Unheralded "Eco-Tax" hits Ontario shoppers

[Pliny]

The main point to be made on the environment and eco-taxes is that the government's of all levels, from municipal to federal, took repsonsibilty for the disposal of waste and taxing the citizens to do so.

This is of course an "ideal" solution. Ideal solutions of course result in there being no urgency to adjust to changing conditions. Just keep doing the same thing. This is the basic failure of government programs - there is no foresight to predict future conditions or it is believed that those conditions can be engineered.

What winds up as an ideal program becomes too expensive or inapplicable to current conditions. If government is going to take care of waste management it must do so with the future in mind and being innovative. Unfortunately, what happens too often is the service is cut and extra fees charged and a resulting greater demand for the private sector to fill in the gaps. Soon the government program is just an expensive and supplementary service - unless it demands a monopoly as it does in health care then we are stuck with cuts to service and increased taxation to maintain an already stressed "industry".

Of course they approach a problem from the wrong perspective. They feel they just need more "resources" and they can make anything work. The way problems must be approached is to first determine the need or demand figure out how to fill the demand or resolve the problem and then charge for it's implementation. Governemnt too often neglects to predict future needs or demands or feels it can engineer what it determines is best. Often it does not consult the public or the existing scenario but works on centrally planned models "it" feels will serve future needs. So it gets further and further away from what the real demands of it's citizens are. It will then levy a tax it says is for some purpose but the connection seems odd. How is this eco-tax going to improve the environment? It isn't really, and the success of the tax (assuming a tax is to produce government revenues for services) depends upon what can be considered the future bad habits of the citizens who pay it. If they stop buying the products with the eco-tax applied, or the market eliminates those products with better substitutes, then another tax will be necessary to support the government and all the tax agencies it sets up to collect the myriad taxes it legislates. Getting rid of a tax is very difficult once it is established. That McGuinty is axing this tax is a great political move for a fall election and nothing more after the election and with a full majority some other tax must be dreamed - either that or budgets must be cut.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Pliny

[charter.rights]

lol: This is the funniest line I've read on MLW for some time.

I prefer to think he's setting himself up to become Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

And how different is that from Layton seeking advice from Broadbent...or Ignatieff seeking advice from Chretien? And yes, I think at times those men have accepted said advice.

It is a huge difference. Broadbent is a man of integrity. Chretien was a successful politician.

Harris was neither. He was partly responsible for murdering Dudley George, and fully responsible for messing up health care in Ontario, buggering the MNR and indirectly responsible through his tinkering with the Ministries for allowing tainted water in Walkerton.

McGuinty on the other hand may not have much integrity but he hasn't made and faux pas that he hasn't been able to justify. Promising no new taxes and then raising them was easily blamed on the PCs. Other than that he is pretty much a hero for taxing the crap out of us.

But then again we have Timmy Hudak who not only embraces Harris and promises to be like him, he has no balls. No issues. No public image. He is a mouse and runs scared at the first chance.

You're clearly anti-Conservative. I bet you don't bother listening to him, or research the net on anything he has said or stands for. I'm presently a Conservative supporter, but I guarantee when Layton, Ignatieff, McGuinty or Horvath speak, I'm all ears and eyes.

Nope I am not. It is just that slime politics such as Harris played, and Harper plays is not something I appreciate. I don't belong to any particular party favourites, and prefer to listen to what they have to offer. I even called and supported and Harper minority the first time but his no holes barred approach to trying to obtain a majority just pisses me off. He doesn't deserve on and would destroy this country if he had one.

[Wild Bill]

It is a huge difference. Broadbent is a man of integrity. Chretien was a successful politician.

Harris was neither. He was partly responsible for murdering Dudley George, and fully responsible for messing up health care in Ontario, buggering the MNR and indirectly responsible through his tinkering with the Ministries for allowing tainted water in Walkerton.

"Broadbent is a man of integrity. Chretien was a successful politician."

Man, there you go again! You deliver your OPINIONS as if they are FACTS! The last person I knew who thought like that was an aunt who had to be committed for shock treatments.

