The question was raised: Can't our f-18s take out russian bombers when they are refueling, even if they are protected by 6 fighters...
You are right that mid-air refueling is the biggest weak spot among all airforces today.
Probably our f18s could have a big advantage to kill the bomber... *today*, even if it meant zeroing out their own survivability.
But that is the problem. Our F18s are aging generation 4 planes. The Mig 35 which might be "capping" is rated 4++. Their specs are superior to the F18 even upgraded as our are.
That doesn't mean we can't defeat them, or at least kill the bomber before they get blown out of the sky.
But is that what we want? To be out-gunned, and MAYBE pull it off but die trying?
And now the Su 035s has over 60 planes in the air. The 037 has been prototyped (incidentally costing 147 million each). Which boast better specs than the CF 18s by far.
Its past time for these planes, and its past time for us to be looking forward to the F35s.
I will close for the night by referencing recent war games between Canada and its F18s, and the US with F-35s and 22s. We lost every plane before we even saw them. They had zero casualties. Even 10 years ago we were holding our own. Not anymore.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
CF 18s vs Russian Bomber squadron...
PHilmac,
You are right that mid-air refueling is the biggest weak spot among all airforces today.
Probably our f18s could have a big advantage to kill the bomber... *today*, even if it meant zeroing out their own survivability.
But that is the problem. Our F18s are aging generation 4 planes. The Mig 35 which might be "capping" is rated 4++. Their specs are superior to the F18 even upgraded as our are.
That doesn't mean we can't defeat them, or at least kill the bomber before they get blown out of the sky.
But is that what we want? To be out-gunned, and MAYBE pull it off but die trying?
And now the Su 035s has over 60 planes in the air. The 037 has been prototyped (incidentally costing 147 million each). Which boast better specs than the CF 18s by far.
Its past time for these planes, and its past time for us to be looking forward to the F35s.
I will close for the night by referencing recent war games between Canada and its F18s, and the US with F-35s and 22s. We lost every plane before we even saw them. They had zero casualties. Even 10 years ago we were holding our own. Not anymore.
You are right that mid-air refueling is the biggest weak spot among all airforces today.
Probably our f18s could have a big advantage to kill the bomber... *today*, even if it meant zeroing out their own survivability.
But that is the problem. Our F18s are aging generation 4 planes. The Mig 35 which might be "capping" is rated 4++. Their specs are superior to the F18 even upgraded as our are.
That doesn't mean we can't defeat them, or at least kill the bomber before they get blown out of the sky.
But is that what we want? To be out-gunned, and MAYBE pull it off but die trying?
And now the Su 035s has over 60 planes in the air. The 037 has been prototyped (incidentally costing 147 million each). Which boast better specs than the CF 18s by far.
Its past time for these planes, and its past time for us to be looking forward to the F35s.
I will close for the night by referencing recent war games between Canada and its F18s, and the US with F-35s and 22s. We lost every plane before we even saw them. They had zero casualties. Even 10 years ago we were holding our own. Not anymore.
Ok Gentlemen, let it be a given that right now in 2010, it is nigh impossible to conceive of a day we might have to take on Russian planes in a life or death struggle.
Now consider this:
God forbid that would ever happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it its enormity in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4; And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows the future? Who knows, if the entire Western economy is going to collapse as it did in the Soviet Union--precipitating the dissolution of that empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home. It is deep in the National psyche, the concept of the defense of the homeland.
___________
Now consider this:
God forbid that would ever happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it its enormity in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4; And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows the future? Who knows, if the entire Western economy is going to collapse as it did in the Soviet Union--precipitating the dissolution of that empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home. It is deep in the National psyche, the concept of the defense of the homeland.
___________
Series of Post around Jonas' NP Article on the Census
Agnostic666
4:00 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Agnostic666. Show DetailsHide Details
How about changing the title to just "Drop the Charade"? If someone truly opposes all forms of statism then they must oppose any state run military or any state run police force as well as any other government function, essentially only wanting anarchy. Otherwise the argument is what amount of statism is acceptible. If you accept some form of government (statism) is required then you must decide how effective you want the government to perform its required functions.
My Response:
You don't have to think all forms of statism are wrong to think this one is. One Canadian doesn't tell anyone how much he has in the bank, another tells the world. Both are an expression of freedom. What is privacy for one may not be the same for all. Since Revenue Canada has pried most of that data from us anyhow, let them get it there. I will be joining the ranks of the Jedi Knights this time round. I will make up every answer.
What statisticians won't admit, is that the census data is not pure. They want people to think it is. The mandatory form theoretically creates a random distribution so prized by statisticians. BUT it presupposes those responses will be absolutely true. That is the problem. After this scrap, a lot of Canadians are going to join the ranks of the Jedi Knights. Let Stats Can take that and smoke it. Is that valid enough for you all you sheeple?
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/george-jonas-drop-the-census-charade/#ixzz0vJmBBhiU
Joe Shmoe
7:01 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Joe Shmoe. Show DetailsHide Details
At the risk of sounding indelicate, this is a “steaming pile.” Who knows, perhaps at 75 Jonas has just run out of ideas; or he was working his way through his third keg of “Borsodi Barna” when he came up with this clunker?
In fact, if one of my students had handed this in as an essay justifying the Harper Tories denuding the mandatory long-form census, I would have given it back for a re-write. You know an essay with factually correct information and evidence of research. And lighter, much lighter with the “red herrings,” erroneous examples, straw men, and the unnecessarily emotive language. I think we call it lacking in “substance.”
a) Jonas makes no mention of the fact a voluntary long-form census will almost certainly contain significant sampling bias, as well as being incomparable with previous long-form data.
b) Jonas fails to mention that the new voluntary long-form will cost Canadian taxpayers between $30-40 million due to the bigger sample and need to “sell it” to Canadians.
c) Jonas fails to mention that virtually every economist and statistician in Canada is against Harper’s decision. (Jonas is neither a trained economist, nor a statistician.)
d) Like most right-wingers, Jonas incorrectly assumes that anyone who disagrees with Harper’s unilateral decision to change the census is “statist,” or a “social-engineer.” (Check with Colby Cosh, or Andrew Coyne!)
e) The only actual “evidence” Jonas presents is “a lady from a small community” who wrote him 14 years ago. Yikes!
f) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that Canadians are almost certainly going to be bombarded with all sorts of aggravating and intrusive marketers and polling companies vying to fill in the data void resulting from this decision.
g) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that 18% of the 2006 long-form censuses were filed electronically; and that Statscan was expecting that number to approach 50% in 2011. So, a long form census “for nosy neighbours to gloat or salivate over,” is probably a thing of the past anyway.
Jonas’ website describes him as “a master of subtle provocation and reasoned defence.” Alas, this sophomoric tripe represents the polar opposite of his biographical notes
______________________________________
I understand what you are saying, Joe. I am trying to say this with unfeigned respect: I am an old man by some measures. I have had a little bit to do with Universities over my years. There are many great things they contribute to our society. However, personal liberal bias is absolutely abysmal in most of the Canadian Universities I know.
Would a student who might try to write a paper from a different perspective than the crowd in your class clearly would have to pass through the eye of a needle? After a few F's on his test he will learn either to morph into your world view, or will likely drop out--Profoundly discouraged, maybe never returning to learn something meaningful he will love for the rest of his life.
I have young students that call me all the time with people like that installed in the university they are studying at.
That said, you have made some good points as well. For example being able to respond to the census online will help protect unanimity for the most part. There is the probability that without the *free* stats Can data, companies may be forced to pay their own way for a change, --and that could be intrusive. Lets hear it for Canada's Do Not Call list!
Jonas takes a step on the wild side, somewhat like a blogging troll, stirring up a segment of Canadians who have felt dumbed-down, under-classed, and otherwise suppressed by elitists who give no quarter to an opposing view.
I only ask one thing. Go back and read your post. How many absolutes do you employ? How many labels? How many straw men? I can see a few.
The problem of a teacher is pulling off practicing what we preach.
4:00 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Agnostic666. Show DetailsHide Details
How about changing the title to just "Drop the Charade"? If someone truly opposes all forms of statism then they must oppose any state run military or any state run police force as well as any other government function, essentially only wanting anarchy. Otherwise the argument is what amount of statism is acceptible. If you accept some form of government (statism) is required then you must decide how effective you want the government to perform its required functions.
My Response:
You don't have to think all forms of statism are wrong to think this one is. One Canadian doesn't tell anyone how much he has in the bank, another tells the world. Both are an expression of freedom. What is privacy for one may not be the same for all. Since Revenue Canada has pried most of that data from us anyhow, let them get it there. I will be joining the ranks of the Jedi Knights this time round. I will make up every answer.
What statisticians won't admit, is that the census data is not pure. They want people to think it is. The mandatory form theoretically creates a random distribution so prized by statisticians. BUT it presupposes those responses will be absolutely true. That is the problem. After this scrap, a lot of Canadians are going to join the ranks of the Jedi Knights. Let Stats Can take that and smoke it. Is that valid enough for you all you sheeple?
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/george-jonas-drop-the-census-charade/#ixzz0vJmBBhiU
Joe Shmoe
7:01 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Joe Shmoe. Show DetailsHide Details
At the risk of sounding indelicate, this is a “steaming pile.” Who knows, perhaps at 75 Jonas has just run out of ideas; or he was working his way through his third keg of “Borsodi Barna” when he came up with this clunker?
In fact, if one of my students had handed this in as an essay justifying the Harper Tories denuding the mandatory long-form census, I would have given it back for a re-write. You know an essay with factually correct information and evidence of research. And lighter, much lighter with the “red herrings,” erroneous examples, straw men, and the unnecessarily emotive language. I think we call it lacking in “substance.”
a) Jonas makes no mention of the fact a voluntary long-form census will almost certainly contain significant sampling bias, as well as being incomparable with previous long-form data.
b) Jonas fails to mention that the new voluntary long-form will cost Canadian taxpayers between $30-40 million due to the bigger sample and need to “sell it” to Canadians.
c) Jonas fails to mention that virtually every economist and statistician in Canada is against Harper’s decision. (Jonas is neither a trained economist, nor a statistician.)
d) Like most right-wingers, Jonas incorrectly assumes that anyone who disagrees with Harper’s unilateral decision to change the census is “statist,” or a “social-engineer.” (Check with Colby Cosh, or Andrew Coyne!)
e) The only actual “evidence” Jonas presents is “a lady from a small community” who wrote him 14 years ago. Yikes!
f) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that Canadians are almost certainly going to be bombarded with all sorts of aggravating and intrusive marketers and polling companies vying to fill in the data void resulting from this decision.
g) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that 18% of the 2006 long-form censuses were filed electronically; and that Statscan was expecting that number to approach 50% in 2011. So, a long form census “for nosy neighbours to gloat or salivate over,” is probably a thing of the past anyway.
Jonas’ website describes him as “a master of subtle provocation and reasoned defence.” Alas, this sophomoric tripe represents the polar opposite of his biographical notes
______________________________________
I understand what you are saying, Joe. I am trying to say this with unfeigned respect: I am an old man by some measures. I have had a little bit to do with Universities over my years. There are many great things they contribute to our society. However, personal liberal bias is absolutely abysmal in most of the Canadian Universities I know.
