Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Liberal Hypocrisy around the Gun Registry vote.
On this one, Jack has won my respect. Considering the Liberals led the charge visa vis democracy and it's principles, especially as relates to say, the proroguing of Parliament. Considering their howl over the erosion of democracy around the G-20 event doesn't it strike anyone else there is rank hypocrisy in this? Private members bills always have had free votes in the house. It's a democratic institution and principle. This sort of vote is usually a breath of fresh air against choking partisan votes of confidence. To resort to whipping it, driving their members to vote against their conscience and against their constituents, only means the party of entitlement will stay in the woodshed for another 4 years. They have lost almost every vote west of Thunder bay.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Blogging in a Montana news paper.
Long have I been a proponent of my American cousins. Even in the face of international disdain, I was the one standing up for the US of A. I know you can stand up for yourself, but its always good to have friends.
2 months ago, CSIS (the Canadian CIA) reported that some politicians were in the sway of foreign governments. As it would in the US, it caused quite a stir. Everyone thought China, with all its spy networks on both sides of our border.
However, what has been very painful to many of us up here, is that that would actually EXACTLY apply to what happened in the secret dealings between your Governor and our Premier. I have been on the Flathead, from Moose city to points south. There is no way you guys could pull that off on your side of the border there would be gun fire in the streets.
BUT I guess you think you off-set your own pollution of the Flathead, by creating a virtual park up here.
Can anyone down there imagine how galling it must be to be a Canadian and watch the YtoY initiative play out? Take a look at the map, it intends to make a park out of Canada greater in size than the size of Texas—perhaps twice that.
Imagine what would happen if the US tried to make a giant park from Yellowstone to the Canadian border. There would be a war. So why do it up here? Because you can. And Canada I guess is like any third world country you can have your way with.
2 months ago, CSIS (the Canadian CIA) reported that some politicians were in the sway of foreign governments. As it would in the US, it caused quite a stir. Everyone thought China, with all its spy networks on both sides of our border.
However, what has been very painful to many of us up here, is that that would actually EXACTLY apply to what happened in the secret dealings between your Governor and our Premier. I have been on the Flathead, from Moose city to points south. There is no way you guys could pull that off on your side of the border there would be gun fire in the streets.
BUT I guess you think you off-set your own pollution of the Flathead, by creating a virtual park up here.
Can anyone down there imagine how galling it must be to be a Canadian and watch the YtoY initiative play out? Take a look at the map, it intends to make a park out of Canada greater in size than the size of Texas—perhaps twice that.
Imagine what would happen if the US tried to make a giant park from Yellowstone to the Canadian border. There would be a war. So why do it up here? Because you can. And Canada I guess is like any third world country you can have your way with.
"Also the cops SHOULD have gone in sooner and picked off these rabble."
The problem is we have laws in this country. You can't (or shouldn't) be arrested without committing the crime. It isn't a crime for example to have a rock in your hand. Or a gallon of gas for that matter. Unless there is evidence you plan to use something to commit crime (conspiracy). In many cases they are confiscated without arrest.
Most of these 300 were performing for live cameras. No doubt the video will form the basis for the charges brought forward by the Crown.
They should all take a bow: Stupidity upon idiocy.
Am I suggesting the police did nothing wrong? No.
Am I suggesting they didn't overstep their bounds? No. No, even though the feces, spittle, urine, rocks, curses and whatever else happened to them. They should have taken it like a **man**. They shouldn't have pushed back. But let the crowd push them where ever it wanted. It wasn't a mob after all. Right? It was just *peaceful protesters*, who wanted to sit on a world leader's lap and tell him just how unhappy they were.
The police had an impossible job.
I think it would have been more effective if the protesters had their protest on the internet, or on skype or something. It certainly would have been less costly. They wouldn't have had to pay those airplane tickets, motel room, restaurant costs. The expense! (sic) And we wouldn't have had to pay for their baby sitting.
The problem is we have laws in this country. You can't (or shouldn't) be arrested without committing the crime. It isn't a crime for example to have a rock in your hand. Or a gallon of gas for that matter. Unless there is evidence you plan to use something to commit crime (conspiracy). In many cases they are confiscated without arrest.
Most of these 300 were performing for live cameras. No doubt the video will form the basis for the charges brought forward by the Crown.
They should all take a bow: Stupidity upon idiocy.
Am I suggesting the police did nothing wrong? No.
Am I suggesting they didn't overstep their bounds? No. No, even though the feces, spittle, urine, rocks, curses and whatever else happened to them. They should have taken it like a **man**. They shouldn't have pushed back. But let the crowd push them where ever it wanted. It wasn't a mob after all. Right? It was just *peaceful protesters*, who wanted to sit on a world leader's lap and tell him just how unhappy they were.
The police had an impossible job.
I think it would have been more effective if the protesters had their protest on the internet, or on skype or something. It certainly would have been less costly. They wouldn't have had to pay those airplane tickets, motel room, restaurant costs. The expense! (sic) And we wouldn't have had to pay for their baby sitting.
G20 debate
I wonder if there were no police present what would happen? Think the crowds would stay back? If you do you are smoking something. I wonder if Al Qaeda,or any other terrorist could resist a target of opportunity like that: Take out all the infidel leadership all at one go! Back in the 1960s when the protest movement was really born, there would be speeches and chanting w/no violence "Peace Man" was the word of the day.