As for Harris being "partly responsible for murdering Dudley George", how do you know this? Is it true simply because you don't like him and personally consider him to be evil?

From my perspective, the sad death of Mr. George was partially his OWN fault and that of the native protesters! You see, OKA was still fresh in everyone's mind at the time of the Ipperwash protest. After OKA, authorities could no longer assume that native protesters were not armed. The image of "Lasagna" was too vivid in everyone's memory! The truth is that it is only logical to assume that EVERY native protest will contain arms, now and forever! That is the price natives paid for the actions at OKA.

So you have a bunch of cops alone in the dark, in open forest, near native protesters who could well be keeping a bead on each and every cop in the line. Frightened people do stupid things. Firing at Mr. George was stupid and unnecessary in hindsight but for a cop there at the time it would be impossible to have that perspective. Many of us might have done something equally stupid if we were in that situation.

Did Mike Harris tell the cops forcefully to get the natives out of there? Probably. Did he tell them to shoot them? Extremely unlikely! Still, again we go back to that nervous cop in the dark, feeling the pressure from "on high" and feeling a very justified fear of being shot by a native protester!

I don't know if there's anyway now for native protesters to recover credibility about being unarmed. Perhaps it's possible but I truly don't see a way. It has nothing to do with them being natives. If ANY protest group had once shown arms at a protest it is only common sense that forever more they will be treated as if they have them at any future incident.

[Smallc]

" Chretien was a successful politician."

That's really not an opinion at all. He was a successful politician.

[Jack Weber]

What you mean "we", Kemo Sabee?

If you loook at the side under my screen name it will say "Beamsville,Ontario...

Yours just says Surrey(I'll assume it's BC)

the "we" I am referring to are the residents of the Province of Ontario...

And by "Effed" I mean our choicesd are between Dalton McStupid,a Harrisite hack(who is the MPP from my riding),and,...the...NDP...

Which ammunition do I want to kill myself with?

[Wild Bill]

That's really not an opinion at all. He was a successful politician.

Define "successful"! Give me your opinion!

The word means nothing by itself. You have to provide some context. What is the yardstick? What factors are important to your opinion of what's successful?

[Smallc]

The word means nothing by itself. You have to provide some context. What is the yardstick? What factors are important to your opinion of what's successful?

I think when you combine the words successful and politician, it isn't hard to gauge context. Chretien won...time and again, and he made his opposition look like idiots while he was at it. He also balanced the books, and there are many other accomplishments to his name. The Queen was so impressed with him, she gave him the Order of Merit.

Would you like anymore context?

Edited July 24, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

Define "successful"! Give me your opinion!

The word means nothing by itself. You have to provide some context. What is the yardstick? What factors are important to your opinion of what's successful?

Considering that he reached the highest political office in Canada and stayed there for over a decade, I'd say that makes him pretty successful as a politician.

[capricorn]

Considering that he reached the highest political office in Canada and stayed there for over a decade, I'd say that makes him pretty successful as a politician.

By that measure, it can be said that McGuinty is a successful politician because he won two successive majorities.

I understand why people credit someone for political skills, but IMO, being a successful politician is not necessarily a badge of honour.

[Smallc]

By that measure, it can be said that McGuinty is a successful politician because he won two successive majorities.

He is, very much so.

I understand why people credit someone for political skills, but IMO, being a successful politician is not necessarily a badge of honour.

Conservatives generally don't like politicians, so that's to be expected.

[capricorn]

Conservatives generally don't like politicians, so that's to be expected.

Dislike of politicians is not limited to conservative leaning Canadians.

Canadians think politicians don't get along well, that they've accomplished little in the past year, and few would want their kids to grow up to be one.

---

Ipsos Reid asked Canadians if they would "encourage any family member to run for public office because it is a noble calling." Most Canadians polled - two out of every three, or 66 per cent - said no.

The findings of the poll, which measured how Canadians feel about politicians in general, and not any one particularly party, reveal that, at the very least, MPs may have a public relations problem.