Would a student who might try to write a paper from a different perspective than the crowd in your class clearly would have to pass through the eye of a needle? After a few F's on his test he will learn either to morph into your world view, or will likely drop out--Profoundly discouraged, maybe never returning to learn something meaningful he will love for the rest of his life.
I have young students that call me all the time with people like that installed in the university they are studying at.
That said, you have made some good points as well. For example being able to respond to the census online will help protect unanimity for the most part. There is the probability that without the *free* stats Can data, companies may be forced to pay their own way for a change, --and that could be intrusive. Lets hear it for Canada's Do Not Call list!
Jonas takes a step on the wild side, somewhat like a blogging troll, stirring up a segment of Canadians who have felt dumbed-down, under-classed, and otherwise suppressed by elitists who give no quarter to an opposing view.
I only ask one thing. Go back and read your post. How many absolutes do you employ? How many labels? How many straw men? I can see a few.
The problem of a teacher is pulling off practicing what we preach.
Russian Bomber Probe Rationale
Ok Riddler and co. Again your question regarding the Russian bomber probe:
First go to a map any map, google is fine... measure out 250nm north of Goose bay. See where that is?
To suggest that this was simply the Russians patrolling international waters demonstrates the complete lack of the basics. Check the facts.
I posted this 40 or 50 pages ago. No one would expect you to have read that far back, so I will go easy on you on that one:
These "training exercises" are used to discover response times: How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with. How close to Canadian airspace can they get before intercept. The radar signature, and probably many more facts I am totally missing.
Its important to understand what I just said. Combined with your look at the map, you can see this was quite the training exercise. Look at how far that plane flew before it turned around. How did it get there?
Trace the huge S pattern they would have to fly to get there by flying only over international waters.
The "training" was data gathering.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is, these brief incursions around the edges, and our responses demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
First go to a map any map, google is fine... measure out 250nm north of Goose bay. See where that is?
To suggest that this was simply the Russians patrolling international waters demonstrates the complete lack of the basics. Check the facts.
I posted this 40 or 50 pages ago. No one would expect you to have read that far back, so I will go easy on you on that one:
These "training exercises" are used to discover response times: How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with. How close to Canadian airspace can they get before intercept. The radar signature, and probably many more facts I am totally missing.
Its important to understand what I just said. Combined with your look at the map, you can see this was quite the training exercise. Look at how far that plane flew before it turned around. How did it get there?
Trace the huge S pattern they would have to fly to get there by flying only over international waters.
The "training" was data gathering.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is, these brief incursions around the edges, and our responses demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
Parks and Bears
Ewesfly said: " Yellowstone or my beloved Canadian Rocky mountains become more and more overrun with tourists"
I can't agree more. National parks are an Ecological disaster. You can't inject a million visitors into Banff without screwing up animals and their environment.
Is it natural to have elk lying on your boulevards?
I apologize for the vehemence in my posts. There is a cult where I live that is trying to make the Feds create a new National Park in my back yard.
The Flathead valley who might have a few hundred visitors a year, as a National Park will have thousands. Today that land is extremely well managed. And, while not pristine, is relatively undisturbed.
The failed Y to Y initiative still has unrelenting supporters. When CSIS was reporting foreign influence on provincial MlAs, nothing could be more true in describing the behavior of Mr. Campbell over this area. He out an out said that the governor of Montana and he had become friends over the previous few years, an so had convinced him to act over this land.
It galls me that big US money wants to make parks almost entirely on Canadian soil. to make up for the failed Yellowstone disaster.
I say let them make a park from Yellowstone to the border then come talk to us up here. They would get strung up! But in Canada, its roll over and play dead.
I can't agree more. National parks are an Ecological disaster. You can't inject a million visitors into Banff without screwing up animals and their environment.
Is it natural to have elk lying on your boulevards?
I apologize for the vehemence in my posts. There is a cult where I live that is trying to make the Feds create a new National Park in my back yard.
The Flathead valley who might have a few hundred visitors a year, as a National Park will have thousands. Today that land is extremely well managed. And, while not pristine, is relatively undisturbed.
The failed Y to Y initiative still has unrelenting supporters. When CSIS was reporting foreign influence on provincial MlAs, nothing could be more true in describing the behavior of Mr. Campbell over this area. He out an out said that the governor of Montana and he had become friends over the previous few years, an so had convinced him to act over this land.
It galls me that big US money wants to make parks almost entirely on Canadian soil. to make up for the failed Yellowstone disaster.
I say let them make a park from Yellowstone to the border then come talk to us up here. They would get strung up! But in Canada, its roll over and play dead.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Ok folks here are some important facts, you might not read in these blogs and in the press.
More fighter for less money? I was always taught you get what you pay for. It is delusional to think there is a better option. Here is why:
We have committed to pay 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133m each)for the F-35. The F-22, a better plane by some standards is unobtainable. No one aside from the US has been able to procure this plane. Besides, what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22 instead of 133 million for the F-35?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this
I don't care what sort of procurement experience you claim to have so boldly on a blog no one can check out. The math really is quite simple.
More fighter for less money? I was always taught you get what you pay for. It is delusional to think there is a better option. Here is why:
We have committed to pay 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133m each)for the F-35. The F-22, a better plane by some standards is unobtainable. No one aside from the US has been able to procure this plane. Besides, what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22 instead of 133 million for the F-35?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this
I don't care what sort of procurement experience you claim to have so boldly on a blog no one can check out. The math really is quite simple.
WillM, the F22 is unobtainable. The program was unfunded this year, the factories mothballed. It would cost 4 billion just to reopen the factory.
It is a very nice plane, no question, and we could use a few of them. BUT the US has refused to sell them to anyone. Not to Israel, Britain, Australia or us, and we have asked. It is an air-superiority plane. While it can bomb, it is a waste of its strong points.
The f-35 is slightly less stealthy.
The f-22 tracks like a speeding marble, the 35, like a baseball. That is the relative difference in stealth.
The US has halted its production of F-22s for many reasons. One is, the F-35 is seen as a better option. It is more sophisticated on many levels.
Its price per unit is over 100 million dollars less to produce.
So, if you think the whining is bad because we agree to spend 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133 each) what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this. Of course I had to go to the NY times to get the appropriate inf
It is a very nice plane, no question, and we could use a few of them. BUT the US has refused to sell them to anyone. Not to Israel, Britain, Australia or us, and we have asked. It is an air-superiority plane. While it can bomb, it is a waste of its strong points.
The f-35 is slightly less stealthy.
The f-22 tracks like a speeding marble, the 35, like a baseball. That is the relative difference in stealth.
The US has halted its production of F-22s for many reasons. One is, the F-35 is seen as a better option. It is more sophisticated on many levels.
Its price per unit is over 100 million dollars less to produce.
So, if you think the whining is bad because we agree to spend 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133 each) what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this. Of course I had to go to the NY times to get the appropriate inf
Guantanamo said: "alethia, I have read all the posts since my comments, yet I have not seen one response that gives a possible scenario when we would shoot down Russian or American jets. So do you have a response? I would love to hear it."
God forbid that would never happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4. And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows, is the entire Western economy going to collapse as it did in Russia precipitating the dissolution of the
Soviet empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home.
___________
I have posted at length, about the question about the implications of a Russian bomber off of Canada's east coast. I have posted what is happening from a military perspective: How these incursions gather strategic data. So I won't go over them again.
God forbid that would never happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4. And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows, is the entire Western economy going to collapse as it did in Russia precipitating the dissolution of the
Soviet empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home.
___________
I have posted at length, about the question about the implications of a Russian bomber off of Canada's east coast. I have posted what is happening from a military perspective: How these incursions gather strategic data. So I won't go over them again.
Sue2 said: "do you have an opinion as to why the DND in Ottawa have been caught trying to change any critical information about the Conservatives on Wikipedia ....this just one more reason for me not to fully trust these media stories."
At first blush the natural reflex is to say Ya those bad conservatives.
I was thinking about that. So I went and had a look at the Wiki article. Not only does it bring onto the world stage the leader of the opposition--which is not part of the government of Canada, but then it explicitly threatens to defeat the government over this issue.
Now one might think it not so bad, particularly if you are leaning that way anyhow. But Wikipedia is what it is because it is open-sourced information. Wiki didn't write that article. Someone else posted it.
Wiki is supposed to be largely self editing, but in this case there was a big to do about it. Without even mentioning how Wiki works. Its not the encyclopedia Britannica, if that still exists, with tight editorial control. But it is the opposite.
However the matter is settled, when it comes to current politics, shutting down the normal editing procedures so that the very threat of the collapse in government is in the balance for all the world to see... is not appropriate, because it becomes a political tool rather than a reporter of information. If this wiki article were written 10 years from now, there would be no objection because there would be not political points to be gained. But now there is a published threat not even spoken about in parliament yet.
So some Liberal hack got in there first and got to put the spin on it, and no one else can change it any more. That is NOT how Wiki is supposed to work.
At first blush the natural reflex is to say Ya those bad conservatives.
I was thinking about that. So I went and had a look at the Wiki article. Not only does it bring onto the world stage the leader of the opposition--which is not part of the government of Canada, but then it explicitly threatens to defeat the government over this issue.
Now one might think it not so bad, particularly if you are leaning that way anyhow. But Wikipedia is what it is because it is open-sourced information. Wiki didn't write that article. Someone else posted it.
Wiki is supposed to be largely self editing, but in this case there was a big to do about it. Without even mentioning how Wiki works. Its not the encyclopedia Britannica, if that still exists, with tight editorial control. But it is the opposite.
However the matter is settled, when it comes to current politics, shutting down the normal editing procedures so that the very threat of the collapse in government is in the balance for all the world to see... is not appropriate, because it becomes a political tool rather than a reporter of information. If this wiki article were written 10 years from now, there would be no objection because there would be not political points to be gained. But now there is a published threat not even spoken about in parliament yet.
So some Liberal hack got in there first and got to put the spin on it, and no one else can change it any more. That is NOT how Wiki is supposed to work.
Canada1: Its great dialoguing with you. You said: "Alethia.........A bit over-simplistic. Canada doesn't fly incursions into Russian airspace
Neither did Russia.
An “area of interest” – about 250 nautical miles, or 460 kilometres, away from Goose Bay, Nfld. –is not our territory, but rather something we are "hoping" to become our territory.
________________
Something piqued me about the location. 250 nm from Goose Bay isn't that far. What is far is the distance those bombers flew to get there. Take a look. Did they fly undetected by Norad? Did they fly over Greenland's space unchallenged?
Or did they do the loop de loop west of Ireland and south of Greenland and northwest to the point of intercept? Or did they come across the Canadian Arcti--the shortest distance to travel. If they tried to fly between Canada and Greenland, they would have trespassed on someone's airspace. Hmm. Denmark is considering buying these planes too....
Neither did Russia.
