costly measures have been taken against the "refuseniks"? Let's be honest, you're grasping at straws here, right? I mean, you have no rational reason to believe that the "refuseniks" caused hundreds of millions of dollars of cost over-runs, but you're desperately looking for some kind of rationalization because it's inconceivable to think that the money just vanished into thin air, and you're unwilling to accept that either gross incompetence or corruption occured during the administration of a program you believe in. That's what's really going on here, right? There should be a credible investigation into how the program went so completely out of control. If the expenses were legit and reasonable, let's see them. If not, let's find out what happened so that the people responsible can be turfed and prevented from wasting further money and/or further discrediting the program. -kimmy

As far as the first sentence goes they do, remember Afghanistan where the terrorists really are? As for the second sentence, well I just think you are a bigot racist. Aren't they calling Muslims something different on FNC yet? "Islamofascist" does not refer to Muslims in general. "Islamofascist" is a term directed at those more commonly refered to as "Islamists", Muslims seeking to replace secular democratic institutions with Muslim theocracy and Sharia law. We know that such people exist. Whether Canada is in fact a "haven" for such people is a question that Canadians are afraid to ask for fear of being branded bigots (as we've just seen.) -kimmy

As I promised, I will reflect on what you've said about a Canadian identity. However, I'll address this part right now, since it's something we've already discussed a number of times already: I question whether making people in the regions increasingly dependent on the federal government will increase their appreciation for it. It could certainly have the opposite effect. If people are unsatisfied with the delivery of services, it will be one more instance where "they" don't care about "us", "they" don't understand what "we" want, "they" care more about maintaining support in Central Canada than they care about providing service out here, etc. Giving the federal government a larger role in peoples' lives has the potential to simply create more areas for people to complain that the federal government is unresponsive to them. A number of examples have been pointed out where strong central government does not preclude people having pride in their own region or belief in their own distinct identity. You mentioned Yorkshire; I mentioned Wales, which in spite of 700+ years of being just a province (if that) of England, the residents have been reviving their language and culture, and recently established a National Assembly (however modest its powers). One could also look at the United States, with its stronger central government, and often derided by Canadians for ridiculous flag-waving nationalism, where despite those factors people still have great pride in their states as well as their country. Again, I feel that your desire to reduce this to an issue of constitutional division of powers ignores examples like this. I also looked at the recent tiff between Newfoundland and the federal government, and suggested that it likely could have turned out exactly the same even had there been no province and no premier at all. I believe that in a country as diverse and diffuse as Canada, there are simply just too many issues where the best interests of people in different regions will be at cross-purposes for there not to be regional friction. Reducing or eliminating the role of the provinces in Canada would not remove the factors that cause regional friction, but it would remove the most effective advocates the regions have in this country. I'll offer another example that I think illustrates the same point. The CF-18 maintainence contract in 1986 is probably the most regionally divisive issue of my lifetime. There was no Klein, no Landry, no conflict of powers with the provinces, only the federal government exercising its spending power... in a way that showed pure naked favoritism for one region over another for political gain and left people again thinking in terms of "them" and "us". And there's nothing to suggest it would have gone any differently had there been no provinces at all. -kimmy

The "old people" here know who they are and they can handle a little teasing. They certainly give us young punks a hard enough time... As for the vocational-ed kids... "dumb kids" might be a little rude, but not entirely off the mark. I will refrain from further comment. And no need to worry, I'm not a professional educator. Well, citizenship is different from a job in the sense that you don't need to be hired and you can't get fired, so you're certainly correct there. However, I do believe that being a *good* citizen, like being good at any job, requires some effort. Someone who does not inform themselves to the issues or participate in our society in any meaningful way does not forfeit their citizenship, but I would not consider such a person to be "a good citizen". "Citizenship" is a legal status. But it can be (and should be) thought of as an activity as well. Passion can only take you so far. (that is one of the lessons you might learn if you make the effort.) There comes a point where you need not just passion but training to reach the next level. And there comes a point where you need not just passion and training but also natural ability to reach the level beyond that. Look at the top athletes in swimming or running or weightlifting or a large number of other sports, and you'll find that beyond passion and training, they also have genetics. You simply won't find tall and slim weightlifters, short and stout runners, or so on. No matter how much passion you have, you won't make it as a competitive gymnast if you're 5'9 or a competitive sprinter if you're 4'9. -kimmy