Back in the 1960s police presence could be minimal. There was respect for property, and protest too.
Fast forward to 2010. Start with that nonsense at the Olympics that necessitated the fencing. This created a chill. It was the Olympics of 1972. There was minimal police presence. There was no protest, but there **was** a terrorist massacre. As is often the case, host governments ever since produce high security at international events. No one wants that to happen again.
I know I am recounting what we already know. The bombings, vandalism, rock throwing, spitting, throwing feces, and urine: These sorts of things are perpetrated by, in this case, at least 300 people. These people as everyone knows, embedded themselves in the crowd. Yes, peaceful protest is a human right. But the cost to keep it as peaceful as it was was 1 billion dollars. If there were 3,000 protesters, that comes down to 333,000.00 each. Congratulations. Like it or not, that was what we had to pay for your to exercise your rights.
Ok, let me retreat a little bit. Part of that money, was dual duty. Protesters **and** Terrorists--that didn't show (20,000 police on the ground might have had something to do with it.)
Oh and references to Communist countries' freedom of speech give rise to thought they must be laughing at us. This freedom of speech thing certainly appeared to the world to have gotten out of hand. If this was the result of freedom of speech, think they would ever want this in their country? No they are saying: Yeah Tiananmen! Disgraceful.
Back in the 1960s police presence could be minimal. There was respect for property, and protest too.
Fast forward to 2010. Start with that nonsense at the Olympics that necessitated the fencing. This created a chill. It was the Olympics of 1972. There was minimal police presence. There was no protest, but there **was** a terrorist massacre. As is often the case, host governments ever since produce high security at international events. No one wants that to happen again.
I know I am recounting what we already know. The bombings, vandalism, rock throwing, spitting, throwing feces, and urine: These sorts of things are perpetrated by, in this case, at least 300 people. These people as everyone knows, embedded themselves in the crowd. Yes, peaceful protest is a human right. But the cost to keep it as peaceful as it was was 1 billion dollars. If there were 3,000 protesters, that comes down to 333,000.00 each. Congratulations. Like it or not, that was what we had to pay for your to exercise your rights.
Ok, let me retreat a little bit. Part of that money, was dual duty. Protesters **and** Terrorists--that didn't show (20,000 police on the ground might have had something to do with it.)
Oh and references to Communist countries' freedom of speech give rise to thought they must be laughing at us. This freedom of speech thing certainly appeared to the world to have gotten out of hand. If this was the result of freedom of speech, think they would ever want this in their country? No they are saying: Yeah Tiananmen! Disgraceful.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
On the EU seal ban.
I think this is an issue Canada feels quite chippy about. You got to give Mr. Harper the credit, he really does have a finger on the pulse of the nation.
Canadians even out here in the west stand with our Newfoundland brothers.
From an ecological point of view, huge escalations in seal populations cannot help but ravage the fragile cod stocks. Atlantic Canadians understand this. Proactive management is a must given the fact that already human overfishing has done so much damage already. To passively "leave it to mother nature" is an abandonment of humanity's vital stewardship of the earth.
The EU needs to understand this. When they do, the will likely listen to us.
Canadians even out here in the west stand with our Newfoundland brothers.
From an ecological point of view, huge escalations in seal populations cannot help but ravage the fragile cod stocks. Atlantic Canadians understand this. Proactive management is a must given the fact that already human overfishing has done so much damage already. To passively "leave it to mother nature" is an abandonment of humanity's vital stewardship of the earth.
The EU needs to understand this. When they do, the will likely listen to us.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
EdwardR said: Harper is a fascist.
The term Facist comes from two latin words that mean a bundle of sticks, or sticks bundled and tied together.
The etymology is important. Because recent "authorities" on the subject have such poor rigor as to be laughable.
"Fascist" Government is government by strong-men.
They may be the wealthy elitists, industrialists, militarist people in a country, but that is always the primary indicator of fascism. Now there are 2 prime ministers who in the past would fit this descriptor, including the last one. As a large shipping magnet, he would fit the wealthy industrialist descriptor. The other was non other than Trudeau who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Mr. Harper began his political career driving a beat up old Ford Fair-lain. If anything he comes from humble beginnings.
Fascists are Statists. That means that a Fascist government is anti-free trade, anti UN, anti multilateral agreements; and puts the interest of the state as its absolute raison D'etre. There are political parties in Canada who are anti-free trade... but that wouldn't be the Conservatives.
Look at the joke your #14 is. Considering Mr. Harper has governed through 3 elections with a minority government. That cannot be described as being anti-democratic. There are routine votes in the house... all the time it is in session. Including votes of confidence. A fact conveniently overlooked by the "fascist" camp. Has any party governed in successive minorities for 5 years?
Love him or hate him, but Mr. Harper's story will go into the history books as quite remarkable.
For people who love to label others they dislike is one thing but, this fascist label is really tired and needs to be put out of its misery, it just makes any reasonable discourse descend to cliche braying upon one note. As if by doing so one might look intelligent.
It was George Bernard Shaw who said that fascism has lost its meaning. It was simply overdone.
The term Facist comes from two latin words that mean a bundle of sticks, or sticks bundled and tied together.
The etymology is important. Because recent "authorities" on the subject have such poor rigor as to be laughable.
"Fascist" Government is government by strong-men.