An “area of interest” – about 250 nautical miles, or 460 kilometres, away from Goose Bay, Nfld. –is not our territory, but rather something we are "hoping" to become our territory.
________________
Something piqued me about the location. 250 nm from Goose Bay isn't that far. What is far is the distance those bombers flew to get there. Take a look. Did they fly undetected by Norad? Did they fly over Greenland's space unchallenged?
Or did they do the loop de loop west of Ireland and south of Greenland and northwest to the point of intercept? Or did they come across the Canadian Arcti--the shortest distance to travel. If they tried to fly between Canada and Greenland, they would have trespassed on someone's airspace. Hmm. Denmark is considering buying these planes too....
F-22/35 comparison
Matrix Dwelleer said: "The Canadian government should have considered the F22 instead of the F35 IMO. Of course the ban on exporting them and the higher cost might have been a hindrance. We're their #1 neighbor however so maybe they would make an exception."
The F-22 is an exceptional plane. However, despite big lobbying pushes from Britain to Australia, the US has stubbornly refused to sell them.
The production line to build them is now shut down. Start-up costs would be 4 billion dollars before a plane would be built. There was no provision in the US budget to make any more F-22s.
Even though the F-22 has some superior specs, its widely understood it is not as technologically advanced as the F-35.
Some call it a 4.5 generation plane.
While its stealth signature is better than the f-35 right now, it is likened to the difference picking up a speeding marble compared to a speeding base ball.
Perhaps there are some here that haven't checked the specs, but an F-35 offers about a 50% larger combat range over the F-18s we are currently flying. Its the ferrying range that many people look at--the range it can fly with no armaments and with external fuel tanks. Because the F-22 can fly a bit higher their efficiency in ferrying range is better. But drop down to Combat ranges, and the f-22 and the F-35s are not significantly different.
The F-22 is an exceptional plane. However, despite big lobbying pushes from Britain to Australia, the US has stubbornly refused to sell them.
The production line to build them is now shut down. Start-up costs would be 4 billion dollars before a plane would be built. There was no provision in the US budget to make any more F-22s.
Even though the F-22 has some superior specs, its widely understood it is not as technologically advanced as the F-35.
Some call it a 4.5 generation plane.
While its stealth signature is better than the f-35 right now, it is likened to the difference picking up a speeding marble compared to a speeding base ball.
Perhaps there are some here that haven't checked the specs, but an F-35 offers about a 50% larger combat range over the F-18s we are currently flying. Its the ferrying range that many people look at--the range it can fly with no armaments and with external fuel tanks. Because the F-22 can fly a bit higher their efficiency in ferrying range is better. But drop down to Combat ranges, and the f-22 and the F-35s are not significantly different.
Rationale for Canadian intercepts of Russian bombers.
Canada1 said: "What did you want them to do?
They fly missions in the Arctic, we fly missions in Europe as part of NATO.
They spy, we spy.
Do you ever wonder why the Canadian/US/UK embassies have "military attaches"?
_____________________________
A bit over-simplistic. Canada doesn't fly incursions into Russian airspace. These "training exercises" are used to discover response times. How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with.
Which they can factor in range and velocity and time to intercept.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is these brief incursions around the edges demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
They fly missions in the Arctic, we fly missions in Europe as part of NATO.
They spy, we spy.
Do you ever wonder why the Canadian/US/UK embassies have "military attaches"?
_____________________________
A bit over-simplistic. Canada doesn't fly incursions into Russian airspace. These "training exercises" are used to discover response times. How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with.
Which they can factor in range and velocity and time to intercept.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is these brief incursions around the edges demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
ShootMessenger said:So tell me again why we are wasting $16 BILLION on these F-35 jets that no one else wants to buy?
__________________
The purchase price is 9 billion. 16 is the figure that includes maintenance. When you buy your car, do you add the cost of maintenance for 40 years?
For the sake of rational argument, lets say we must consider the number 16 billion. Is the reader aware of the NY Times report that quoted Lockheed-Martin as saying they expect to spend 10 billion buying "Canadian made parts*? Over a hundred Canadian companies will employ hundreds and maybe thousands of Canadians in the high-tech industry. Anyone from Ontario should be doing a dance, since they will get the majority of that 10 bil.
Unions should be salivating.
This week over a thousand auto workers received layoff notices as GM and Ford shuts down Canadian factories. I would think that any Ontarioans who are blogging here today should be saying "Hallelujah!"
A thousand highly skilled high paying jobs have serious ripple effects, and that works both ways.
So, while auto workers line up for night jobs at Timmies this Canadian will be supporting any Canadian industry, science and technology to see us turn this around.
*10 billion? 3,000 F-35s expect to be made in this production run. So Canada's industry isn't supporting 60 odd planes. Its supplying our allies with 20x the demand we would exert ourselves that needs be considered.
__________________
The purchase price is 9 billion. 16 is the figure that includes maintenance. When you buy your car, do you add the cost of maintenance for 40 years?
For the sake of rational argument, lets say we must consider the number 16 billion. Is the reader aware of the NY Times report that quoted Lockheed-Martin as saying they expect to spend 10 billion buying "Canadian made parts*? Over a hundred Canadian companies will employ hundreds and maybe thousands of Canadians in the high-tech industry. Anyone from Ontario should be doing a dance, since they will get the majority of that 10 bil.
Unions should be salivating.
This week over a thousand auto workers received layoff notices as GM and Ford shuts down Canadian factories. I would think that any Ontarioans who are blogging here today should be saying "Hallelujah!"
A thousand highly skilled high paying jobs have serious ripple effects, and that works both ways.
So, while auto workers line up for night jobs at Timmies this Canadian will be supporting any Canadian industry, science and technology to see us turn this around.
*10 billion? 3,000 F-35s expect to be made in this production run. So Canada's industry isn't supporting 60 odd planes. Its supplying our allies with 20x the demand we would exert ourselves that needs be considered.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
21,000 Jedi Knights:
The response to religious questions.
I support a compromise. Perhaps for different reasons than most. There is the myth of pure census data from the compulsory long form. The myth is substantiated by a kind of randomness that determines who gets the long form is evenly distributed among the populus. I think Stats Can got the randomness right. The problem is the corruption in the uptake of data.
Do we know how many Canadians intentionally lie in the census? Apparently, one group of francophone data was "highly suspect" to have been fraudulently answered for its pull of Federal dollars.
How many other deliberate untruths in the census data pool? Are people relying on that information aware of the degree of corruption?
This is an important question unanswered.
How much of the long form could be dropped in favor of Revenue Canada data. They know ages, wages, taxes, native or non-native status',locations, zip codes, employment status, disabilities,
business gross and net figures, investment levels, capital cost allowances and so on.
I wonder if Canadians in the hew and cry of this have missed this. I don't see it being discussed at any level.
Revenue Canada Data would be at least 5 times more pure than census data, for while the long form would hit 1/5 Canadians, the RevCan data would be 100% On top of that while perhaps some might lie about their taxes, the probability of coming up better data with tax returns of 21,000 Jedi Knights might be somewhat less...
Finally, Statscan does censuses once in 5 years. This data could be annual data, that stays current every single year, unlike census data quality which decays over the previous 5 years.
This sort of data should be managed by Stats Can, because they are able to assure that the information we give is entered into the data pool with no personal attachments. It would be good if the privacy commissioner looked at this as well.
The response to religious questions.
I support a compromise. Perhaps for different reasons than most. There is the myth of pure census data from the compulsory long form. The myth is substantiated by a kind of randomness that determines who gets the long form is evenly distributed among the populus. I think Stats Can got the randomness right. The problem is the corruption in the uptake of data.
Do we know how many Canadians intentionally lie in the census? Apparently, one group of francophone data was "highly suspect" to have been fraudulently answered for its pull of Federal dollars.
How many other deliberate untruths in the census data pool? Are people relying on that information aware of the degree of corruption?
This is an important question unanswered.
How much of the long form could be dropped in favor of Revenue Canada data. They know ages, wages, taxes, native or non-native status',locations, zip codes, employment status, disabilities,
business gross and net figures, investment levels, capital cost allowances and so on.
I wonder if Canadians in the hew and cry of this have missed this. I don't see it being discussed at any level.
Revenue Canada Data would be at least 5 times more pure than census data, for while the long form would hit 1/5 Canadians, the RevCan data would be 100% On top of that while perhaps some might lie about their taxes, the probability of coming up better data with tax returns of 21,000 Jedi Knights might be somewhat less...
Finally, Statscan does censuses once in 5 years. This data could be annual data, that stays current every single year, unlike census data quality which decays over the previous 5 years.
This sort of data should be managed by Stats Can, because they are able to assure that the information we give is entered into the data pool with no personal attachments. It would be good if the privacy commissioner looked at this as well.
Pipeline debates
One thing I do know is that modern pipelines are now made with a Molybdenum allow--somewhere about 8% moly. Moly makes steels extremely corrosive resistant. Only Duplex Steel is better. They make Oceanic drill rigs with Duplex Steel, (Moly content between 16-20%).
Moly Steel can be dropped in the ocean for 100 years with no corrosion. If anyone has any experience with ships at sea, they will realize how significant that is.
Moly steel also has increased tensile strength. For that reason it is the steel of choice to build high-rise buildings, especially super hi-rises.
Will the use of this guarantee no problems ever? No. But people need to appreciate how the science has advanced. 40 year pipelines are a worry. In my opinion the variables should be tightened on them, and parts replaced with high priority.
Compared to Shipping and especially trucking, pipelines are incomparably more safe. However, one points out, while it is safer to fly in a jetliner than cross the street... but then again people are hit crossing the street occasionally--and if that happens to you, probability is little comfort.
Moly Steel can be dropped in the ocean for 100 years with no corrosion. If anyone has any experience with ships at sea, they will realize how significant that is.
Moly steel also has increased tensile strength. For that reason it is the steel of choice to build high-rise buildings, especially super hi-rises.
Will the use of this guarantee no problems ever? No. But people need to appreciate how the science has advanced. 40 year pipelines are a worry. In my opinion the variables should be tightened on them, and parts replaced with high priority.
Compared to Shipping and especially trucking, pipelines are incomparably more safe. However, one points out, while it is safer to fly in a jetliner than cross the street... but then again people are hit crossing the street occasionally--and if that happens to you, probability is little comfort.
G&M article reporting Jack Layton seeks a compromise with the PM.
Jason Ray said: "This isn't a coalition...
...a coaltion is when two or more parties actually govern together...
...not seek consensus on a case by case basis."
________________
I agree with you on this on Jason.
In fact this is the sort of willingness to cooperate Canadians have been wanting from Parliament.
I give Jack points on this one, and I have been a chief critic of the man.
I think most people on either side of this issue would rather some sort of middle ground or 3rd option be explored.
Most of the essential information apropos for a census is already in government data banks. I would see no problem implementing the use of it under the watchful eye of the privacy commission.
I feel quite strongly about these intrusions already. But since they are there, so long as the data is collated without my ID attached, they might as well go for it.
Many countries in Europe have gone this way... Germany is next, a fact not often reported in the media... kinda removes the sensationalism of the story I guess....
