PocketRocket

It also shows Canada having nearly (per capita) 2.5 more rapes than the US, and 50% more robbery victims than the USA (per capita). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In all honesty, I didn't notice because that was not relevant to the conversation and had not been brought into question in the thread. In fact, I still haven't bothered to go back and look. But I can say that I'm sure most people would far rather be murdered than simply robbed, or even raped

You sound like ChIraq, Schroeder, Putin, Chretien or PMPM. Money is the most important thing--those brown-skinned Iraqis be damned. If only Canada had "many, many, MANY major corporations...." Congratulations on being able to come up with a glib reply. Two, actually. Unfortunately in so doing you've revealed that you're more concerned with being glib than with being consistent. The USA does it, it's okay, but if Canada trades with China, then we're bad, bad people. Just as I am constantly amazed at the smugness and arrogance of many Canadians who seem to feel that the big, bad USA can do no wrong, even when it is doing exactly the same thing that you rail against Canada POSSIBLY doing in the future. Those darn Amuricans better watch out or we'll burn down their White House again! Well, maybe the Brits will do it, so we can again take credit for it. Obfuscation not worthy of a reply. More of the same. No one is forcing any Canadian-owned corporation to trade with China, or anyone else, for that matter. I suppose they are free to trade with whom they choose. A Canadian is sneering at America's freedom? A Canadian? Someone from the country that yadda yadda yadda.....blather rant rave. Actually, I was chuckling, yes. But not "sneering" at America's freedom, rather laughing at a Canadian who acts like a wanna-be American, while sneering at virtually everything done by his own nation. In your eyes, it seems that the USA can do no wrong, and Canada can do no right. If you REALLY love the USA so much......nah, it's been said before, and you sneered at that, too.

This reminds me of an incident which occured on (appropriately enough) halloween, several years ago. I had dressed as a klingon, and had made a crude replica of one of those nasty-looking Klingon knives with the little winged-blades near the base. The replica was cut from an old aluminum serving-tray. Very soft, thin metal. I had stopped into a fast-food place, and at the counter were 2 cops. One of them saw this huge blade hanging from my belt, and he actually put one hand on his gun as he told me that I'm not allowed to wear something like that, even as part of a costume. I set his fears at ease when I took a long step back, slowly took up the knife, and proceeded to ram it into my chest. It bent in half. I then straightened it out, by hand, while asking if that was okay. Both cops got a chuckle, as did I. However, perception being what it is, a less patient or more high-strung cop could have caused me some serious grief before discovering the completely harmless nature of the "weapon".

Not going to happen. And what do you mean, "Iran next noises"? I think you're remembering things that were never said. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hope you're right, about it not going to happen. As for the "noises", do a Google search using "Bush preparing for Iran". Here's the first pair of entries I got, hence the reference to the "noise". And my apologies, it seems it was only members of Bush's admin malking the noise, not Bush himself. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_112004Y.shtml http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/iran/print.html Well, it seems like everyone else has 'em. Seriously, hard to say. It seems like the handful of countries that presently have nukes want to remain as part of some exclusive club, and don't want any new members. Hell, if Canada decided to start up a nuclear missile program, would the USA, France, Britain, et al decide to come down on us too???

"Street Legal" is another Canadian show that did very well in the USA. "Due South" was also quite a big hit, from what I understand. I know there are other Canadian shows that did quite well in the States, just can't think of them right now. Oh yeah, "Trailer Park Boys" is, apparently, gaining a lot of popularity.

Hi RB, long time no "see". The first wave of the boomers may be turning 60, but keep in mind, the boom went on for over 15 years, into the early 1960's. I was born into the tail-end of the boom. I recall growing up, where probably 4 of every 5 houses had at least 2 kids, usually more. At the time, 4 or 5 seemed to be the norm. These days, it's odd to see a house with more than 2 kids, and there are probably more homes without kids than with. The youngest in a family of 4 kids, all of whom are boomers, I still have well over a decade before hitting 60. Hopefully there'll still be some pension money left for me

If we want to discuss the "politics" surrounding Rosa Parks, please open another thread to do so. This one was intended, I believe, as a simple memorial to a remarkable woman, which I think we can all agree she was. Let's not sully that with bickering over semantics.