While defenders of the registry have often blamed the spiraling costs on opposition to the program, they've never articulated how that actually happened. There was an interesting development during investigation into the sponsorship scam, in which fraud charges were laid in relation to the gun registry: Source: CBC article Another forum member posted something which was either fascinating, intriguing, or disturbing, depending how you look at such things: Mapleleafweb: Gun registration thread I haven't seen anything to back that up, but it's certainly worth considering, isn't it? Whether you're opposed or in favor of the registry, don't you think there should be some kind of audit to show what exactly happened, and where these costs were *really* incurred? I think the management of the program has done a disservice to all of the country. -kimmy

My connections with the Gnomes of Zurich indicate that the Illuminati may be working on a Negative Orgone Cannon that will blast through your White Light Spheres like a hot knife through butter. If they have that, they won't even need chem-trails to throw your Aura out of alignment! We might all have to seek out Power Vortexes to keep from being disconnected from Positive Orgone Energy. I'm pretty worried. Well, I'm pretty worried about the rest of you. Personally, I expect to spend at least a week this summer on a houseboat on Shuswap Lake, near the Mount Ida Power Vortex, basking in Positive Orgone Energy (and sunshine) and absorbing White Light (and alcohol) and getting my Aura re-aligned. My Aura is going to be SO aligned by the time I'm done! But the rest of you, I'm a little worried about. -kimmy

Aslan Maskhadov is now dead. Maskhadov was the leader of the Chechen separatists; he has been killed in a raid by Russian security forces. Maskhadov had been believed by some to be a moderating influence. His death might leave Shamil Basayev, an Al-Qaeda-connected Wahhabi who was the planner of the Belsan school massacre, with more influence in Chechnya's separatist movement. -kimmy

Well, if the Rock Machine, or whoever it was spraying my neighbor's house with bullets, were already sure that I was his associate, or that I was involved in the Hell's Angels too in some capacity, then yeah, I should probably consider participating in that fence. There's no doubt in our minds that we're separate and sovereign from the United States. But do the people who have issues with the US see it the same way? We always wind up on Al Qaeda's top-5 hit-list. Maybe the distinctions we seek to maintain are just not as apparent to those abroad as we wish to believe? It might depend which people, I suppose. I suspect for instance that the Cubans understand that Canada and the US are different much better than, say, Iranians or Afghanis. -kimmy

Where did you come up with that idea. Look at the problems that the USA has had in Iraq which was basically disarmed with no WMD. Is that your idea of taking candy from a baby. Well look out for "BABY" Hi, caesar. Yes, the US has had huge problems in Iraq *after* the Saddam regime was deposed. But how much trouble did they actually have defeating Saddam and his military? If I recall, the US forces sustained more casualties from crashing their own vehicles than from combat with Saddam's forces. The Americans threw down Saddam with complete ease. They've had great difficulty in establishing a new government, but destroying the old one WAS like taking candy from a baby. And it would be the same in North Korea. The US would take only a matter of days to demolish Kim Jong Il's military. It might take them years after the fact to sort out the aftermath, but that would be cold comfort to Kim Jong Il who would be stuffed into a cell across the hall from Saddam within a week. -kimmy

Because the toughened gun control (as you yourself point out) has been working well on its own? Because the additional benefit provided by the registry seems dubious and completely out of proportion to the astronomical costs it has accrued? Because the money it has taken could have saved more lives had it been better spent? (imagine they had instead directed that sum of money to programs for the urban poor and homeless, for instance.) I don't mind the concept of gun registration, and I'd be defending the registry if it had cost what it was originally intended to cost. But given the dilemna of finite government funds available, I believe that it's been (and remains) a sink-hole for money that could have been used to help far more people and save far more lives. -kimmy

Then you should have the confirmation available on your email eh. I know best; not from the sounds of your posts. eureka has vouched for what IKB says, caesar. Why are you so skeptical? Do you really doubt that Quebec was given a special deal regarding immigrants? I can't imagine why that would be much of a surprise... -kimmy