They may be the wealthy elitists, industrialists, militarist people in a country, but that is always the primary indicator of fascism. Now there are 2 prime ministers who in the past would fit this descriptor, including the last one. As a large shipping magnet, he would fit the wealthy industrialist descriptor. The other was non other than Trudeau who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Mr. Harper began his political career driving a beat up old Ford Fair-lain. If anything he comes from humble beginnings.
Fascists are Statists. That means that a Fascist government is anti-free trade, anti UN, anti multilateral agreements; and puts the interest of the state as its absolute raison D'etre. There are political parties in Canada who are anti-free trade... but that wouldn't be the Conservatives.
Look at the joke your #14 is. Considering Mr. Harper has governed through 3 elections with a minority government. That cannot be described as being anti-democratic. There are routine votes in the house... all the time it is in session. Including votes of confidence. A fact conveniently overlooked by the "fascist" camp. Has any party governed in successive minorities for 5 years?
Love him or hate him, but Mr. Harper's story will go into the history books as quite remarkable.
For people who love to label others they dislike is one thing but, this fascist label is really tired and needs to be put out of its misery, it just makes any reasonable discourse descend to cliche braying upon one note. As if by doing so one might look intelligent.
It was George Bernard Shaw who said that fascism has lost its meaning. It was simply overdone.
Fox on Iran time bomb
Mr. Gordon does not represent Canada well. But he does represent opposition. Our Prime Minister, Mr. Harper, is hounded about every decision from these guys. Do you remember how the presidential candidates fell over each other trying to prove/assert they were Christians? In Canada, Mr. Harper is crucified daily because he has a quiet private faith.
However, that said on things military, since the Korean war Canada's military has been seriously degraded by successive Liberal Governments. Until now. Under the Liberals, Canada first showed up in Afghanistan wearing green camo, and virtually no armor. However, under Mr. Harper, who believes Canada needs to have a strong military, at least in relative terms. Canada has made huge strides. New Heilcopters, and recent the F-35, as well as ships and tanks.
We will never be the US in terms of might, but we aren't against the US. We have gone to war shoulder to shoulder with the US since the 1st World War. And in Afghanistan, we have been at war in the most dangerous Kandahar district longer than we were at war in WWII (and we were in that war quite a bit longer than the US). Canada shares many goals along side the US. On Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Korea and Iran, issues of economy and trade, democracy and freedom. I hope my American friends can hold these things in perspective. We are proximately 1/10 your size on a per capita basis, and economic size. Some have said of Canadian forces we punch above our weight. That may be true, but I for one am proud of our boys and what we have contributed literally blood sweat and tears to the same freedoms your boys are fighting for. Despite the Liberal/Socialist Wankers that come on these boards from time to time, they don't represent most of us.
However, that said on things military, since the Korean war Canada's military has been seriously degraded by successive Liberal Governments. Until now. Under the Liberals, Canada first showed up in Afghanistan wearing green camo, and virtually no armor. However, under Mr. Harper, who believes Canada needs to have a strong military, at least in relative terms. Canada has made huge strides. New Heilcopters, and recent the F-35, as well as ships and tanks.
We will never be the US in terms of might, but we aren't against the US. We have gone to war shoulder to shoulder with the US since the 1st World War. And in Afghanistan, we have been at war in the most dangerous Kandahar district longer than we were at war in WWII (and we were in that war quite a bit longer than the US). Canada shares many goals along side the US. On Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Korea and Iran, issues of economy and trade, democracy and freedom. I hope my American friends can hold these things in perspective. We are proximately 1/10 your size on a per capita basis, and economic size. Some have said of Canadian forces we punch above our weight. That may be true, but I for one am proud of our boys and what we have contributed literally blood sweat and tears to the same freedoms your boys are fighting for. Despite the Liberal/Socialist Wankers that come on these boards from time to time, they don't represent most of us.
Philosopher King said:
"Alethia: At the moment we have very strict privacy laws, such that the government cannot even share with itself many of the details.
What you're suggesting would undermine this, which is in my opinion far more invasive than an aggregated census."
____________________________
You are correct in noting that there are strictures withing government that protect privacy. Health Care and Rev. Can are examples of this.
But if Stats Can were to say to Rev. Can. How many children are there in Canada? Would Rev. Can be violating its rules to answer?
The data has already been collated in such a way that it is divorced from individuals. Rev Can, in other words, has departments that function much like Stats Can does. Why have it done it twice? Canadians are paying for it each time remember.
This would have to be implemented under the strict supervision of the privacy commission of course. I admit, I despair of thinking privacy exists in the World any more
"Alethia: At the moment we have very strict privacy laws, such that the government cannot even share with itself many of the details.
What you're suggesting would undermine this, which is in my opinion far more invasive than an aggregated census."
____________________________
You are correct in noting that there are strictures withing government that protect privacy. Health Care and Rev. Can are examples of this.
But if Stats Can were to say to Rev. Can. How many children are there in Canada? Would Rev. Can be violating its rules to answer?
The data has already been collated in such a way that it is divorced from individuals. Rev Can, in other words, has departments that function much like Stats Can does. Why have it done it twice? Canadians are paying for it each time remember.
This would have to be implemented under the strict supervision of the privacy commission of course. I admit, I despair of thinking privacy exists in the World any more
Hammer Tim said: Alethia
I think the Conservatives, will compromise with its critics: And allow Canadians to see how Britain and Germany do after dropping their national census. (Britain didn't even whimper)
===========================
Really, from Time Magazine...