Apparently so. That body passed all the resolutions which Bush so eagerly used to justify his war. If the UN is relevant enough for its resolutions to be cause for war, then they should be relevant enough to make the decision on when and how to begin the war. And yet Bush said they were irrelevant, but not until after he used their resolutions as justification. Who is the bigger hypocrite??? The UN, or Bush??? Yup. And then the UN said that there should be no war, at least not yet. But Bush took it upon himself to use, as detailed above, selective UN resolutions to bypass the UN's ruling. Oh well, if you want to talk about playing fair, do you think it's fair that Haliburton got the multi-billion-dollar contract to rebuild much of Iraq without ever having to bid against other companies for the contract??? The UN is not a perfect organization. But then again, neither is the USA. Or Canada. Or the YMCA. But the USA could well have bided its time and continued to push for war. Eventually the UN would have caved, or Saddam would have been proven to have none of the WMD's he was purported to have stockpiled. The USA was hardly a military target for Iraq. There was no threat to America from Iraq, at least not from the Iraq military. IOW, "fair" has little to do with the issue. The UN has certain rules, which the USA played a large part in establishing. If Bush wants to play by UN rules, then he should observe ALL the rules, not just those which are convenient to his purposes. The discussion you and I are having is not about Israel. No need for obfuscation. Politics is a matter of perception. How does the world perceive Bush and Blair??? It appears that many within the UN agreed with Mugabe's statements, else they would not have applauded his comments. You say Mugabe "likened (them) to Hitler". Before stating whether it was justifiable, I would prefer to hear the Muagbe's comments for myself. It is, after all, called The United Nations. Any member nation should have a voice here. Whether or not we agree with that voice is a different matter. But an international body whose mandate is to help move toward world peace would be pretty pointless if it only included a group of nations who all agree on everything.

Hi again, PSINGH: I think the basic problem here is perception. You perceive the Kirpan as an ornamental, religious item. Unfortunately, this icon comes in the form of a knife. TomAYto, TomAHto???? Perhaps. But my tendency on this is to agree with others who have said "it is a knife". After all, that's what it is. Take a long blade, attach a handle, and what do you have??? Right, a knife. Now, as to the uses of that knife, different story altogether. A small jacknife, with a 2" blade, would hardly be considered a threat by most, but it could be used to kill. A Kirpan such as the one in the link provided by ARGUS, is quite fearsome-looking, and could easily alarm people. Not to mention that if used a weapon, could be very effective. But for the perception argument, then ARGUS is absolutely right, calling a cat a dog does not cause the cat to bark. Now if the religious icon were a teddy bear, there would be no such perception problem. After all, not too many people have been held up with a teddy bear. The difference is that if you put a Kirpan in the hands of a non-Sikh, it's simply a knife, and a rather nasty-looking one, at that. The teddy bear, on the other hand, remains a teddy bear, no matter who is holding it. So, this makes educating people all the more important. Now in the incident being discussed, Balpreet Singh was removed from a train twice, but it does not say by whom. Presumably VIA rail authorities, as the thread opener states that it was a result of VIA policy regarding "weapons". Now you have also mentioned that many (most???) police have been educated regarding the Kirpan's significance. It's probably safe to assume that the average VIA employee has NOT been educated in the same manner. After all, consider how many people have no idea at all about Kirpans. I was among their number until participating in this thread. Perhaps the solution to this particular problem is to simply petition VIA rail to educate their staff regarding the Kirpan and its role in sikhism (is that a word???).

Banana republic????

Well, seeing as it's a "fantasy" world government, we should be allowed to choose from fantasy characters. I choose Homer Simpson.