Well, yeah. It's called "deterrence". And the problem with sabre rattling (like, oh, say, calling a country part of an "axis of evil") is that these nations say to themselves "Hey, they're coming for us, and the only way we'll be able to deter them is by getting nukes." So, BMD is a band-aid to cover up diplomatic failures. Indeed. However, do you suppose it's conceivable that at some point it might be in the best interest of the common good to depose some regime? Do you suppose that there are some situations where diplomacy is almost certain to fail? Just to be clear, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not myself particularly sure BMD is a good idea to start with, and I think there are a great many things that could be done with the hundreds of billions of dollars that would do more to increase the day to day security of Americans. I had that argument with Stoker months ago and we somewhat agreed to disagree. But my feeling also is that if they're going ahead with it and they're financing the development, then it doesn't hurt us. And if we're involved in its deployment in a NORAD-like arrangement, I think that would be in our best interest as well. -kimmy

I'm very open to ideas of all kinds. I won't necessarily find my life changed or anything, but I am always willing to consider other viewpoints (except those relying on the existence of Orgone Vortexes and mind-control beams.) However, when it comes to Canada, nobody seems willing or able to actually articulate what the majestic dream is actually supposed to be. The Sweal apparently started this thread not to actually discuss these issues, but to offer his clever little math-style proof: "Alberta is a subset of Canada, therefore proud Albertans are actually proud Canadians. QED." And yourself, you've only used this thread to again trot out your favorite pet topic regarding centralization. No effort to articulate this great truth that I'm apparently just not seeing; just denouncement. As always, I ask what's this great national identity I'm supposed to connect with? What are these common threads that are supposed to bind Canadians from coast to coast to coast into one united people? A popular American-owned donut-chain has built their entire corporate strategy around trying to offer some kind of answer to these questions-- their answers seem to involve Steinbeckesque adventures of discovery, coffee, and donuts. A popular American-owned brewery has built its entire corporate strategy around trying to offer some kind of answer to these questions-- their answers seem to be that Canadians are winners because they're courteous and considerate of others; Canadians like hockey; Canadians are not Americans; and Canadians like beer. Donuts, beer, hockey, and road-trips are not, as far as I can tell, a basis for a national identity, but these two companies and their advertising agencies have constructed immensely popular campaigns based simply on trying to provide something for Canadians to grasp onto. They're not alone. National media outlets have run series trying to answer these questions. The CBC has that yokel with the banjo driving around to small towns meeting kooks trying to answer these questions. I keep asking questions as well... and like the newspaper discussion articles and the yokel with the banjo, I never really arrive at any kind of answer either. If you've been having this same argument for 30 years, then I imagine you must have come up with some kind of answers that you're satisfied with? Please, share it. Edumacate me. I can't promise I'll be compelled, but I promise I'll give it fair consideration. -kimmy

Use a nuclear device as a tactical weapon on the battlefield? I suppose that's a possibility. Whether they have missiles with the capability of hitting North America, or are developing them, I couldn't say. I'm sure Stoker might have more information on all of these issues. However, I believe the capability of hitting North America with a nuclear weapon *is* a threat that a nut-cup dictator could and would use to preserve his regime. To borrow from an episode of The Simpsons, one might say that for the US to depose the regime in North Korea or Iran would be like taking candy from a baby... but if that baby had a pistol, taking the candy could be hazardous indeed, as Monty Burns found out the hard way. (there is certainly the argument to be made that one shouldn't be taking candy from babies in the first place, but there are a great many variables to consider that I won't go into here. One thing is for sure, which is that if one decides that it is necessary to take candy from the baby, and if that baby does indeed have a handgun, the issue becomes a lot more complicated.) There's also the question of whether a nuclear device even has to be fired to be used. If someone runs into a convenience store waving a pistol and demanding money, have they used the pistol in committing a robbery? Sure. Even if they never fire a shot. The pistol has been used to demonstrate the capability of inflicting grievious harm or death, and to intimidate the clerk into cooperating out of fear of the potential consequences. If/when North Korea or Iran or Israel or whoever demonstrate the capability of inflicting a nuclear attack, they've already begun using their nuclear weapons. They're using their capability to alter their relationship with other nations. And I think the goal of BMD is to prevent nuclear missiles from being used in this manner, just as much as it's to prevent the actual employment of nuclear missiles. -kimmy