...a coaltion is when two or more parties actually govern together...
...not seek consensus on a case by case basis."
________________
I agree with you on this on Jason.
In fact this is the sort of willingness to cooperate Canadians have been wanting from Parliament.
I give Jack points on this one, and I have been a chief critic of the man.
I think most people on either side of this issue would rather some sort of middle ground or 3rd option be explored.
Most of the essential information apropos for a census is already in government data banks. I would see no problem implementing the use of it under the watchful eye of the privacy commission.
I feel quite strongly about these intrusions already. But since they are there, so long as the data is collated without my ID attached, they might as well go for it.
Many countries in Europe have gone this way... Germany is next, a fact not often reported in the media... kinda removes the sensationalism of the story I guess....
Friday, July 23, 2010
Barnsey said: "Surely I am not the only one to protest such invasive irrelevant questions?"
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential in this case,freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing private information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc--that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion:
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way there.
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential in this case,freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing private information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc--that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion:
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way there.
Barnsey said: "Surely I am not the only one to protest such invasive irrelevant questions?"
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing that information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc, that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion.
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way here.
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing that information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc, that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion.
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way here.
Canadian Deficit
Jimcanyou said: "When liberals were in we had 13billion surplus now that conservatives are in we have over 50billion deficit and growing more every day time to get rid of the conservatives before it's too late"
Yawn, in other words, when the Liberals were in they gouged us 13 billion.
Then when they were in minority, they joined with the other minorities to force the government to implement 50 billion in stimulus spending.
What irritates me when this comes up, is the NDP and Libs seem to either forget that they were clamoring for deficit stimulus spending, or they think Canadians are too stupid to remember.
I look at this set of numbers, and it would appear Canada will have a deficit of under 30 billion this year, which is an improvement of 40%, and is in line with what the government is projecting to reduce the deficit over the next few years as the economy improves.
Yawn, in other words, when the Liberals were in they gouged us 13 billion.
Then when they were in minority, they joined with the other minorities to force the government to implement 50 billion in stimulus spending.
What irritates me when this comes up, is the NDP and Libs seem to either forget that they were clamoring for deficit stimulus spending, or they think Canadians are too stupid to remember.
I look at this set of numbers, and it would appear Canada will have a deficit of under 30 billion this year, which is an improvement of 40%, and is in line with what the government is projecting to reduce the deficit over the next few years as the economy improves.
More on Census Debate
TSimba said: "as a visible minority citizen i feel marginalized by the stupid decision of Tony Clement ...he should resign immediately as he does not represent the best interests of Canada ... there is no such thing as a voluntary census unless there is an agenda to hide the nature of our ever changing Canadian society ...Tony Clement, you do not speak for me!!!"
I commiserate with you. I am a visible majority person who feels marginalized as well. I grapple with a disability.
This brings out one of the challenges of census processes in the Western world. Perhaps most pronounced in Britain, where there has been massive immigration from Eastern Europe. Apparently, the census utility is pretty much useless over there. Comparatively, Canada's immigration is more stable so it isn't as bad here.
A copy of an article by the Economist can be found on my blog here: or on their site if you are a paid customer: http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html. What is very interesting is the list of European countries dropping mandatory census'. Apparently Germany has announced they are dropping it next.
The logic goes that apparently the essential data the government needs from its citizens is already in the data banks already. They then will supplement that data by conduct polls-- sort of like political polls, on an expanded scale with an accuracy say of 99/100, if ever they want to count bedrooms or something.
Anyway... just putting out info...
I commiserate with you. I am a visible majority person who feels marginalized as well. I grapple with a disability.
This brings out one of the challenges of census processes in the Western world. Perhaps most pronounced in Britain, where there has been massive immigration from Eastern Europe. Apparently, the census utility is pretty much useless over there. Comparatively, Canada's immigration is more stable so it isn't as bad here.
A copy of an article by the Economist can be found on my blog here: or on their site if you are a paid customer: http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html. What is very interesting is the list of European countries dropping mandatory census'. Apparently Germany has announced they are dropping it next.
The logic goes that apparently the essential data the government needs from its citizens is already in the data banks already. They then will supplement that data by conduct polls-- sort of like political polls, on an expanded scale with an accuracy say of 99/100, if ever they want to count bedrooms or something.
Anyway... just putting out info...
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Friday's Census thoughts...
Let me say I would favor some sort of compromise. I had a coffee with my MP the other day. The story had just broke. I pointed out the problem relates to randomness. I don't know why no reporter gets into this.
In order for the various long forms to have significance for everyone else. That is done by an attempt at random sampling. The holy grail is the pure-raw data. Pure in that it samples people across Canada in such a way so they can do a statistical average... and infer for example the average Canadian has 2.3 bathrooms lets say. The only way you can deduce this is if the sample is random.
Here is the problem, and its one I haven't heard stats-can own yet. The sample isn't pure. Stats Can tries to make it pure, hence the mandatory aspect. How many homeless people do the census? How many migrant people perhaps with extended visas. ( The implication is that they may be on a path to citizenship, have their own house, bank accounts, jobs, etc.
How many lie in protest to the whole procedure? How many people refuse to do the census and get away with it? Jail is not enforced.
I am only taking a stab at some of the problems that impact the purity of the data.
I was surprised to read this article in The Economist: ...Gah it won't let me have it unless I subscribe.
You can see the article at http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html
In it it mentions that a number of Scandinavian countries have ceased to use a mandatory census. A very puzzling piece of info. But apparently Big brother over there is so big, that they are tracking their citizens all the time.... gah!
Apparently Germany is next...
It is going to be interesting watching this unfold.
In order for the various long forms to have significance for everyone else. That is done by an attempt at random sampling. The holy grail is the pure-raw data. Pure in that it samples people across Canada in such a way so they can do a statistical average... and infer for example the average Canadian has 2.3 bathrooms lets say. The only way you can deduce this is if the sample is random.
Here is the problem, and its one I haven't heard stats-can own yet. The sample isn't pure. Stats Can tries to make it pure, hence the mandatory aspect. How many homeless people do the census? How many migrant people perhaps with extended visas. ( The implication is that they may be on a path to citizenship, have their own house, bank accounts, jobs, etc.
How many lie in protest to the whole procedure? How many people refuse to do the census and get away with it? Jail is not enforced.
I am only taking a stab at some of the problems that impact the purity of the data.
I was surprised to read this article in The Economist: ...Gah it won't let me have it unless I subscribe.
You can see the article at http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html
In it it mentions that a number of Scandinavian countries have ceased to use a mandatory census. A very puzzling piece of info. But apparently Big brother over there is so big, that they are tracking their citizens all the time.... gah!
Apparently Germany is next...
It is going to be interesting watching this unfold.
From the Economist...
GOD is, according to the Bible, in two minds about censuses. The Book of Numbers is so named because of God’s command to Moses that he should count the Israelites in preparation for war. Years later when King David does the same thing, the Lord wastes no time in smiting him for his trouble.
Perhaps God’s ambivalence springs from uncertainty about whose side He is on. Historically, rulers liked censuses, because they enable them to conscript and tax their people. Citizens disliked them for the same reasons. But, as governments became less malevolent, an exercise designed to extract value from the populace became one whose purpose was to improve the quality of administration.
Now this centuries-old tradition is slowly coming to an end. If statisticians in Britain get their way, for instance, the census planned for next year could be the country’s last. Instead, they are considering gathering information from the vast, centralised databases held by government, such as tax records, benefit databases, electoral lists and school rolls, as well as periodic polling of a sample of the population. It is a global trend, pioneered, inevitably, in Scandinavia. Denmark has been keeping track of its citizens without a traditional census for decades; Sweden, Norway, Finland and Slovenia, among others, have similar systems. Germany will adopt the approach for its next count, also due in 2011.
There are two reasons for the change. The first is that computerisation allows statisticians to interrogate databases in a way that was not possible when information was stored on cards in filing cabinets. The second is that counting people the traditional way is getting harder, and less useful. Rising labour mobility and the accelerating pace of societal change mean that information goes stale more quickly than ever. Since its last census in 2001, for instance, Britain has seen hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrive from new eastern European members of the EU. Local governments complain that out-of-date information ignores these newcomers, leaving schools overcrowded, budgets stretched and houses scarce. At the same time, filling in the forms has become more onerous: what started as a short questionnaire about who lived where has turned into an inquisition about everything from toilet and car ownership to race and religion. As a result, compliance rates are falling. The decline of deference raises worries about reliability: last time, when asked about their religious affiliation, 0.7% of Britons replied that they were Jedi Knights.
Give the shoes a rest
There is some resistance to change. America’s constitution requires it to conduct a shoe-leather census, which is why this year’s effort is going to cost it over $11 billion. The Finns, by contrast, spent about €1m ($1.2m) on their last one. That’s about $36 per head in America and 20 cents in Finland. Historians, and some statisticians, bemoan the impending loss of a continuous data series that, in some cases, goes back over two centuries. Civil libertarians with an eye on the historic misuse of census data—by everyone from the Nazis to the Americans, who rounded up and imprisoned Japanese-Americans in the second world war—worry about the growth of government-by-database, and fret that a database census is another step on the road to an omniscient state.
Government misuse of data is an ever-growing danger, certainly, but one to be combated by strong rules on freedom of information and eternal vigilance, not anachronistic and increasingly inaccurate headcounts. The prize is the goal of every sage and seer: self-knowledge. (And, more prosaically, better and cheaper government.)
Perhaps God’s ambivalence springs from uncertainty about whose side He is on. Historically, rulers liked censuses, because they enable them to conscript and tax their people. Citizens disliked them for the same reasons. But, as governments became less malevolent, an exercise designed to extract value from the populace became one whose purpose was to improve the quality of administration.
Now this centuries-old tradition is slowly coming to an end. If statisticians in Britain get their way, for instance, the census planned for next year could be the country’s last. Instead, they are considering gathering information from the vast, centralised databases held by government, such as tax records, benefit databases, electoral lists and school rolls, as well as periodic polling of a sample of the population. It is a global trend, pioneered, inevitably, in Scandinavia. Denmark has been keeping track of its citizens without a traditional census for decades; Sweden, Norway, Finland and Slovenia, among others, have similar systems. Germany will adopt the approach for its next count, also due in 2011.
There are two reasons for the change. The first is that computerisation allows statisticians to interrogate databases in a way that was not possible when information was stored on cards in filing cabinets. The second is that counting people the traditional way is getting harder, and less useful. Rising labour mobility and the accelerating pace of societal change mean that information goes stale more quickly than ever. Since its last census in 2001, for instance, Britain has seen hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrive from new eastern European members of the EU. Local governments complain that out-of-date information ignores these newcomers, leaving schools overcrowded, budgets stretched and houses scarce. At the same time, filling in the forms has become more onerous: what started as a short questionnaire about who lived where has turned into an inquisition about everything from toilet and car ownership to race and religion. As a result, compliance rates are falling. The decline of deference raises worries about reliability: last time, when asked about their religious affiliation, 0.7% of Britons replied that they were Jedi Knights.