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing. All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

Well, gee, if it causes Canada to make more money??? Then yes. Consider that the world's biggest beacon of freedom has many, many, MANY major corporations who have large factories in China, producing their goods at cut-rates due to low labour costs. Those same goods are being sold in Canada as well as the USA. If the USA has any sort of problem with Canada having dealings with China, they should look first to their own corporations before they complain about us. "Beacon of freedom". Heh heh. I guess their idea of "freedom" doesn't extend to free trade. After all, being so "free", I guess they figure they have the freedom to renege on the deals they've signed.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. I recall a documentary a few years back detailing what was happening with government payments going to some reserves. It pointed out that in a lot of cases (most??? all???) the government gives money to the reserves, which is then allocated according to the governing body on each reserve. Many of these refused a government audit. Allegations were made, by some members, of blackmail wherein people were told that if they vote for the right guy, they get their house improved, and threatened about "consequences" which may transpire if they vote for the wrong guy. It pointed out several reserves where the chief and staff had incredibly luxurious homes, and took wonderful trips to Vegas, etc, while other band members on the same reserves were living in huts without indoor plumbing facilities. Is this a similar case??? I don't know, and so cannot point a finger at either the government, or the reserve chief/staff. One thing is certain; you don't take drinking water from a spot that is downstream from where you dump your sewage. That's simply common sense.

Ah, well, we agree to disagree, except where we agree Definitely have to agree with you about Wal-Mart.

And your point is??? In fact, I'm drinking lukewarm instant coffee right now, with unnecessary additives, although I must say when I made it the water was boiling And it's laundry, not dishwashing, detergent Ummm.......can I offer you both a cup of tea???

And thank you for your courteous response. I didn't see the picture, or the paper. As for the fairness of the treatment he received, I think in a case like this, "Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. Consider this; how many people who have responded to this thread had no idea whatsoever about the necessity of wearing a Kirpan??? I consider myself fairly well-informed, and yet I had no idea that the Kirpan is necessary to the Sikh dress-code. Consider also that most people on the street (or the train) are considerably less informed than the majority of people on this website, and what you have is a mild recipe for panic. I honestly don't think discrimination was involved, although I may well be wrong. I simply think it was a case of authority (or authorities) being worried about what damage may be caused by the presence of the "weapon". After all, when you consider the aforementioned ignorance regarding the Kirpan, then the vast majority of people would not perceive a religious "ornament", but rather they would "see" a great, whacking sword. Like I said in my previous thread, that would certainly cause me some concern. But I thank you for the education in this regard. In future it may come in handy in keeping me from running in panic I agree that this would seem the reasonable approach, but keep in mind too, that in larger cities, the tendency is for people to mind their own business and not ask questions of strangers around them. This tendency would certainly be exacerbated by the presence of a huge blade hanging from the waist of the person whom you want to question. Combine all this with the "unshorn beard and hair", which would certainly lend to a sinister appearance (sorry, I call 'em as I see 'em), and I can definitely see why the majority of people would be hesitant to question the sword-bearer. I certainly would be, I'm sorry to say. Although, as stated earlier, now that I've been somewhat educated in this regard, I'll see them in a different light in the future. Hah!!!! You should have looked the guy in the eye, put on your best eastern accent, and said "Toronto???, okay". As stated earlier, education is part of the problem, on both sides. Most people are unaware of the significance of the Kirpan. Some people who carry Kirpans do not take this into account, and so do not expect people to be worried in the presence of larger, visible blades. Well, I don't live in Toronto, and I don't drive cab. Here in Sudbury, if I had no other choice, I wouldn't mind. After all, dignity comes not from what you do, but from how well you endeavour to do it. Thank you for what I've learned here. Not many Kirpan-wearing Sikhs in Sudbury, but next time I see one, I'll certainly be better prepared.

How much do the wor mongers in the US care for the people of Sudan? Tibet? Myanmar? North Korea? All of these people are suffering under the boot of a vicious dictators yet the US does nothing for them. Why are the Iraqs the annointed people worthy of sheading so much US blood and money? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Typical leftie rebuttal; change the subject. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uh-huh, whereas you simply.......... ......try to spin anything you disagree with into an anti-laft tirade, complete with venom-laden rhetoric and the same similes you would deride if they were invoked by anyone you perceived as being on the left. "Like a bunch of grave-robbing ghouls"??? Pot, meet kettle.

A woman of courage and vision. Her like does not come along often enough. RIP indeed.