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians+think+politicians+little+done+poll/2382469/story.html

Those Who Seek Elected Office Are Held in Very Low Esteem

Politicians took last place for trustworthiness among 22 professionals in a 2006 poll taken by Leger Marketing of Montreal. Only 14% of those surveyed said they trusted politicians, five percent below the figure for car salespeople.

http://canadian-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadians_dont_trust_politicians

[Smallc]

Yes, well, people are generally stupid that way. Even when politicians do good things, people think they're bad, and the politicians get criticized for it, no matter their intentions and accomplishments.

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statment. Conservatives don't tend to like government.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

Yes, well, people are generally stupid that way. Even when politicians do good things, people think they're bad, and the politicians get criticized for it, no matter their intentions and accomplishments.

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statment. Conservatives don't tend to like government.

Conservatives don't like liberal-leaning government, nor taxes.

But anyone who supports the death penalty loves Big Government.

[Molly]

If you loook at the side under my screen name it will say "Beamsville,Ontario...

Yours just says Surrey(I'll assume it's BC)

the "we" I am referring to are the residents of the Province of Ontario...

And by "Effed" I mean our choicesd are between Dalton McStupid,a Harrisite hack(who is the MPP from my riding),and,...the...NDP...

Which ammunition do I want to kill myself with?

Yep. I don't think I've ever seen a better justification for 'None of The Above' to appear on ballots.

[charter.rights]

"Broadbent is a man of integrity. Chretien was a successful politician."

Man, there you go again! You deliver your OPINIONS as if they are FACTS! The last person I knew who thought like that was an aunt who had to be committed for shock treatments.

Nope it is an opinion on an opinion piece.

As for Harris being "partly responsible for murdering Dudley George", how do you know this? Is it true simply because you don't like him and personally consider him to be evil?

It is true because it was in the findings of the Ipperwash report - the inquiry he tried for years to ignore and in the end was found culpable in the events leading up to Dudley Georges death.

From my perspective, the sad death of Mr. George was partially his OWN fault and that of the native protesters! You see, OKA was still fresh in everyone's mind at the time of the Ipperwash protest. After OKA, authorities could no longer assume that native protesters were not armed. The image of "Lasagna" was too vivid in everyone's memory! The truth is that it is only logical to assume that EVERY native protest will contain arms, now and forever! That is the price natives paid for the actions at OKA.

So you have a bunch of cops alone in the dark, in open forest, near native protesters who could well be keeping a bead on each and every cop in the line. Frightened people do stupid things. Firing at Mr. George was stupid and unnecessary in hindsight but for a cop there at the time it would be impossible to have that perspective. Many of us might have done something equally stupid if we were in that situation.

My bet is that you extrapolated that tidbit from some mystery novel you are reading. And you call me up for offering an opinion. Your opinion doesn't even meet the perquisites for reality, let alone por fiction.

Did Mike Harris tell the cops forcefully to get the natives out of there? Probably. Did he tell them to shoot them? Extremely unlikely! Still, again we go back to that nervous cop in the dark, feeling the pressure from "on high" and feeling a very justified fear of being shot by a native protester!

"I want the fucking Indians out of the park!" Quote from Mike Harris as witnessed by Attorney General Mark Harnick, and affirmed as fact by the Ipperwash inquiry. Harris was found to have participated and been the impetus of the chain of events that led up to the killing of Dudley George. I didn't say he pulled the trigger but that he was partly responsible and that is consistent with the findings of Ipperwash inquiry.

I don't know if there's anyway now for native protesters to recover credibility about being unarmed. Perhaps it's possible but I truly don't see a way. It has nothing to do with them being natives. If ANY protest group had once shown arms at a protest it is only common sense that forever more they will be treated as if they have them at any future incident.

The findings of the Ipperwash inquiry were that the protesters were not armed in the park and that Dudley George was unarmed when he was shot.

Quit making things up. You look like a fool.

Edited July 25, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

Yes, well, people are generally stupid that way. Even when politicians do good things, people think they're bad, and the politicians get criticized for it, no matter their intentions and accomplishments.

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statment. Conservatives don't tend to like government.