Give the shoes a rest
There is some resistance to change. America’s constitution requires it to conduct a shoe-leather census, which is why this year’s effort is going to cost it over $11 billion. The Finns, by contrast, spent about €1m ($1.2m) on their last one. That’s about $36 per head in America and 20 cents in Finland. Historians, and some statisticians, bemoan the impending loss of a continuous data series that, in some cases, goes back over two centuries. Civil libertarians with an eye on the historic misuse of census data—by everyone from the Nazis to the Americans, who rounded up and imprisoned Japanese-Americans in the second world war—worry about the growth of government-by-database, and fret that a database census is another step on the road to an omniscient state.
Government misuse of data is an ever-growing danger, certainly, but one to be combated by strong rules on freedom of information and eternal vigilance, not anachronistic and increasingly inaccurate headcounts. The prize is the goal of every sage and seer: self-knowledge. (And, more prosaically, better and cheaper government.)
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
On the Canadian Census
The ideal census involves a purely random sample. I believe this is why the director resigned. A voluntary statistics gathering from a statistical point of view violates randomness. The problem with the Canadian census is that purity. As was pointed out by
Anthony in Ontario, no matter how "mandatory" was every Canadians requirement to provide census data, you can never get pure compliance.
Particularly when it comes to certain people-groups like the homeless, with almost 100% non-compliance the whole purity of the process is statistically corrupted. The homeless remain invisible to Canadian society as a result.
Then there is the people-group of the stubborn, who will go to jail rather than comply with such a violation of free speech. How many of those long forms are swept under the carpet? Then there are people who live in such remote places, they are never touched by the census taker. There are people in Canada like that. Then there are the ex-pats. Some live outside Canada for 6 months less a day. They may be missed. I could go on.
While statisticians say that they can calculate out the anomalies of the impurity, they really can't without becoming a problem--tinkering with what is supposed to be pure data. That's the thing about samples, you touch them to allow for this or that, and they are not the same. People and companies who push for the census don't want to hear about that.
If this whole census phenomena is driven by big business, how did that happen? Why does the government need to know how many toilets I have? Big business might want to calculate toilet paper... but why should that be pried from Canadians under threat of censure?
Ironically then, wouldn't the government quite rightly be standing up to big business? Shhh....big business doesn't want to hear that stats-can's data is "massaged".
For me, I wish we could dump the whole thing. Its an invasion of my privacy that I and many other Canadians deeply resent.
Anthony in Ontario, no matter how "mandatory" was every Canadians requirement to provide census data, you can never get pure compliance.
Particularly when it comes to certain people-groups like the homeless, with almost 100% non-compliance the whole purity of the process is statistically corrupted. The homeless remain invisible to Canadian society as a result.
Then there is the people-group of the stubborn, who will go to jail rather than comply with such a violation of free speech. How many of those long forms are swept under the carpet? Then there are people who live in such remote places, they are never touched by the census taker. There are people in Canada like that. Then there are the ex-pats. Some live outside Canada for 6 months less a day. They may be missed. I could go on.
While statisticians say that they can calculate out the anomalies of the impurity, they really can't without becoming a problem--tinkering with what is supposed to be pure data. That's the thing about samples, you touch them to allow for this or that, and they are not the same. People and companies who push for the census don't want to hear about that.
If this whole census phenomena is driven by big business, how did that happen? Why does the government need to know how many toilets I have? Big business might want to calculate toilet paper... but why should that be pried from Canadians under threat of censure?
Ironically then, wouldn't the government quite rightly be standing up to big business? Shhh....big business doesn't want to hear that stats-can's data is "massaged".
For me, I wish we could dump the whole thing. Its an invasion of my privacy that I and many other Canadians deeply resent.
CBC's blog on catching the G20 vandals.
The thing that galls me the most are the pro-Iranians who feel vindicated now, because see, Canada has problems too. One poster today said Iran only arrested 60 protesters post election, where Canada arrested 1000.
That bothers me. And when I point out that 60 was the number of protesters that were executed... they say sure sure.
Then I reflect that of the thousands who came and used their constitutional right of free speech, I thank God--no matter how much vandalism that happened, no one died; and no one has to fear execution.
Then I am very very glad to be a Canadian
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/21/g20-protests-pictures653.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uMmM30j5
That bothers me. And when I point out that 60 was the number of protesters that were executed... they say sure sure.
Then I reflect that of the thousands who came and used their constitutional right of free speech, I thank God--no matter how much vandalism that happened, no one died; and no one has to fear execution.
Then I am very very glad to be a Canadian
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/21/g20-protests-pictures653.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uMmM30j5
More Canadian debate on the F-35
Last Week the NY Times announced that Lockheed Martin intends to spend 10 billion dollars to the 100+ Canadian companies which work on this plane.
Canada's 65 planes is pathetically small, when you consider the US, 10 times our size is buying 2000. Since the total number of planes is projected to be 3000, it seems few Canadians appreciate Canadian industry is supplying parts for all of them.
Finally, under the Liberal watch there was a competitive bidding process. Boeing lost, Lockheed won.
So we have ordered our Big Mac, agreed to pay the price, all that's left is the tray to put them on, and pay the nice person, and get our change back.
Pay 9 billion get 10 back. Sounds like a deal to me. So what if repair for the 40 year life of the plane costs 7 billion...40 years people!
Henry Ford used to say he could give away his Model T, and make enough money on the parts alone. Lockheed is in effect, paying us a Billion dollars to take these planes and look after them.
I say again: Sounds like a deal to me....
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/07/liberals-want-kevin-page-to-go-all-maverick-on-the-f-35-fighter-contract.html
Canada's 65 planes is pathetically small, when you consider the US, 10 times our size is buying 2000. Since the total number of planes is projected to be 3000, it seems few Canadians appreciate Canadian industry is supplying parts for all of them.
Finally, under the Liberal watch there was a competitive bidding process. Boeing lost, Lockheed won.
So we have ordered our Big Mac, agreed to pay the price, all that's left is the tray to put them on, and pay the nice person, and get our change back.
Pay 9 billion get 10 back. Sounds like a deal to me. So what if repair for the 40 year life of the plane costs 7 billion...40 years people!
Henry Ford used to say he could give away his Model T, and make enough money on the parts alone. Lockheed is in effect, paying us a Billion dollars to take these planes and look after them.
I say again: Sounds like a deal to me....
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/07/liberals-want-kevin-page-to-go-all-maverick-on-the-f-35-fighter-contract.html
Confronting Anti-Semitism
VeryBig Said:
"The last I hear the Aspers were jewish"
So? Your posting in the Globe and Mail, owned by BCE, not the National Post. Is that a Jewish company too then?
See, this is what I am saying? When ever someone says the media is controlled by the Jews, he is instantly lying and it is easy to verify. Anyone with half a brain can check it. So, what is it? Do you guys think Canadians too stupid? Or perhaps you feel that your lies are too slick to be checked?
Yes Canada has free speech. Anyone in Canada can use it to tell however many lies he wants. So long as they don't promote hatred.
While it is true that Arabs maybe Semitic, the Semitic people include ancient Akkadians, Chaldeans, and Baysian dialects C 5750BCE. And any good Muslim will know by the Koran that Ishmael was born to Abraham around 1800BCE. Now check my math but that looks like 3900 years after the rise of identifiable Semites. So while Arabs are Semites, they are a branch of the Semitic lingual tree.
While there are denotations which are definitive and precise, there is a common usage of the term: semite/anti-semite that is used to slur Jewish people.
It was used in this sense in 1879 by: German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry". Using ideas of race and nationalism"
Since then, this idea espoused in this writing has cast a shadow and a pall on Western Civilization, for in the psyche of the West, anti-semitism refers to anti-jewish concepts.
That said, I would oppose hatred of Arabs under the umbrella of antisemitism so long as they don't mind being grouped with the Jews
"The last I hear the Aspers were jewish"
So? Your posting in the Globe and Mail, owned by BCE, not the National Post. Is that a Jewish company too then?
See, this is what I am saying? When ever someone says the media is controlled by the Jews, he is instantly lying and it is easy to verify. Anyone with half a brain can check it. So, what is it? Do you guys think Canadians too stupid? Or perhaps you feel that your lies are too slick to be checked?
Yes Canada has free speech. Anyone in Canada can use it to tell however many lies he wants. So long as they don't promote hatred.
While it is true that Arabs maybe Semitic, the Semitic people include ancient Akkadians, Chaldeans, and Baysian dialects C 5750BCE. And any good Muslim will know by the Koran that Ishmael was born to Abraham around 1800BCE. Now check my math but that looks like 3900 years after the rise of identifiable Semites. So while Arabs are Semites, they are a branch of the Semitic lingual tree.
While there are denotations which are definitive and precise, there is a common usage of the term: semite/anti-semite that is used to slur Jewish people.
It was used in this sense in 1879 by: German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry". Using ideas of race and nationalism"
Since then, this idea espoused in this writing has cast a shadow and a pall on Western Civilization, for in the psyche of the West, anti-semitism refers to anti-jewish concepts.
That said, I would oppose hatred of Arabs under the umbrella of antisemitism so long as they don't mind being grouped with the Jews
Anti-Semitic comments response
VeryBigBig said: "North America's press is controlled by the jews.
That's true in the US and it certainly true in Canada."
Ok you idiots get this straight Canada doesn't stand for hatred.
It doesn't stand for holocaust deniers. Unlike you, we were there, our boots in their blood: trying to cover mass graves. That was before you or your family immigrated here.
This sort of hatred and out and out lies has no place here. And that is why these "reporters" were fired.
Hate speech is criminal in Canada. Your posts border it. I am not Jewish, nor in the employ of any entity. Why don't you go post on the boards of Press TV (Iran's pseudo news broadcaster.) They like your hatred there.
Your anti-Semitic rants spew ridiculous none-sense not realizing I suppose that any Canadian can check ownership of any media outlet.
You like Islamic countries so much go back there. Your speech has no place here.
That's true in the US and it certainly true in Canada."
Ok you idiots get this straight Canada doesn't stand for hatred.
It doesn't stand for holocaust deniers. Unlike you, we were there, our boots in their blood: trying to cover mass graves. That was before you or your family immigrated here.
This sort of hatred and out and out lies has no place here. And that is why these "reporters" were fired.
Hate speech is criminal in Canada. Your posts border it. I am not Jewish, nor in the employ of any entity. Why don't you go post on the boards of Press TV (Iran's pseudo news broadcaster.) They like your hatred there.
Your anti-Semitic rants spew ridiculous none-sense not realizing I suppose that any Canadian can check ownership of any media outlet.
You like Islamic countries so much go back there. Your speech has no place here.
In response to US critique
I don't care if I get 1000 thumbs down for this, but I need to say.
The US is much maligned. To the point of being ridiculous. No one would say they are perfect. But the fact is they are our close friends. I wish I could tell you antagonists to reconsider, but I doubt this will give you pause for thought.
Without the US participation in WWII we would have lost that war. Anyone who has studied history in any depth knows without the lend lease program Russia would have fallen. Stalingrad was pumping out American-designed tanks in the middle of its siege. But that is only one commodity that made a difference.