To PSINGH: Welcome aboard. You make some good points. But in this quote from MELANIE's link...... ......it is made evident that any Sikh could well do exactly what you do; wear a small ceremonial sword ("a few inches in length" is acceptable, as per MEL's link) beneath his outer garb. I don't know about anyone else, but I would be a bit disturbed if I was on a train, and someone boarded, and stood beside me wearing some huge knife strapped to their waist. Additionally, as someone else pointed out, post 9/11, and especially in light of recent terror attacks all over the world, I can see officials of Via, or any other major transit/travel company being concerned when individuals appear bearing fearsome-looking weapons. Hell, in this day and age, if I was a cab-driver, I wouldn't let anyone in my taxi if he/she appeared to be carrying a weapon.

Heh heh. Considering that this so called "hip-hop generation" looks like it gets its clothing from a dumpster, that would be quite apropos.

Oh, dear. Poor little multi-millionaire. And the so called "Hip-hop generation", rich kids dressing like poor kids. Maybe, but at least he looks presentable. Duh??? Like these guys NEED a clothing stipend??? Buy a bloody suit, that way the next time one of your relatives dies you can show up at the funeral looking respectable. These guys make me laugh. It's like the NBA is committing cultural genocide or something. No one is trying to dictate how the guys will dress on their own time. But if someone throws a black-tie affair, you better show up in a tux. Someone throws a gala dinner affair, at least wear some respectable slacks and a decent shirt, if not a proper suit. When you go to your favorite bar, wear whatever the hell you like. But they're professional basket ball players, not professionals in the sense of lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. Heck, garbage men are professionals too, but you don't see many of them dressing in business casual on the job. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, IMT. I can't get behind this argument. Garbage Men wear appropriate dress for their job. Firemen do not wear "business casual" on the job either (nor do mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, or most manual laborers), but when you get to the annual firemen's ball, they're all dressed quite nattily. I'm sure if there was a garbagemen's ball, they'd dress up for it, too.

Hi again, ERR: It's awful how slave labour hates unions, isn't it.... Glib??? Yes, but not really an answer When they were looking for employment, did they only look in "non-union" shops, or were they happy to be gainfully employed.... It seems that they were happy to be gainfully employed in a non-union environment. I think you said that you were from Sudbury... Maybe it wasn't you, but anyways, Sudbury voted NDP in the provincial election. They voted differently than the majority of the province.... Why then must they have to endure a Liberal government in Queen's park..... You said that there is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide... so why should all branches be forcibly included.... Maybe it is unionized "region-wide"... Yes, I'm from Sudbury. Well, I didn't vote NDP. Not really a good analogy. I've never read or heard where a vote for unionization was either a provincial or a national election or again, that Quebec Wal-Mart could have claimed their results dictated that Wal-Mart should be unionized Canada-wide. The union (UFCW) attempted to put a union into place to serve the empoyees.... who are paid slave labour rates... Actually, it did the town a favour... If you'll hunt through previous Wal-mart threads, you'll see how the community subsidizes Wal-mart and their slave-labour practices. Oh, I'm no Wal-Mart fan. Believe me, I avoid the place like the plague. Rather pay slightly higher prices elsewhere and support local business. Whenever possible, I buy Canadian-made. But for purposes of this thread, establishment of the union did the EMPLOYEES no favour. Unions are not "Bad" in and of themselves. I agree that IN THE PAST unions did much to improve working conditions, protect workers, etc. But today, in a lot of cases (not all), unions have simply become huge political machines which often bargain from an unrealistic standpoint. Air Canada workers, demanding more when their employer is on the verge of bankruptcy. Auto Workers doing the same when the Big 3 are on the ropes financially. And one of my favorites involves the Steelworkers here in Sudbury.... Several years back (late 80's??? early 90's???) they went on strike against INCO. They were screaming that because INCO was making record profits, they should be sharing more of the booty. Then, late 90's, when INCO was in HUGE financial trouble because of their investment in Voisey's Bay, and the lack of return on that investment due to roadblocks with NFLD, same union went on strike, again demanding big pay raises, job security, etc. Now keep in mind that INCO workers are generally straight out of high-school into a $60k/yr job for doing very little work other than avoiding the shift boss. In fact, INCO employees have a joke that their job is "A grand a week for hide and seek". One fellow I know boasted about how he liked the graveyard shift because he'd get a solid 6 hours of sleep on that shift, more than he'd get at home. Unions, when doing their jobs, are a good thing, but when playing politics, which seems to happen most of the time, are not good at all.