Read it this time, you ignored it yesterday obviously!!
The European countries you speak of have far more intrusive information collection devices, requiring their citizens to offer information - through various sources that Canadians, of every stripe would be shocked at... and unaccepting of...
______________________________
You and I exchanged views on this yesterday.
The Nordic countries do have a more intrusive state. I suppose, with the most cctv cameras Britain is always watching. And we must be able t think something up about Germany.
I was not talking about Nordic Countries you might notice. If I were, I would have referred to Europe generally. No, what I said if you go back and re-read it, is that Canada can observe England, since it dropped it's census in the past week or two; and it can observe Germany who intends to shortly.
England is significant because of Commonwealth ties. And Germany who has rebuilt itself twice, after WWII and after the fall of wall. It has had to integrate people who were indoctrinated as socialists, and reform itself. One might think that a) Germany's socialists would want government control and public facilities, and therefore would be very upset about the change.
b) There must be some thinking intellectuals and elites who have considered this and fed into the process. The government isn't known to be low-brow.
By watching how these countries do this, we can assess if this can be accommodated in Canada.
I think the Conservatives, will compromise with its critics: And allow Canadians to see how Britain and Germany do after dropping their national census. (Britain didn't even whimper)
===========================
Really, from Time Magazine...
Read it this time, you ignored it yesterday obviously!!
The European countries you speak of have far more intrusive information collection devices, requiring their citizens to offer information - through various sources that Canadians, of every stripe would be shocked at... and unaccepting of...
______________________________
You and I exchanged views on this yesterday.
The Nordic countries do have a more intrusive state. I suppose, with the most cctv cameras Britain is always watching. And we must be able t think something up about Germany.
I was not talking about Nordic Countries you might notice. If I were, I would have referred to Europe generally. No, what I said if you go back and re-read it, is that Canada can observe England, since it dropped it's census in the past week or two; and it can observe Germany who intends to shortly.
England is significant because of Commonwealth ties. And Germany who has rebuilt itself twice, after WWII and after the fall of wall. It has had to integrate people who were indoctrinated as socialists, and reform itself. One might think that a) Germany's socialists would want government control and public facilities, and therefore would be very upset about the change.
b) There must be some thinking intellectuals and elites who have considered this and fed into the process. The government isn't known to be low-brow.
By watching how these countries do this, we can assess if this can be accommodated in Canada.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Fairness in Considering Refugees.
Paul_Toronto said: The bigotry against a whole people here is disgusting. I have seen some hate posts, often with vulgar language. But they are pulled very quickly by G&M and we thank you for doing so.
Does Canada have bigots?
Most certainly there are some, perhaps many depending on your point of view. But to sling all the people who are trying to contribute to this discussion; and who may hold an opposing view to yours; to cast them into the classification of being a bigot is wrong.
When in a debate, people start to label and vilify they other side, that is the indication they have lost-- having exhausted meaningful ideas.
But this issue isn't driven by bigotry. Its driven by fairness. Why should a boat load of people be able the push themselves to the front of the line? --The line which has **valid** refugees awaiting final processing from all around the world.
This is the travesty of the situation. Other people who's lives are legitimately at risk put on hold because 500 people were trafficked into Canada.
This has been a long-standing issue many Canadians are very angry about. This anger can exist the same time we welcome our neighbor who is Tamil, African, or Asian without suspicion or prejudice. **This** situation however because it has been definitively understood involves Tamils, creates a backlash that regrettably, may fall on innocent Tamils in Canada. Of course, if it is found that Tamil organizations have funded this crisis, paying their way, I say throw their butts in jail, or if they aren't citizens, send them packing too.
For the person who is Tamil, working hard in Canada as a Canadian, who has not elbowed their way to the front of the line. Then I think I speak for most Canadians: Welcome to Canada.
Does Canada have bigots?
Most certainly there are some, perhaps many depending on your point of view. But to sling all the people who are trying to contribute to this discussion; and who may hold an opposing view to yours; to cast them into the classification of being a bigot is wrong.
When in a debate, people start to label and vilify they other side, that is the indication they have lost-- having exhausted meaningful ideas.
But this issue isn't driven by bigotry. Its driven by fairness. Why should a boat load of people be able the push themselves to the front of the line? --The line which has **valid** refugees awaiting final processing from all around the world.
This is the travesty of the situation. Other people who's lives are legitimately at risk put on hold because 500 people were trafficked into Canada.
This has been a long-standing issue many Canadians are very angry about. This anger can exist the same time we welcome our neighbor who is Tamil, African, or Asian without suspicion or prejudice. **This** situation however because it has been definitively understood involves Tamils, creates a backlash that regrettably, may fall on innocent Tamils in Canada. Of course, if it is found that Tamil organizations have funded this crisis, paying their way, I say throw their butts in jail, or if they aren't citizens, send them packing too.
For the person who is Tamil, working hard in Canada as a Canadian, who has not elbowed their way to the front of the line. Then I think I speak for most Canadians: Welcome to Canada.
Tamil terror
Fluxed them Said: A lot of the people who say that Tamil refugees need to stay home and fight their own fight against oppression (because their problems aren't our problem)
_________________________
Hello?