Better to rephrase it this way:

"Conservatives don't like interference in their manipulation of government"

I think it has a better ring to it, don't you?

[bloodyminded]

Nope it is an opinion on an opinion piece.

It is true because it was in the findings of the Ipperwash report - the inquiry he tried for years to ignore and in the end was found culpable in the events leading up to Dudley Georges death.

My bet is that you extrapolated that tidbit from some mystery novel you are reading. And you call me up for offering an opinion. Your opinion doesn't even meet the perquisites for reality, let alone por fiction.

"I want the fucking Indians out of the park!" Quote from Mike Harris as witnessed by Attorney General Mark Harnick, and affirmed as fact by the Ipperwash inquiry. Harris was found to have participated and been the impetus of the chain of events that led up to the killing of Dudley George. I didn't say he pulled the trigger but that he was partly responsible and that is consistent with the findings of Ipperwash inquiry.

The findings of the Ipperwash inquiry were that the protesters were not armed in the park and that Dudley George was unarmed when he was shot.

Quit making things up. You look like a fool.

It's a specious form of apologetics, to be sure.

The police shoot an unarmed native...and it was some other natives' fault, from some other incident.

Awesome.

[Wild Bill]

Nope it is an opinion on an opinion piece.

It is true because it was in the findings of the Ipperwash report - the inquiry he tried for years to ignore and in the end was found culpable in the events leading up to Dudley Georges death.

My bet is that you extrapolated that tidbit from some mystery novel you are reading. And you call me up for offering an opinion. Your opinion doesn't even meet the perquisites for reality, let alone por fiction.

"I want the fucking Indians out of the park!" Quote from Mike Harris as witnessed by Attorney General Mark Harnick, and affirmed as fact by the Ipperwash inquiry. Harris was found to have participated and been the impetus of the chain of events that led up to the killing of Dudley George. I didn't say he pulled the trigger but that he was partly responsible and that is consistent with the findings of Ipperwash inquiry.

The findings of the Ipperwash inquiry were that the protesters were not armed in the park and that Dudley George was unarmed when he was shot.

Quit making things up. You look like a fool.

I am not making things up. I am being logical. I realize that to you logic is a synonym for delusion but I just can't help it! Some of us think logically and some of us don't, I guess.

How is it relevant that the inquiry said the natives were not armed? Even if they were correct, that's not my premise! As usual, you address things I didn't say and ignore what I did write. Makes it easier for your arguments, I will admit.

What I had said was that after OKA authorities have to ASSUME that any native protesters are armed until and unless it is PROVEN they are not, afterwards! This is only common sense. If Lasagna and his friends would travel up from the States to OKA there's no reason to assume they would not be willing to join a protest in Ipperwash or Caledonia.

If YOU were one of those cops at the Ipperwash protest are you seriously telling me that they had absolutely no reason to believe the protesters may have been armed and willing to shoot? Any human being with half a brain cell and a trace of a survival instinct would have been anxious in that situation!

I have NOT said it would be any particular native's fault! What I HAVE said is that OKA established a precedent and now authorities dare not assume native protesters are not armed! Again, only common sense.

One thing's for sure, if we were part of a group in a dangerous situation, you would be the LAST person I would feel confidence in for defending me or my family! You would tell me that a protester's bullet or baseball bat was merely a delusion!

Edited July 25, 2010 by Wild Bill

[charter.rights]

I am not making things up. I am being logical. I realize that to you logic is a synonym for delusion but I just can't help it! Some of us think logically and some of us don't, I guess.

How is it relevant that the inquiry said the natives were not armed? Even if they were correct, that's not my premise! As usual, you address things I didn't say and ignore what I did write. Makes it easier for your arguments, I will admit.

What I had said was that after OKA authorities have to ASSUME that any native protesters are armed until and unless it is PROVEN they are not, afterwards! This is only common sense. If Lasagna and his friends would travel up from the States to OKA there's no reason to assume they would not be willing to join a protest in Ipperwash or Caledonia.

If YOU were one of those cops at the Ipperwash protest are you seriously telling me that they had absolutely no reason to believe the protesters may have been armed and willing to shoot? Any human being with half a brain cell and a trace of a survival instinct would have been anxious in that situation!