Then there was the massive supply to Brittan. Remember Dunkirk? That was a Canadian force that failed and died there. That landing provided critical intel for Normandy. D-day,
Canada provided 2 full divisions, plus several battalions under British command. The US provided 8 divisions and one core.
So as we can see, they had nothing to do with the success of the endeavor, since they only provided about 1/2 the total that landed on D-day.
Any serious historian and student of history that has a modicum of intelligence and education knows Canadians have a lot to be thankful for having the US as a friend.
I am Canadian for about 9 generations. So I am not a US shill. I just want to be able to call a spade a spade no matter how unpopular it might be.
The US is much maligned. To the point of being ridiculous. No one would say they are perfect. But the fact is they are our close friends. I wish I could tell you antagonists to reconsider, but I doubt this will give you pause for thought.
Without the US participation in WWII we would have lost that war. Anyone who has studied history in any depth knows without the lend lease program Russia would have fallen. Stalingrad was pumping out American-designed tanks in the middle of its siege. But that is only one commodity that made a difference.
Then there was the massive supply to Brittan. Remember Dunkirk? That was a Canadian force that failed and died there. That landing provided critical intel for Normandy. D-day,
Canada provided 2 full divisions, plus several battalions under British command. The US provided 8 divisions and one core.
So as we can see, they had nothing to do with the success of the endeavor, since they only provided about 1/2 the total that landed on D-day.
Any serious historian and student of history that has a modicum of intelligence and education knows Canadians have a lot to be thankful for having the US as a friend.
I am Canadian for about 9 generations. So I am not a US shill. I just want to be able to call a spade a spade no matter how unpopular it might be.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
F-35 the right choice?
Jim Jazz said: "In terms of Arctic sovereignty, solid arguments have been made that this is not a solution to that at all. Russian fighters are well suited to take these things out of the sky"
I respect what you are saying Jim.
The Russians test-flew their tier 45 Jet the Sukoi-SU 35.jet this March. There are 3 of them. 2 never fly. They are 10 years away from production. The Mig 35 is being co-produced with India.
Canada wouldn't and probably couldn't buy the Russian planes. And, since they haven't been flying them since 2006, their stats are hard to verify. Some criticisms have been that while the stats on paper are pretty good--faster than the F-35, the soviets lag so far behind on their avionics they are really 4th gen. Just the difference in flyability gives the F-35 a huge advantage.
Canadian pilots flying the hornets are saying in wargames, its like flying into a wall. There is just no contest. So advanced are these technologies, there is nothing that can touch it. However, that said a 30-40 year life span will mean eventually others will be building something truely comparable.
I would like to see us get a handful of F-22s... but that is another story. 64 planes are really not that many when you think of Canada's size. Considering Canada is 1/10th the US by many metrics, we should be buying 200.
I respect what you are saying Jim.
The Russians test-flew their tier 45 Jet the Sukoi-SU 35.jet this March. There are 3 of them. 2 never fly. They are 10 years away from production. The Mig 35 is being co-produced with India.
Canada wouldn't and probably couldn't buy the Russian planes. And, since they haven't been flying them since 2006, their stats are hard to verify. Some criticisms have been that while the stats on paper are pretty good--faster than the F-35, the soviets lag so far behind on their avionics they are really 4th gen. Just the difference in flyability gives the F-35 a huge advantage.
Canadian pilots flying the hornets are saying in wargames, its like flying into a wall. There is just no contest. So advanced are these technologies, there is nothing that can touch it. However, that said a 30-40 year life span will mean eventually others will be building something truely comparable.
I would like to see us get a handful of F-22s... but that is another story. 64 planes are really not that many when you think of Canada's size. Considering Canada is 1/10th the US by many metrics, we should be buying 200.
Another mindless use of the term Fascism.
Sigh: "His Fascist Ministerial regime in the meantime, has done EVERYTHING in their collective power thus far to restrict Access to Information requests... I won't even go into your lovely hand book on How to Obstruct Parliamentary Committees, or the issuance of MEPs..."
Don't you hate it when people throw around words they have no idea the meaning of?
Fascists are state-ists, not free-trade, globalists. Fascist government is government by the military not people elected to Parliament. Fascists are opposed to modernity, they don't buy F-35s on the bleeding edge of modernity in fighter jets. Fascists believe in state socialism, not free markets. Fascists are as anti Conservative as they are anti Liberal. Paxton says:"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants."
I hardly see this applying in any way to the Conservatives.
I just wish people who throw around labels, which at the beginning had shock-power in the ears of the uneducated, but now become tired slogans and the constant braying of nonsense, I wish these people would go to school, or at least learn how to use a dictionary. Sadly, terms like "fascism" which once had meaning now have little to no meaning at all: Little more than any other colloquialism one might find in the gutter of the English language.
Don't you hate it when people throw around words they have no idea the meaning of?
Fascists are state-ists, not free-trade, globalists. Fascist government is government by the military not people elected to Parliament. Fascists are opposed to modernity, they don't buy F-35s on the bleeding edge of modernity in fighter jets. Fascists believe in state socialism, not free markets. Fascists are as anti Conservative as they are anti Liberal. Paxton says:"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants."
I hardly see this applying in any way to the Conservatives.
I just wish people who throw around labels, which at the beginning had shock-power in the ears of the uneducated, but now become tired slogans and the constant braying of nonsense, I wish these people would go to school, or at least learn how to use a dictionary. Sadly, terms like "fascism" which once had meaning now have little to no meaning at all: Little more than any other colloquialism one might find in the gutter of the English language.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Mattvan,
I hear what your saying. I agree that war is always about tragedy and human suffering. But its story is told by those who survive it, and not only survive but come out as victors.
God forbid Canada would have to go to another war. But really, from Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan, we have been called to stand up and do our damndest to do what is right. The places where we have failed haunt us. Like Rwanda for example. Where the need was realized, and called for a response we were not prepared for. Understand I am not saying we would use these fighters in Rwanda, I am speaking of the fact that there are times when projecting military force will save innocent lives.
I think many of us are somewhat discouraged about Afghanistan. It seems like tyranny has the upper hand, and we wonder if the country will be able to be a healthy sovereign entity. What we do know is that on Canada's watch, Al Quieda's training camps did not prosper there. And, our troops have made a significant difference. I am reminded that during the London Blitz, England had a scant hope of victory. Canada's part in turning that darkness into victory keeps me hopeful about Afghanistan.
So where will the next war be that would require these planes? I hope its never Iran & a terrorist nuke that precipitates the next one. I hope its not N Korea leveling Seoul in a few hours. I hope its only our modest presence in the far North that requires this sort of investment. I hope...
I hear what your saying. I agree that war is always about tragedy and human suffering. But its story is told by those who survive it, and not only survive but come out as victors.
God forbid Canada would have to go to another war. But really, from Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan, we have been called to stand up and do our damndest to do what is right. The places where we have failed haunt us. Like Rwanda for example. Where the need was realized, and called for a response we were not prepared for. Understand I am not saying we would use these fighters in Rwanda, I am speaking of the fact that there are times when projecting military force will save innocent lives.
I think many of us are somewhat discouraged about Afghanistan. It seems like tyranny has the upper hand, and we wonder if the country will be able to be a healthy sovereign entity. What we do know is that on Canada's watch, Al Quieda's training camps did not prosper there. And, our troops have made a significant difference. I am reminded that during the London Blitz, England had a scant hope of victory. Canada's part in turning that darkness into victory keeps me hopeful about Afghanistan.
So where will the next war be that would require these planes? I hope its never Iran & a terrorist nuke that precipitates the next one. I hope its not N Korea leveling Seoul in a few hours. I hope its only our modest presence in the far North that requires this sort of investment. I hope...
Tax calculations...
riddler101 said: "..with $9 billion - you could make your own jobs, just think of the infrastructure you could build in the north..
remember with infrastructure, you live there you own it..
you don't live there.. you don't..
$9 billion could be spent alot better ways..
besides without the US help, you're dead in the water..
__________________________
Yesterday, the New York Times said that Lockheed-Martin expects to buy more than 10 billion dollars worth of parts from Canadian Companies. Remember there is more than 3000 of these being made, and all will require maintenance for all the 40 year expected life time.
To me its a no brainer. This deal is freaking awesome for Canada.
_______________________
We pay 9 billion and get 10 back.
The 10 we get back goes into over 100 Canadian manufacturers, who employ 1000s of well paying jobs.
Who pay 1/2 that back in federal taxes of various kinds, so now the 10 billion becomes 15 billion, after a modest accounting of ripple-effect. Even allowing that 90% of those jobs fall to Ontario and Quebec this westerner still thinks it is a great deal.
If we think we will need to spend 7 billion to maintain those planes over the next 40 years, at least 50% of that is by Canadian labourers and technicians--well paying positions that again will pay 50% in federal taxes. So we are now at 18.5 billion as the tax revenue that comes into federal coffers from a 9 billion dollar deal.
Whether your a Liberal, or especially if you are an NDP this ought to really be giving you a buzz.
Someone should tell Jack to change the NDP talking points... think of all those union jobs! Heck maybe some of them will actually break down and send the party some membership dues... could come in handy down the road.
Anyone else noticing the profoundly negative vibe coming from those quarters? EEEw who would vote for that?
remember with infrastructure, you live there you own it..
you don't live there.. you don't..
$9 billion could be spent alot better ways..
besides without the US help, you're dead in the water..
__________________________
Yesterday, the New York Times said that Lockheed-Martin expects to buy more than 10 billion dollars worth of parts from Canadian Companies. Remember there is more than 3000 of these being made, and all will require maintenance for all the 40 year expected life time.
To me its a no brainer. This deal is freaking awesome for Canada.
_______________________
We pay 9 billion and get 10 back.
The 10 we get back goes into over 100 Canadian manufacturers, who employ 1000s of well paying jobs.
Who pay 1/2 that back in federal taxes of various kinds, so now the 10 billion becomes 15 billion, after a modest accounting of ripple-effect. Even allowing that 90% of those jobs fall to Ontario and Quebec this westerner still thinks it is a great deal.
If we think we will need to spend 7 billion to maintain those planes over the next 40 years, at least 50% of that is by Canadian labourers and technicians--well paying positions that again will pay 50% in federal taxes. So we are now at 18.5 billion as the tax revenue that comes into federal coffers from a 9 billion dollar deal.
Whether your a Liberal, or especially if you are an NDP this ought to really be giving you a buzz.
Someone should tell Jack to change the NDP talking points... think of all those union jobs! Heck maybe some of them will actually break down and send the party some membership dues... could come in handy down the road.
Anyone else noticing the profoundly negative vibe coming from those quarters? EEEw who would vote for that?
New York times the t35, and 10 billion reasons.
Yesterday, the New York Times said that Lockheed-Martin expects to buy more than 10 billion dollars worth of parts from Canadian Companies. Remember there is more than 3000 of these being made, and all will require maintenance for all the 40 year expected life time.
To me its a no brainer. This deal is freaking awesome for Canada.