So what then of those who are coming to Canada to work and earn money to terrorist causes in their homeland? And don't try to make out that didn't or doesn't happen today. Air India ring a bell?
So how many of these 500 odd people have come to Canada to do just that?
There needs to be Canadian law that only grants immigration status on Canadian soil, to those it screens. To those who's situation is somewhere between very likely to certainly to result in torture, rape, and killing. Just as we do to those in the cue from others in various parts of the world.
_________________________
Hello?
So what then of those who are coming to Canada to work and earn money to terrorist causes in their homeland? And don't try to make out that didn't or doesn't happen today. Air India ring a bell?
So how many of these 500 odd people have come to Canada to do just that?
There needs to be Canadian law that only grants immigration status on Canadian soil, to those it screens. To those who's situation is somewhere between very likely to certainly to result in torture, rape, and killing. Just as we do to those in the cue from others in various parts of the world.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
For everything there is a season and a time for everything under heaven.
There are times to balance the books, and there are times to borrow.
If borrowing needs be done, it is best that governments borrow. If an unemployed family has to borrow, the local "Lending Tree" wants 30%. Families in crisis do not borrow to buy a new car, they borrow to eat, buy a few clothes at the 2nd hand shop and do what ever they can to scrape by.
Most Canadians aren't in that place. It was appropriate for the government to borrow. Canada's economy has been lock-step with the States for probably 75 years--until now. Usually we lag behind about a year. Not this time, were that the case, Canadian housing prices could have collapsed to the 50% range enjoyed by Southern California for example.
Consider what would happen to Canadian wealth if that much equity were wiped out... It makes 50 billion in borrowing a bargain. Its the right time to borrow in situations like this. With interest rates below 1%, the pain of debt on the heads of Canadians is far less than the alternatives.
Canada's debt is about 25k/capita. In the US its almost 50k. If the Canadian government stimulus was in equal proportion to the US, the Canadian deficit would be between 130 billion and 200 billion this year. Comparably speaking the government here is far more conservative. I am worried it might be too much so.
There are times to balance the books, and there are times to borrow.
If borrowing needs be done, it is best that governments borrow. If an unemployed family has to borrow, the local "Lending Tree" wants 30%. Families in crisis do not borrow to buy a new car, they borrow to eat, buy a few clothes at the 2nd hand shop and do what ever they can to scrape by.
Most Canadians aren't in that place. It was appropriate for the government to borrow. Canada's economy has been lock-step with the States for probably 75 years--until now. Usually we lag behind about a year. Not this time, were that the case, Canadian housing prices could have collapsed to the 50% range enjoyed by Southern California for example.
Consider what would happen to Canadian wealth if that much equity were wiped out... It makes 50 billion in borrowing a bargain. Its the right time to borrow in situations like this. With interest rates below 1%, the pain of debt on the heads of Canadians is far less than the alternatives.
Canada's debt is about 25k/capita. In the US its almost 50k. If the Canadian government stimulus was in equal proportion to the US, the Canadian deficit would be between 130 billion and 200 billion this year. Comparably speaking the government here is far more conservative. I am worried it might be too much so.
Does anyone find an irony in the double-speak of the meta narrative of the media and chattering classes?
First of all, Mr Day is hacked to pieces because he referenced a **survey** done several years ago that indicated there might be a slight up tick in unreported crime. It is probably valid to criticize him given long term downward trends also noted by similar surveys over the past 10 years. It was a Stats Can **Survey (s)** that was taken as a given to be accurate and authoritative.
Secondly, the census cannot be accurate or authoritative if it is a voluntary **survey**.
Anyone get that?
First of all, Mr Day is hacked to pieces because he referenced a **survey** done several years ago that indicated there might be a slight up tick in unreported crime. It is probably valid to criticize him given long term downward trends also noted by similar surveys over the past 10 years. It was a Stats Can **Survey (s)** that was taken as a given to be accurate and authoritative.
Secondly, the census cannot be accurate or authoritative if it is a voluntary **survey**.
Anyone get that?
I am still torn about this. I am not a statistician, although I needed to employ a statistical rigor for my grad work.
There are several problems with surveys and modern cenus'. The first key goal is random sampling. It is very hard to achieve perfect random sampling. The mandatory long form attempted this through coercion. Answer it or you could go to jail. The fact that no one did go to jail is not the issue. The issue is coercion itself. Every 5th house was to under threat of jail or fines capitulate and fill the form.
I understand why it was done. Firstly, because the threat got it done. Very few people in the sample did not return a completed census form. The idea is to achieve a ubiquitous distribution of data in the sample, and there-by understand trends.
The problem is that there is an assumption at some level that the data received is accurate and true. This is an important assumption, but the intellectuals among us must admit the assumption or they cave in to intellectual dishonesty.
The classic example is the question about religious affiliation. 21, 000 people said "Jedi Knight" The purely "random sample" in itself problematic, because there is a level of resentment toward the census for what is perceived to be an intrusion of the state. Some, understand that the answers they give have a significant impact on their lives a year, or two from the moment they answer a question.
Some resent what they perceive to be an intrusion of the state. Perhaps realizing the information may impact how foreign corporations and governments view Canada. Some don't want to capitulate and give information to countries who consider us their enemies.
I am sure we could go on at length. Purity is a myth.
For what ever reason Canadians are not cooperating even under threat of jail. It is said of torture victims, they will tell the inquisitor anything they want to hear. But the truth? That is another matter.