Likewise, the American troops can hardly be said to be "defending America" in this particular war. That being said, I strongly disagree with any Canadian going to fight in this war, on either side, but most strongly as part of the insugency. Two wrongs do not make a right. Hmmm. This is a sticky one. Is a "terrorist" someone who attacks civilian targets, or someone who attacks military targets??? If they were going around blowing up civilians, I would tend to agree. If they are fighting armed troops, I would have to disagree with that label, no matter how abhorent I may personally find their choice to be. Good idea!!! Why don't you get him on the phone to talk about it. Let us know what he says.

Good morning, ERR. With all due respects, there is much I must address in your post..... They aught to check the definition of UNANIMOUS!!! If the MAJORITY of employees wanted to join the union, it is a bit of a stretch to say that seven (out of hundreds) constitutes a MAJORITY. It is a bastardization of the truth.... no... it's an outright LIE. This argument does not hold water. Consider the recent attempts to unionize a branch of Wal-Mart in Quebec (I forget the name of the town). Notice I said "A branch". If a single branch of a large corporate business can unionize, then by the same logic, a single branch can choose to NOT unionize, unless the employer itself has determined that ALL her "shops" are to be union-run. In this particular bank branch, 100% of the employees were AGAINST unionization. They can look for a job at a non-union shop if they don't want the rights and benefits that the union will guarantee them..... Which is exactly what they did. They all got jobs in a non-union "shop", ie; the bank branch in which they are currently employed. Their "shop", as you call it, voted AGAINST inclusion in the union. 100% against. There is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide, so why should all branches in a particular region be forcibly included??? Like the law will protect them in event of a bank merger that throws half of them out on the steet..... Like the union will??? Consider the aforementioned Wal-Mart branch in Quebec. The workers unionized. Wal-Mart immediately closed the branch down, throwing ALL the workers "out on the street". Please explain to me exactly how the union protected these employees??? Here's another little related story. The Mine Mill Union managed to talk members of a local call center (Yes, I live in Sudbury) in to unionizing. They promised job security and higher wages and pensions etc etc etc. The call center immediately fired almost 60% of its staff, and replaced them with non-union employees. The union went on record as saying "We are not pleased and will be pursuing this matter". That was almost 5 years ago. Nothing has been "pursued". Apparently the union is still not pleased. Of course not. Less members to pay dues. Since that time, the remaining employees have quit the union, which made the union even less "pleased". The Steelworkers also tried to unionize my workplace a couple years back. I experienced some of the same intimidation tactics, being bothered in the workplace, phone calls and visits at home, etc. But I don't get pushed around easily. I attended a union meeting and made myself heard (emphasis on "made", because they didn't want me to speak, but being loud, I could be heard quite clearly from where I stood, and I didn't need a podium or microphone). I asked a lot of questions to which they either had no answers. They really did try to shut me up by dealing out meaningless platitudes, and after a bit, by more intimidation. The drive to unionize went on for several months, but eventually they gave up in the face of sensible employees who realize that they are being treated fairly and equitably by their employer. I could go on about this for quite a while as there were several incidents and tactics I have not mentioned here, but for brevity sake, I'll stop here. (Brevity??? Hah) If it offends them so much to be part of a union shop... they do have choices... Too bad for them... they couldn't force their values on the majority of employees who chose to become a union shop.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know, you're right. If they don't want to be part of a union "shop", they have every right to not apply to work at a union "shop". Which is exactly what they didn't do. They didn't apply to a union "shop". They applied, successfully, at a non-union "shop", and have worked there for quite some time. Now the union is trying to force itself down their collective throats by unionizing a "shop" which clearly does NOT want to be unionized. If the other "shops" (ie: branches) want the union, thay can have it, and do, but this "shop" has clearly fought unionization from day one, and should be allowed to carry on with their non-union jobs.