3 Million is promised for a foundation in her name...
Ms Jean Greatly loved by Canada. This was a gesture of appreciation. A token. It wasn't payment, nor was it tied to a reward for her. It amounts to less than 10 cents per Canadian. But has a federal matching component for the next decade. If you think the gift too little send one appropriate, and the government will double it. That would be putting your money where your mouth is.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
What the Analists Say: Canada's GDP
http://business.financialpost.com/2010/09/30/what-the-analysts-say-canadas-gdp/
So the economy declined .1% in July. And inflation numbers look flat.
Surprise surprise. I told Mr. Carney those interest rate hikes were too soon. As if he would ever listen to the likes of me. The economy is too fragile. The rebound does not reach every corner of the economy. Businesses are still failing--unable to recover from the past 2 years.
So the economy declined .1% in July. And inflation numbers look flat.
Surprise surprise. I told Mr. Carney those interest rate hikes were too soon. As if he would ever listen to the likes of me. The economy is too fragile. The rebound does not reach every corner of the economy. Businesses are still failing--unable to recover from the past 2 years.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Cancer in Ft Mac?
I would expect that it is in those places these pollution rates are highes, since it is the source of both river contaminants and bitumen. What I want to see is the environmental review now commissioned. Few people know the care that is undertaken to keep contaminants from the system. If there is a leak from oilsands development, then show us the numbers.
I don't know how the first nations band is treated at Ft. Chip. Do they not get some sort of royalty?
Is there not some sort of set up for water sources that are clean and pure? I know there are many lakes all around that can be fished aside from Athabasca. I would have been fishing from there for the last 100 years.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
A very important piece on the birth and growth of the Canadian Debt.
As much as the die hard liberal voter want to deny the truth, the history books won't let them. It always concerns me when people remember historic events but only go back so far in history. Where do you think the debt came from before Mulroney? Our past debt was left by My Charisma himself, Trudeau, inflated by 16-20%+ interest rates in the Mulroney era. That is why I had to save this following comment from A Catherine: "I am a retired federal government employee who worked under the Trudeau government, who took Canada from a $18 billion debt left over from WW11, when he took office in 1967, & turned into a $271 billion dollar debt, created by massive out of control spending, & lack of balanced budgets the full 16 years he was in power. He grew the National Debt by 1100%. The Interest owing on that debt after he left office and Mulroney took power in 1984, was $30 billion per year which ate into the Mulroney budgets the full 8 years he was in office. Mulroney managed to pay down $42 billion down on the Trudeau debt, and balanced his budgets every year, however, the interest owing on the Trudeau debt caused him to declare deficits most of his time in power. Chretien came to power in 1993, the Trudeau debt had grown to $471 billion because of the massive interest charges on the debt. Chretien began his own spending spree in 1993 that grew the debt by another 200% by 1996, bringing the National Debt to $521 billion, before he was forced to take notice by the Bonding Agents who downgraded Canada's Read more:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/23/united-nations-canada-security-council.html#socialcomments#ixzz10NQ3jsbI
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/23/united-nations-canada-security-council.html#socialcomments#ixzz10NQ3jsbI
Monday, September 20, 2010
Dimmano's Article on Spousal stats and the Long Gun Registry
Had some trouble accessing this Rosie, didn't want to lose it by your newspaper purging it from the website: Hope its ok...
When domestic violence turns deadly in Canada, killers are far more likely to reach for a knife than a gun.
However impetuously spouse-on-spouse homicide may occur — such murders are rarely plotted before the fatal eruption of rage — the weapon of choice is usually as close to hand as a kitchen drawer.
A female, four times more often than a male the victim in spousal homicide, will probably be stabbed, not shot by a long gun, the firearm that is again at the centre of a rural-versus-urban divide over Canada’s polarizing gun registry.
These figures have remained consistent since Statistics Canada first began tracking the too-long-ignored phenomenon of domestic murder. In 1995, the year Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s government passed the new Canadian Firearms Act — with its included gun registry requirement — 71 women across the country were slain by their intimate partners, a dozen of them by a rifle or shotgun. Sixteen were knifed to death, 12 strangled, six clubbed by a blunt instrument, six shot with handguns and other lives variously extinguished by poisoning, cutting with an instrument other than a knife, or set on fire.
In 2008, the last year for which figures are available, nine women were killed by a long gun (one by a handgun, a weapon not legally licensed to most Canadian civilians, though easily obtained by street criminals seeking fire power), 15 stabbed and eight strangled.
Spousal homicide in general, whether male on female or female on male, has been steadily declining for three decades. In 1995 there were 93 murders; in 2008 there were 62. One is still too many, obviously, but the trend does suggest that men and women are becoming less hotheaded or lethally explosive on the home front, at least with each other. This could be attributable to public education about domestic violence, earlier intervention in volatile relationships or partners wisely removing themselves from a potentially dangerous situation before the point of no return. And maybe women are making better choices about the men to whom they make a wedded or common law commitment.
Yet there’s nothing in the research to support the argument that the registration of long guns is saving women’s lives — a fallacy championed by many fearful the billion dollar registry will be scrapped when put to the vote Sept. 22 in the House of Commons on a backbencher Conservative private member’s bill.
There may be good reasons for maintaining the 15-year-old registry, however faulty and unwieldy it’s been in the application, but as legislated bulwark to safeguard the lives of vulnerable women is not one of them, any more than accidental discharge can be prevented by a duly logged and properly provenanced firearm.
It’s a misleading and dramatically overwrought hypothesis.