I have NOT said it would be any particular native's fault! What I HAVE said is that OKA established a precedent and now authorities dare not assume native protesters are not armed! Again, only common sense.

One thing's for sure, if we were part of a group in a dangerous situation, you would be the LAST person I would feel confidence in for defending me or my family! You would tell me that a protester's bullet or baseball bat was merely a delusion!

Bill Bill Bill Bill......

Not only did the Ipperwash find that the protesters including Dudley George were unarmed but it became a statement of fact at the trial of OPP Constable Ken Deane and a number of eye witnesses testified to it.

What you said has no relevance to the facts of the case. But even if it did, the OPP intelligence unit had confirmed that there were no weapons in the park. They did confirm that one or two of the protesters had rifles at the barracks on the army base, but there were no weapons anywhere in the park, at any time. That too is a conclusion made by the Ipperwash Inquiry.

And one last fact (lest your head spins right off its neck). The calamity of events occured because of the mis-communication within the OPP, the outside pressure placed on the OPP to enforce an injunction (when the enforcement of any injunction is within the polices discretionary authority), the rampant racism within the OPP and many other factors, not blamed on Dudley George or the protesters. That too is a finding of fact of Justice Linden at the Inquiry.

You may want you hold your hands over your ears and sing la la la la I can't hear you, but the facts are what happened with a 99.9% accuracy.

[Wild Bill]

You may want you hold your hands over your ears and sing la la la la I can't hear you, but the facts are what happened with a 99.9% accuracy.

You really don't place any value on logic, do you? The world to you is all mysticism. It runs by magic and anything can be whatever you want, if the magic is strong enough.

[charter.rights]

You really don't place any value on logic, do you? The world to you is all mysticism. It runs by magic and anything can be whatever you want, if the magic is strong enough.

Nope. See you are making things up again.

Recognizing the flaws in thinking is not the same thing as believing in the mystical. I have never said that logic wasn't useful in some sort of way, but have maintained that it is entirely mind-orientated and therefore delusional.

[Pliny]

If you loook at the side under my screen name it will say "Beamsville,Ontario...

Yours just says Surrey(I'll assume it's BC)

the "we" I am referring to are the residents of the Province of Ontario...

And by "Effed" I mean our choicesd are between Dalton McStupid,a Harrisite hack(who is the MPP from my riding),and,...the...NDP...

Which ammunition do I want to kill myself with?

Well, thanks for taking the time to clarify that, Jack.

The NDP would be the more painful but quicker death.

[Pliny]

" Chretien was a successful politician."

That's really not an opinion at all. He was a successful politician.

Yes, he was a most convincing liar.

[PIK]

It's a specious form of apologetics, to be sure.

The police shoot an unarmed native...and it was some other natives' fault, from some other incident.

Awesome.

I doubt if dudley was unarmed.

[Wild Bill]

Bill Bill Bill Bill......

Not only did the Ipperwash find that the protesters including Dudley George were unarmed but it became a statement of fact at the trial of OPP Constable Ken Deane and a number of eye witnesses testified to it.

What you said has no relevance to the facts of the case. But even if it did, the OPP intelligence unit had confirmed that there were no weapons in the park. They did confirm that one or two of the protesters had rifles at the barracks on the army base, but there were no weapons anywhere in the park, at any time. That too is a conclusion made by the Ipperwash Inquiry.

Again, you ignore my point and argue about a different one. What else is new?

The Ipperwash inquiry can only state a conclusion. This is NOT the same as a fact! It is only what they believe, given the evidence they had and the reasoning they applied.

As a matter of interest, just HOW was it proven that the protesters had no weapons? Did the OPP inspect them all? Did the OPP get to inspect any native protester vehicle? Did the OPP get the opportunity to sweep the area with metal detectors in order to find any buried weapons caches?

I'm just trying to fathom the logistics of coming up with PROOF there were no weapons!

Perhaps the inquiry simply asked a protester "Did you have any weapons/" and the protester replied "Nope! Not us!"