When you want to buy a Chevrolet you can pick one up from any dealer. But if you want a Lamborghini, you place an order from the factory, and THEY tell you the price.
To me its a no brainer. This deal is freaking awesome for Canada.
When you want to buy a Chevrolet you can pick one up from any dealer. But if you want a Lamborghini, you place an order from the factory, and THEY tell you the price.
Bunk Detector said: "Oh look, another Israelofascist feigning objectivity by insisting the world revolves around her/him. Whatever."
Man, don't get your panties in a twist. Go take a Midol. I have made a few posts tonight. Go ahead and read back a few pages.. I always try to do that before I open my Yap.
I made no self-centered world revolves around me statements all night. I haven't once cut and pasted from the site of a political party. I haven't once labeled, called down, insulted, denigrated one person... until you posted this trash.
I was asked a question of a potential situation we might need F-35s to answer. There are other scenarios than this one. There is the fact that Russian bombers are constantly probing Canadian Air-space. Yeah post cold war, its not like we suspect they are carrying nukes, they might be, but its clear they are pretty much testing reaction times. How quickly we can scramble and be on scene. If we didn't scramble... it might not be a dire thing. But if we habitually ignored them, they would be in Canada's airspace, landing on the ice pack on this side of the pole, all to enforce their territorial claim. There are politicians that down play this, they may be right they may be wrong.
But whatever we do, if we are having our boys fly planes, lets remember the expiry dates on these things.
And lets hope for the best diplomacy can accomplish, despite the shadow of Nevil Chamberlain.
Oh, on Iran... I wouldn't have said that if I didn't have a close friend in the US military who says they are training very hard for Iran. Go figure. Keep your racism to yourself.
Man, don't get your panties in a twist. Go take a Midol. I have made a few posts tonight. Go ahead and read back a few pages.. I always try to do that before I open my Yap.
I made no self-centered world revolves around me statements all night. I haven't once cut and pasted from the site of a political party. I haven't once labeled, called down, insulted, denigrated one person... until you posted this trash.
I was asked a question of a potential situation we might need F-35s to answer. There are other scenarios than this one. There is the fact that Russian bombers are constantly probing Canadian Air-space. Yeah post cold war, its not like we suspect they are carrying nukes, they might be, but its clear they are pretty much testing reaction times. How quickly we can scramble and be on scene. If we didn't scramble... it might not be a dire thing. But if we habitually ignored them, they would be in Canada's airspace, landing on the ice pack on this side of the pole, all to enforce their territorial claim. There are politicians that down play this, they may be right they may be wrong.
But whatever we do, if we are having our boys fly planes, lets remember the expiry dates on these things.
And lets hope for the best diplomacy can accomplish, despite the shadow of Nevil Chamberlain.
Oh, on Iran... I wouldn't have said that if I didn't have a close friend in the US military who says they are training very hard for Iran. Go figure. Keep your racism to yourself.
Why arm the West?
Winglet said: "Alethia - I don't disagree with you, but what world are we living in? Unless insurgents in Afghanistan all of a sudden get a hold of Iran's decrepit F-14 fleet, Canadian pilots aren't and won't be facing any air to air threats (assuming they are deployed overseas at all). The issue at hand, at least in the scope of future conflicts, will be the ability to deliver standoff munitions quickly, accurately and effectively. F-35 fits the bill. "
____________________
This is a most excellent question.
Most western leaders believe the next war will be with Iran. It doesn't seem well reported just to what extent Iran exports terrorism.
Consider Iran's immediate response to the tragic bombing at a Shiite mosque. If you have studied criminology, you might recall the subject of "The adequate test for truth" There are a number of them. If you are interviewing a murder suspect you will be watching for cues that indicate truth. A sudden blurting out another person as a murdering is one of them.
I believe that is what we witnessed.
Iran's immediately blaming the USA for that bombing-with no proof is very telling. It is a classic cue that the reason it jumps to such conclusions is and indication that it is engaged in that same activity.
The primary difference between Iran and the west, is that we need to see the evidence before drawing a conclusion.
Anyway I have got off track somewhat.
If the posit is true that Iran is the key terrorist state in the world;
and if is true that it is building an atomic bomb, it will be a very grave moment for the world.
Iran's constant rant declaring they will wipe Israel from the face of the earth, is being taken seriously.
For the terrorist state with a nuclear weapon will use it. Why?
Because its sense of value for human life is so low, the temptation cannot be resisted.
A nuke at Tel Aviv, and all hell will break loose. China will come running to try to shield Iran, but it will be a very very bloody day.
God Forbid.
____________________
This is a most excellent question.
Most western leaders believe the next war will be with Iran. It doesn't seem well reported just to what extent Iran exports terrorism.
Consider Iran's immediate response to the tragic bombing at a Shiite mosque. If you have studied criminology, you might recall the subject of "The adequate test for truth" There are a number of them. If you are interviewing a murder suspect you will be watching for cues that indicate truth. A sudden blurting out another person as a murdering is one of them.
I believe that is what we witnessed.
Iran's immediately blaming the USA for that bombing-with no proof is very telling. It is a classic cue that the reason it jumps to such conclusions is and indication that it is engaged in that same activity.
The primary difference between Iran and the west, is that we need to see the evidence before drawing a conclusion.
Anyway I have got off track somewhat.
If the posit is true that Iran is the key terrorist state in the world;
and if is true that it is building an atomic bomb, it will be a very grave moment for the world.
Iran's constant rant declaring they will wipe Israel from the face of the earth, is being taken seriously.
For the terrorist state with a nuclear weapon will use it. Why?
Because its sense of value for human life is so low, the temptation cannot be resisted.
A nuke at Tel Aviv, and all hell will break loose. China will come running to try to shield Iran, but it will be a very very bloody day.
God Forbid.
Friday, July 16, 2010
F-35 vs the competition.
Will_M said: yeh, but dave, you have not addressed my point: there are faster more agile fighters available
_______________
It is interesting studying the various 5th generation planes in the world today. The Euro-fighter, which you might be alluding to is slightly faster at top end. It has a longer range and smaller size, but smaller payload. The Russian Mig-35, is bigger and faster, a twin engine, and larger payload. Problem is if they are in production, Canada would not be permitted to buy it. The Russians will not allow their technology so close to the US. That's ok of course, the same applies to the F-35.
But even if they would sell it to us, it really is a 4th gen plane with a face-lift. The technology just isn't comparable. It doesn't matter how fast your top speed is when your enemy launches a missile at you from 40 miles away. You are dust and haven't even seen him on your radar screen.
The clincher is the vertical take off and landing. Many nations laugh at Canada because we don't even have an air-craft carrier. As was discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan, runways are crucial to air superiority, and the very survival of your forces. They will always be needed to land big transport planes, but vertical take off and landing allows you to refuel in so many places, there is no way the enemy could find all your sites. Refuel vehicles can drive way out in the desert one hour and a warehouse district two hours later.
Then there is the issue of safety. One of the most impressive things about this aircraft is that it virtually flies itself. No struggling with the stick, No levers, not 49 toggles to be switched in correct order. In a dogfight, its the avionics that will bring this plane on top. Russian jets are very good. Their biggest problem, is their avionics. If they are fighting with the stick, its easy for you to slide behind him in a dog fight.
_______________
It is interesting studying the various 5th generation planes in the world today. The Euro-fighter, which you might be alluding to is slightly faster at top end. It has a longer range and smaller size, but smaller payload. The Russian Mig-35, is bigger and faster, a twin engine, and larger payload. Problem is if they are in production, Canada would not be permitted to buy it. The Russians will not allow their technology so close to the US. That's ok of course, the same applies to the F-35.
But even if they would sell it to us, it really is a 4th gen plane with a face-lift. The technology just isn't comparable. It doesn't matter how fast your top speed is when your enemy launches a missile at you from 40 miles away. You are dust and haven't even seen him on your radar screen.
The clincher is the vertical take off and landing. Many nations laugh at Canada because we don't even have an air-craft carrier. As was discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan, runways are crucial to air superiority, and the very survival of your forces. They will always be needed to land big transport planes, but vertical take off and landing allows you to refuel in so many places, there is no way the enemy could find all your sites. Refuel vehicles can drive way out in the desert one hour and a warehouse district two hours later.
Then there is the issue of safety. One of the most impressive things about this aircraft is that it virtually flies itself. No struggling with the stick, No levers, not 49 toggles to be switched in correct order. In a dogfight, its the avionics that will bring this plane on top. Russian jets are very good. Their biggest problem, is their avionics. If they are fighting with the stick, its easy for you to slide behind him in a dog fight.
When I think of Canada and the US, I usually employ the 10% rule. Canada's population is roughly 10% of the US. Historically, government spending is 10%, the deficit and so on.
The 10% rule doesn't work anymore. The US stimulus spending wasn't 10 times ours it was 100 times! 1.5 trillion dollar deficit down there this year. To apply the 10% rule our stimulus spending would have to be 150 billion, rather than the sub 40s.
They ordered 2,000 planes! Gah!
We ordered 65. The 10% rule would have meant we bought 200 planes instead. Of course Canadian military spending is infinitesimal per capita by comparison.
_______________________
And to all my NDP friends who are towing the party line tonight. Tell Jack Layton, that there is 10 billion dollars heading towards his union buddies. Maybe they will cough up a bit more next election.
The 10% rule doesn't work anymore. The US stimulus spending wasn't 10 times ours it was 100 times! 1.5 trillion dollar deficit down there this year. To apply the 10% rule our stimulus spending would have to be 150 billion, rather than the sub 40s.
They ordered 2,000 planes! Gah!
We ordered 65. The 10% rule would have meant we bought 200 planes instead. Of course Canadian military spending is infinitesimal per capita by comparison.
_______________________
And to all my NDP friends who are towing the party line tonight. Tell Jack Layton, that there is 10 billion dollars heading towards his union buddies. Maybe they will cough up a bit more next election.
Do we have to go through this again?
ALL the parties of Canada agreed to do deficit spending to stimulate the economy from 2009 to 2010. Funny, I don't think the year is up yet.
What I find interesting and novel is the way the stimulus comes to us. First of all, let me admit I have a CPP disability pension, so when I say this, I am not tarring the underclass of which I am a part.
Usually, when the Liberals were in power, and they wanted to spend a bunch of extra tax money in our direction, we would get a nice cheque that we could go spend on some pizza and some beer.
But this way, where the money goes to people employed building infrastructure, or fake lakes for that matter, but it goes to working people. If the Jets are an extension of deficit stimulus spending,we spend 9 billion, and 10 billion comes back to Canadian industry, which employs working people. Its really kinda cool if you think about it. Because instead of just going down the drain, or fluffing Molson's empty pockets (sic)we haven't calculated the ripple effect into the equation.
ALL the parties of Canada agreed to do deficit spending to stimulate the economy from 2009 to 2010. Funny, I don't think the year is up yet.
What I find interesting and novel is the way the stimulus comes to us. First of all, let me admit I have a CPP disability pension, so when I say this, I am not tarring the underclass of which I am a part.