Does that mean this is the right way to go? I don't know. I suppose, being somewhat of a contrarian, I like to ask and think about the the opposing view. I also have this kind of resistance to what ever power structure I view to be coercive. So being undecided, bring the long form back or don't it doesn't matter. If people resent the intrusiveness enough, Jedi Knights are looking...
There are several problems with surveys and modern cenus'. The first key goal is random sampling. It is very hard to achieve perfect random sampling. The mandatory long form attempted this through coercion. Answer it or you could go to jail. The fact that no one did go to jail is not the issue. The issue is coercion itself. Every 5th house was to under threat of jail or fines capitulate and fill the form.
I understand why it was done. Firstly, because the threat got it done. Very few people in the sample did not return a completed census form. The idea is to achieve a ubiquitous distribution of data in the sample, and there-by understand trends.
The problem is that there is an assumption at some level that the data received is accurate and true. This is an important assumption, but the intellectuals among us must admit the assumption or they cave in to intellectual dishonesty.
The classic example is the question about religious affiliation. 21, 000 people said "Jedi Knight" The purely "random sample" in itself problematic, because there is a level of resentment toward the census for what is perceived to be an intrusion of the state. Some, understand that the answers they give have a significant impact on their lives a year, or two from the moment they answer a question.
Some resent what they perceive to be an intrusion of the state. Perhaps realizing the information may impact how foreign corporations and governments view Canada. Some don't want to capitulate and give information to countries who consider us their enemies.
I am sure we could go on at length. Purity is a myth.
For what ever reason Canadians are not cooperating even under threat of jail. It is said of torture victims, they will tell the inquisitor anything they want to hear. But the truth? That is another matter.
Does that mean this is the right way to go? I don't know. I suppose, being somewhat of a contrarian, I like to ask and think about the the opposing view. I also have this kind of resistance to what ever power structure I view to be coercive. So being undecided, bring the long form back or don't it doesn't matter. If people resent the intrusiveness enough, Jedi Knights are looking...
Monday, August 9, 2010
8/9/2010 8:01:07 PM I think the social/fiscal conservative description is a flash in the pan. There are Liberals who could fall under the social-conservative moniker as well as conservatives who are Liberal in their social moors. Consider the classic example of the issue of Abortion. There are quite a few Liberals who voted to create legislation regarding it. Or for another oft-used example gun control. Heck there were even NDP people who voted to withdraw the long gun registry. These at least are the purview of what some call social conservationism. No the matter of profligacy is first of all anti-social-conservative. Especially if one of the definers of that "ism" is the old Protestant work ethic. Profligacy and excess is far from that proverbial tree. The issue of the Conservatives being socially vs fiscally conservative is a false one from the get-go. The matter is further magnified by some of the points you made visa vis prudent fiscal management. Conservatives by tradition should be fiscally prudent. But of course we haven't seen that since Joe Clark, or Ross Stanfield, or Dief himself. While it is true Conservatism should be marked by fiscal prudence, it is even more defined by reducing taxes and size of government. The "surplus" issue is bunk. That money was Canadian taxpayers hard earned dollars. Conservatives believe a dollar is best in the pockets of citizens instead of coalescing by the billions in government coffers--begging to be spent on some new larger government project. No more irksome a tax was and is the Gst/Hst. The 2% cut most say is roughly equal that surplus. The problem with that tax is that it taxes disproportionally the poor(albeit offset somewhat for the poorest among us). The poor spend 100% of their money on life's essentials--no pension plans, no bank accounts with much but zeroes. The middle and upper classes, spend proportionally less on consumption--never worrying about their next meal, but banking that cash in investments etc.  1  0 | ||
 Alethia | Even so, I thought when the GST was first conceived that it was good because it was a tax the rich could not avoid. So let them buy that Mercedes, so long as that tax brought in extra funds for good government. Anyway, I digress from the central issue that is again deceptive in its spin. That "surplus" was money taken from Canadian tax payers that shouldn't have been. Government should not make money on the backs of the taxpayers. It should ideally break even. When I look at the G20 nations, many of whom have debt equal to or greater than their GDP, I shudder. To be honest, and I hate to say it, the "recovery" may stutter, or fall in to what in retrospect we will say a depression. Printing presses from national banks/central reserves are going into over drive. How the heck with the US be able to pay back 50k per person PLUS interest? Unless everyone gets to cancel their debt by at least 50% of their Gdp, we are in for frightening taxation and inflation. These are the worries of conservatives, who want to conserve something for the future. | |
Canadian/US Deficit spending
Soenso, from where I sit there is more that unites you and I than divides us. Even though I might see myself a small-c conservative, I think you are correct in seeing terror exhibited in seniors. I think gated communities are a testament to that, moreso than ghettos for the wealthy. It isn't that expensive to put up a fence and gate. Many gated communities in BC offer homes well under the median prices. That isn't to say there aren't palaces either behind walls and gates, but come to think of it hasn't that always been so?
Then I am struck by the irony, we have been talking about one sort of prison with walls and gates, and then yet another.
I haven't made up my mind about the Conservative party. Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the spending. We are trying to appreciate in the times of recession, bordering on depression in some places, it is important for government to spend money for the sake of stimulus.
So when you are building roads, fiber optic networks, prisons and even fake lakes and fighter jets make no mistake that is stimulus. People were and are employed who wouldn't otherwise be so.
But as uncomfortable as I am with the spending in Canada, the US deficit is aiming at 2 trillion this year, with last week's indicator of another 800 billion for distressed mortgages. For Canada to be spending an equivalent amount per-capita, it's deficit would be in the order of 200 billion this year.
I know they have had it particularly bad there. But I can't help noticing Canada's deficit of in the 40s could be far worse if there was a "democrat" equivalent at the helm here.
Even if it is true current deficit spending in Canada is evidence of fiscal restraint, I am worried about the disparity between our monetary systems, when per capita debt in the US is almost twice ours.
Will they end up with inflation of more than 10% per anum, essentially sealing off the US from Canadian export?
It may be that we haven't spent enough in the end.
Then I am struck by the irony, we have been talking about one sort of prison with walls and gates, and then yet another.
I haven't made up my mind about the Conservative party. Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the spending. We are trying to appreciate in the times of recession, bordering on depression in some places, it is important for government to spend money for the sake of stimulus.
So when you are building roads, fiber optic networks, prisons and even fake lakes and fighter jets make no mistake that is stimulus. People were and are employed who wouldn't otherwise be so.
But as uncomfortable as I am with the spending in Canada, the US deficit is aiming at 2 trillion this year, with last week's indicator of another 800 billion for distressed mortgages. For Canada to be spending an equivalent amount per-capita, it's deficit would be in the order of 200 billion this year.
I know they have had it particularly bad there. But I can't help noticing Canada's deficit of in the 40s could be far worse if there was a "democrat" equivalent at the helm here.
Even if it is true current deficit spending in Canada is evidence of fiscal restraint, I am worried about the disparity between our monetary systems, when per capita debt in the US is almost twice ours.
Will they end up with inflation of more than 10% per anum, essentially sealing off the US from Canadian export?
It may be that we haven't spent enough in the end.
Sorenso said: "Actually I, at least, do think home invasions are always reported. Why would they not be? This is a serious crime. Home invasions are probably on the rise because there are far more predators on our streets who have nothing to lose and nothing to gain from mainstream life. These young criminals seek easy victims."
So the more serious crime the more its reported?
Tell that to Pickton's victims. Perhaps you missed my thrust about terror. I guess none of us have proper statistics, and that sort of question wouldn't have made the long form anyhow.
This is the problem with conjecture. The people on both sides of the question pointing to polls done 5 years ago to buttress their argument inevitably come short of adequate test for truth.
The idea of a 1st time criminal initiating a home invasion has happened, rarely. Usually because the perpetrator has known the victim over time he might try it. But organized gang related home invasions, if they leave anyone surviving, make it very clear they will be back if the victim reports. However, if you will read my point, the issue I point to is terror. A growing elderly population living on their own, worries more about the issue than they did 30 years ago.
People worry about thieves so they buy door locks, and car alarm, they worry about rapists, so they carry pepper spray. Neither of which are necessarily guaranteed to stop crime. Prison as well. Unless you've been there and never want to go back.
Of course we have no people in Canada who should be in jail that aren't. Right?
So the more serious crime the more its reported?
Tell that to Pickton's victims. Perhaps you missed my thrust about terror. I guess none of us have proper statistics, and that sort of question wouldn't have made the long form anyhow.
This is the problem with conjecture. The people on both sides of the question pointing to polls done 5 years ago to buttress their argument inevitably come short of adequate test for truth.
The idea of a 1st time criminal initiating a home invasion has happened, rarely. Usually because the perpetrator has known the victim over time he might try it. But organized gang related home invasions, if they leave anyone surviving, make it very clear they will be back if the victim reports. However, if you will read my point, the issue I point to is terror. A growing elderly population living on their own, worries more about the issue than they did 30 years ago.
People worry about thieves so they buy door locks, and car alarm, they worry about rapists, so they carry pepper spray. Neither of which are necessarily guaranteed to stop crime. Prison as well. Unless you've been there and never want to go back.
Of course we have no people in Canada who should be in jail that aren't. Right?
More Debate on Prisons
Soenso said, "If it were possible to give a child back her life under the circumstances you lay out, no matter what it cost it would be worth it"
"Don't you find it insulting in the face of your apparent experience that Mr. Clement talks about 'unreported crime' and seems unaware of the deeper, perhaps more legitimate, reasons and justifications for spending money on prisons? "
_____________________________
First of all thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful response. I appreciate that we can have an area of commonality on this question.
I suppose I am altruistic to some extent. I can't accept that these comments are not taken out of context to some extent. I may be wrong.
The reasons I shared with the bloggers here are the reasons we should build prisons--In My opinion.
I have had a bit of a smile cross my face on some of these posts: When it is suggested these prisons are for pot smokers and protesters. Having inhaled in my younger years, I recall the heights my paranoia could rise. (incidentally the major mental health risk with pot) But I don't think Canadian authorities are going to go after marijuana users. It is important to realize how incredibly over crowded the prisons are today. I wouldn't be surprised if after spending these billions, we could fill half those spaces to alleviate the overcrowding issue alone.
Canadians spend billions on the revolving door right now. The incredible pressure on the justice system, and on policing can't help but create enormous costs on tax payers.
So long as we budget for rehabilitation inputs in these new places, this could be very good for Canada.
Finally, forgive my crass view on politics.