Usually, when the Liberals were in power, and they wanted to spend a bunch of extra tax money in our direction, we would get a nice cheque that we could go spend on some pizza and some beer.
But this way, where the money goes to people employed building infrastructure, or fake lakes for that matter, but it goes to working people. If the Jets are an extension of deficit stimulus spending,we spend 9 billion, and 10 billion comes back to Canadian industry, which employs working people. Its really kinda cool if you think about it. Because instead of just going down the drain, or fluffing Molson's empty pockets (sic)we haven't calculated the ripple effect into the equation.
The f-35 economy
Do we have to go through this again?
ALL the parties of Canada agreed to do deficit spending to stimulate the economy from 2009 to 2010. Funny, I don't think the year is up yet.
What I find interesting and novel is the way the stimulus comes to us. First of all, let me admit I have a CPP disability pension, so when I say this, I am not tarring the underclass of which I am a part.
Usually, when the Liberals were in power, and they wanted to spend a bunch of extra tax money in our direction, we would get a nice cheque that we could go spend on some pizza and some beer.
But this way, where the money goes to people employed building infrastructure, or fake lakes for that matter, but it goes to working people. If the Jets are an extension of deficit stimulus spending,we spend 9 billion, and 10 billion comes back to Canadian industry, which employs working people. Its really kinda cool if you think about it. Because instead of just going down the drain, or fluffing Molson's empty pockets (sic)we haven't calculated the ripple effect into the equation.
ALL the parties of Canada agreed to do deficit spending to stimulate the economy from 2009 to 2010. Funny, I don't think the year is up yet.
What I find interesting and novel is the way the stimulus comes to us. First of all, let me admit I have a CPP disability pension, so when I say this, I am not tarring the underclass of which I am a part.
Usually, when the Liberals were in power, and they wanted to spend a bunch of extra tax money in our direction, we would get a nice cheque that we could go spend on some pizza and some beer.
But this way, where the money goes to people employed building infrastructure, or fake lakes for that matter, but it goes to working people. If the Jets are an extension of deficit stimulus spending,we spend 9 billion, and 10 billion comes back to Canadian industry, which employs working people. Its really kinda cool if you think about it. Because instead of just going down the drain, or fluffing Molson's empty pockets (sic)we haven't calculated the ripple effect into the equation.
NDP shills shrill about F-35
Do we have to go through this again?
ALL the parties of Canada agreed to do deficit spending to stimulate the economy from 2009 to 2010. Funny, I don't think the year is up yet.
What I find interesting and novel is the way the stimulus comes to us. First of all, let me admit I have a CPP disability pension, so when I say this, I am not tarring the underclass of which I am a part.
Usually, when the Liberals were in power, and they wanted to spend a bunch of extra tax money in our direction, we would get a nice cheque that we could go spend on some pizza and some beer.
But this way, where the money goes to people employed building infrastructure, or fake lakes for that matter, but it goes to working people. If the Jets are an extension of deficit stimulus spending,we spend 9 billion, and 10 billion comes back to Canadian industry, which employs working people. Its really kinda cool if you think about it. Because instead of just going down the drain, or fluffing Molson's empty pockets (sic)we haven't calculated the ripple effect into the equation.
ALL the parties of Canada agreed to do deficit spending to stimulate the economy from 2009 to 2010. Funny, I don't think the year is up yet.
What I find interesting and novel is the way the stimulus comes to us. First of all, let me admit I have a CPP disability pension, so when I say this, I am not tarring the underclass of which I am a part.
Usually, when the Liberals were in power, and they wanted to spend a bunch of extra tax money in our direction, we would get a nice cheque that we could go spend on some pizza and some beer.
But this way, where the money goes to people employed building infrastructure, or fake lakes for that matter, but it goes to working people. If the Jets are an extension of deficit stimulus spending,we spend 9 billion, and 10 billion comes back to Canadian industry, which employs working people. Its really kinda cool if you think about it. Because instead of just going down the drain, or fluffing Molson's empty pockets (sic)we haven't calculated the ripple effect into the equation.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The contract to purchase the F-35 is discussed on the CBC site
Opus72 writes: While the F35 is a superior plane, I do question its choice. There are some planes out there that while not as stealthy, do just as good if not better in other areas...price per plane is more than half that of the F35...
Rafale
Eurofighter
Gripen
Fulcrum F
Super Hornet
etc...
All great planes that are almost as good as the 35...
Question is, why were other planes not even looked at or is this just politics?
Cutting edge is great if you can afford it...we can't...
______________________________
I say...
When Iran goes nuclear in a few years hence, and then decides to make good on its genocidal threat and drops a couple on Tel Aviv, Do we want our boys flying planes that are easily shot out of the sky? In a dog fight with one of these other alternative fighters, do you want them to be merely equal to the competition--or superior?
The same bleeding hearts that say they are concerned about the death of our men and women in Afghanistan are the same sort that sent them there in jeeps and poor equipment. They are the same sort that are complaining because Canada has had enough of the second-rate treatment of our forces, and is actually doing something about it
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/15/liberals-fighter-jets.html#socialcomments#ixzz0tmIM02D4
______________________________________
Liz Wilson Wrote: "Help me to understand the thumbs down.....
are you opposed to an open bidding process for a contract of this manitude?
___________________________
Some things I know and some things I don't know...
The discussion today Liz, was more informative than the article that spawned it.
A somewhat valid analogy to answer your question would be, Canadians in our everyday life are used to shopping for everything from vegetables to cars we drive. So we are used to shop comparatively for good reason. However, imagine when you are shopping for a car, you know you want to buy a Tesla. You want to buy that car, because the most important thing to you is being green and being fast. Tesla's aren't sold at a local dealer, you have to order it directly from the factory. And the price is what the factory says it is.
When 2 pilots are in a dogfight. Lets say they are exactly equally skilled.
One fighter is just a little bit better than the other... who wins? Lets say the other fighter is carrying a nuke, do you want our boys to win?
There are some things we can compromise on. The developement of this plane is actually something Canada has participated in since Cretien. There is no better aircraft, though some might take issue with me. The closest competitor in the free world is 4 billion more than this one.
Finally, this plane generates work for over 100 Canadian companies, with a direct benefit to the Canadian economy of over 1 billion dollars. If you extend the economic window to 2040, the expected life of the plane, Canada's economy could earn much more than the price of the plane, since we profit from world-wide distribution.
Rafale
Eurofighter
Gripen
Fulcrum F
Super Hornet
etc...
All great planes that are almost as good as the 35...
Question is, why were other planes not even looked at or is this just politics?
Cutting edge is great if you can afford it...we can't...
______________________________
I say...
When Iran goes nuclear in a few years hence, and then decides to make good on its genocidal threat and drops a couple on Tel Aviv, Do we want our boys flying planes that are easily shot out of the sky? In a dog fight with one of these other alternative fighters, do you want them to be merely equal to the competition--or superior?
The same bleeding hearts that say they are concerned about the death of our men and women in Afghanistan are the same sort that sent them there in jeeps and poor equipment. They are the same sort that are complaining because Canada has had enough of the second-rate treatment of our forces, and is actually doing something about it
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/15/liberals-fighter-jets.html#socialcomments#ixzz0tmIM02D4
______________________________________
Liz Wilson Wrote: "Help me to understand the thumbs down.....
are you opposed to an open bidding process for a contract of this manitude?
___________________________
Some things I know and some things I don't know...
The discussion today Liz, was more informative than the article that spawned it.
A somewhat valid analogy to answer your question would be, Canadians in our everyday life are used to shopping for everything from vegetables to cars we drive. So we are used to shop comparatively for good reason. However, imagine when you are shopping for a car, you know you want to buy a Tesla. You want to buy that car, because the most important thing to you is being green and being fast. Tesla's aren't sold at a local dealer, you have to order it directly from the factory. And the price is what the factory says it is.
When 2 pilots are in a dogfight. Lets say they are exactly equally skilled.
One fighter is just a little bit better than the other... who wins? Lets say the other fighter is carrying a nuke, do you want our boys to win?
There are some things we can compromise on. The developement of this plane is actually something Canada has participated in since Cretien. There is no better aircraft, though some might take issue with me. The closest competitor in the free world is 4 billion more than this one.
Finally, this plane generates work for over 100 Canadian companies, with a direct benefit to the Canadian economy of over 1 billion dollars. If you extend the economic window to 2040, the expected life of the plane, Canada's economy could earn much more than the price of the plane, since we profit from world-wide distribution.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Active or Passive Environmentalists visa vis Parks.
Let me tell you, I am mad at Victoria for many reasons.
The least of which is the HST.
If Bill were not my MLA, I don't know what I would do next election. There is no way in Hades I would vote for the NDP, whatever the Liberals have done bad, they have done worse in the area of our current topic.
It was Barret who started this mess.
Cranbrook has taken a hit during this recession, forestry and lumber are dead. I think I can last till August before bankruptcy (no I am not a forester)... Its been the coal mines that have saved the economy of the East Kootenays ironically (no I don't work for Teck). The coal mines around Sparwood represent pretty much all the mining now.
I have a friend who is a biologist. He designed special retreat paths and verdant areas for wild life habit around that mine. And it has the best wildlife density in the area. He is credited with saving all the big horn sheep in the Rocky Mountain trench from extinction due to lung worm. Huge infection rate, with 100% mortality.
The eco-crazies objected to his interfering with nature. Survival of the fittest only works when there are no extinction events.
...Unless you want extinction events. As has pretty much happened to the Caribou in the area. They thought we had 20 last I heard. Take a look at the size of the geography here. But no one has ever done a mortality study. Especially not the eco nuts, because it doesn't play well with their fleecing of the unwitting. (1)
But anyone who actually lives in the mountains, knows that the grizzly & black bear populations (which has population numbers that haven't been higher since before the white man)--feed in their calving grounds. Oh but we wouldn't want that to get out. Remember the wolf cull in Fort Nelson? Too interventionist. David Spoofspooky and P@trik W@tson would get upset and say nasty things about you. But I was in those mountains 4 years later. All the animals were 4 years old or less. The Caribou were abundant to the point of being a nuisance.
Take a look at the size of the geography here. No one has ever done a mortality study. Not the eco nuts, because it doesn't play well with their fleecing of the unwitting. and Governments do no better... they would rather spend your money on more parks it seems rather than being a part of a solution.
Not only the ungulates but the entire food chain from martin, to beaver, all the way through the predator chains including grizzly bears, black bears and yes even a healthy wolf population.
Now after this rant you probably would stone me if I say I am an environmentalist. In the day we could nuke the world and destroy the planet, we need to understand we rule this world, AND not deny it. We are the pinnacle of the food chain, and pretty much exclusively have the ability to control our predation. That's the rub. I call for environmental stewardship. Not this head in the sand eastern religious, neo-Buddhist nonsense, live and let live. After all, we might come back as a flower, or plant or animal... sic
We can't do that. Because unless we are active in the ecological balance of this planet, then we are going to see extinctions as its happening now.
Parks deny this sort of intervention even if it's necessary. Worse, parks never realize that where we are we change it by our very being there. Even if we put a border around it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)