One party comes to power for a while, then another. What's the probability the Conservatives will be in power in 5-7 years?
It will be the Liberals most likely given these shiny new keys. So the question is what will they do with them?
"Don't you find it insulting in the face of your apparent experience that Mr. Clement talks about 'unreported crime' and seems unaware of the deeper, perhaps more legitimate, reasons and justifications for spending money on prisons? "
_____________________________
First of all thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful response. I appreciate that we can have an area of commonality on this question.
I suppose I am altruistic to some extent. I can't accept that these comments are not taken out of context to some extent. I may be wrong.
The reasons I shared with the bloggers here are the reasons we should build prisons--In My opinion.
I have had a bit of a smile cross my face on some of these posts: When it is suggested these prisons are for pot smokers and protesters. Having inhaled in my younger years, I recall the heights my paranoia could rise. (incidentally the major mental health risk with pot) But I don't think Canadian authorities are going to go after marijuana users. It is important to realize how incredibly over crowded the prisons are today. I wouldn't be surprised if after spending these billions, we could fill half those spaces to alleviate the overcrowding issue alone.
Canadians spend billions on the revolving door right now. The incredible pressure on the justice system, and on policing can't help but create enormous costs on tax payers.
So long as we budget for rehabilitation inputs in these new places, this could be very good for Canada.
Finally, forgive my crass view on politics.
One party comes to power for a while, then another. What's the probability the Conservatives will be in power in 5-7 years?
It will be the Liberals most likely given these shiny new keys. So the question is what will they do with them?
On more Prisons.
I take exception to the denigrating comments like this one: Sorento: 35 pages and not a single constructive comment from the HCon defenders."
Here are a few, that are not talking points:
Regarding prisons: Are our prisons over-crowded?
The answer is quite obviously yes. Does over-crowding effect judges sentencing deliberations? In fact they do without question. Does overcrowding impact parole decisions? I have no personal knowledge of that, so I leave that one hanging. How does prison overcrowding effect morale of inmates? Ask Manitoba with the riots that happened there last month: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/07/22/man-stony-mountain-uprising.html and I quote: "...the riot was prompted by ***overcrowding and double-bunking*** at the prison, saying that will be part of the investigation by RCMP and an internal review by prison officials." and 5thly, Do the RCMP spend significant amounts of time re-apprehending repeat offenders? The answer there is obvious. And most important, what price would you put on giving back a child his or her life that wouldn't have been abused or raped and murdered, had the perpetrator been kept in jail?
What isn't intelligent is to sweep these issues under the carpet. To suggest by innuendo that the reason "they" build them is to make room for more prisoners like me and you. That is intellectual dishonesty. To take a complex multifaceted problem and distill it down to a sound bite, is either intellectual dishonesty or a reflection that people in this debate do not have the intelligence to have an opinion outside the NDP talking points.
Here are a few, that are not talking points:
Regarding prisons: Are our prisons over-crowded?
The answer is quite obviously yes. Does over-crowding effect judges sentencing deliberations? In fact they do without question. Does overcrowding impact parole decisions? I have no personal knowledge of that, so I leave that one hanging. How does prison overcrowding effect morale of inmates? Ask Manitoba with the riots that happened there last month: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/07/22/man-stony-mountain-uprising.html and I quote: "...the riot was prompted by ***overcrowding and double-bunking*** at the prison, saying that will be part of the investigation by RCMP and an internal review by prison officials." and 5thly, Do the RCMP spend significant amounts of time re-apprehending repeat offenders? The answer there is obvious. And most important, what price would you put on giving back a child his or her life that wouldn't have been abused or raped and murdered, had the perpetrator been kept in jail?
What isn't intelligent is to sweep these issues under the carpet. To suggest by innuendo that the reason "they" build them is to make room for more prisoners like me and you. That is intellectual dishonesty. To take a complex multifaceted problem and distill it down to a sound bite, is either intellectual dishonesty or a reflection that people in this debate do not have the intelligence to have an opinion outside the NDP talking points.
On Crime 2 Points:
1) Are prisons overcrowded? If so does that overcrowding effect release dates, jail times mandated by the judge, and probation?
2) When we have our police tracking down and rearresting repeat offenders, does that stretch resources or worse, DEFLECT resources that would better serve the public?
I think these 2 questions are the questions more-so than extending mandatory sentencing. Is the meta-narrative journalists are hung up on, mandatory sentencing? Or are my 1st 2 points simply wrong?
1) Are prisons overcrowded? If so does that overcrowding effect release dates, jail times mandated by the judge, and probation?
2) When we have our police tracking down and rearresting repeat offenders, does that stretch resources or worse, DEFLECT resources that would better serve the public?
I think these 2 questions are the questions more-so than extending mandatory sentencing. Is the meta-narrative journalists are hung up on, mandatory sentencing? Or are my 1st 2 points simply wrong?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Furor over Conservative spending
And then I look across the border. The US is about to spend 800 billion to help mortgage holders who's house values are under water.
For all intents and purposes, thats an extra trillion dollars.
That figure is 1.4 times the size of Canada's ENTIRE national debt.
If a leftist party were in power the spending situation could be a lot worse.
For all intents and purposes, thats an extra trillion dollars.
That figure is 1.4 times the size of Canada's ENTIRE national debt.
If a leftist party were in power the spending situation could be a lot worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)