If the theory is that having a long gun in the house puts women at risk because some combustible guy will use it in a moment of blind fury, that opportunity would exist whether the weapon is registered or not. If not a shotgun because that individual has been refused a licence after a background check, or because he has turned over the firearm rather than cooperate with the system as it now exists, then he will seize on something else to commit the crime, whether a knife, a baseball bat or his bare hands.
Women die in domestic confrontations because they are usually smaller, weaker and unable to defend themselves. Ironically, a shotgun in a woman’s hands is a great equalizer.
To remove the offending article, or simply make it more bureaucratic to possess, doesn’t render the assailant any less deadly. That assumption may feel right, virtuous, but it lacks both logic and evidentiary basis.
We all want to protect lives, particularly those lost so senselessly to a moment of frenzied and irrational thought. We think we can impose buffers on violence by limiting the things that kill, which are not merely the articles designed to kill.
The same well-intentioned assertion was passionately wielded in Toronto to justify erecting a costly suicide barrier on the Bloor Street viaduct: If you build it, they won’t jump. Critics who countered that people intent on killing themselves would simply find another means — perhaps leaping from the nearby Leaside Bridge — were drowned out. Yet that’s precisely what happened. An academic study published this year showed there’d been no change in the average number of jumper suicides in Toronto pre- and post-barrier.
Facts and realities will likely not influence the upcoming Parliamentary vote which, with some rural NDP members now signalling a reversal of intentions — from opposing to supporting the registry’s continuation — might yet lead to the bill’s defeat.
It’s a trigger issue, deeply emotional for its symbolic substance if nothing else.
Just don’t pretend that the lives of women hang in the balance of a gun registry’s fate. They’ll still be on the knife’s edge of spousal murder.
When domestic violence turns deadly in Canada, killers are far more likely to reach for a knife than a gun.
However impetuously spouse-on-spouse homicide may occur — such murders are rarely plotted before the fatal eruption of rage — the weapon of choice is usually as close to hand as a kitchen drawer.
A female, four times more often than a male the victim in spousal homicide, will probably be stabbed, not shot by a long gun, the firearm that is again at the centre of a rural-versus-urban divide over Canada’s polarizing gun registry.
These figures have remained consistent since Statistics Canada first began tracking the too-long-ignored phenomenon of domestic murder. In 1995, the year Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s government passed the new Canadian Firearms Act — with its included gun registry requirement — 71 women across the country were slain by their intimate partners, a dozen of them by a rifle or shotgun. Sixteen were knifed to death, 12 strangled, six clubbed by a blunt instrument, six shot with handguns and other lives variously extinguished by poisoning, cutting with an instrument other than a knife, or set on fire.
In 2008, the last year for which figures are available, nine women were killed by a long gun (one by a handgun, a weapon not legally licensed to most Canadian civilians, though easily obtained by street criminals seeking fire power), 15 stabbed and eight strangled.
Spousal homicide in general, whether male on female or female on male, has been steadily declining for three decades. In 1995 there were 93 murders; in 2008 there were 62. One is still too many, obviously, but the trend does suggest that men and women are becoming less hotheaded or lethally explosive on the home front, at least with each other. This could be attributable to public education about domestic violence, earlier intervention in volatile relationships or partners wisely removing themselves from a potentially dangerous situation before the point of no return. And maybe women are making better choices about the men to whom they make a wedded or common law commitment.
Yet there’s nothing in the research to support the argument that the registration of long guns is saving women’s lives — a fallacy championed by many fearful the billion dollar registry will be scrapped when put to the vote Sept. 22 in the House of Commons on a backbencher Conservative private member’s bill.
There may be good reasons for maintaining the 15-year-old registry, however faulty and unwieldy it’s been in the application, but as legislated bulwark to safeguard the lives of vulnerable women is not one of them, any more than accidental discharge can be prevented by a duly logged and properly provenanced firearm.
It’s a misleading and dramatically overwrought hypothesis.
If the theory is that having a long gun in the house puts women at risk because some combustible guy will use it in a moment of blind fury, that opportunity would exist whether the weapon is registered or not. If not a shotgun because that individual has been refused a licence after a background check, or because he has turned over the firearm rather than cooperate with the system as it now exists, then he will seize on something else to commit the crime, whether a knife, a baseball bat or his bare hands.
Women die in domestic confrontations because they are usually smaller, weaker and unable to defend themselves. Ironically, a shotgun in a woman’s hands is a great equalizer.
To remove the offending article, or simply make it more bureaucratic to possess, doesn’t render the assailant any less deadly. That assumption may feel right, virtuous, but it lacks both logic and evidentiary basis.
We all want to protect lives, particularly those lost so senselessly to a moment of frenzied and irrational thought. We think we can impose buffers on violence by limiting the things that kill, which are not merely the articles designed to kill.
The same well-intentioned assertion was passionately wielded in Toronto to justify erecting a costly suicide barrier on the Bloor Street viaduct: If you build it, they won’t jump. Critics who countered that people intent on killing themselves would simply find another means — perhaps leaping from the nearby Leaside Bridge — were drowned out. Yet that’s precisely what happened. An academic study published this year showed there’d been no change in the average number of jumper suicides in Toronto pre- and post-barrier.
Facts and realities will likely not influence the upcoming Parliamentary vote which, with some rural NDP members now signalling a reversal of intentions — from opposing to supporting the registry’s continuation — might yet lead to the bill’s defeat.
It’s a trigger issue, deeply emotional for its symbolic substance if nothing else.
Just don’t pretend that the lives of women hang in the balance of a gun registry’s fate. They’ll still be on the knife’s edge of spousal murder.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Reworked Gun Registry /property or harm?
Tnarg said: "Oh yes! I know what you mean you poor law-abiding shooter! I'm a law-abiding driver and I have to register ALL MY CARS!!! I too feel treated like a special class of criminal.
Fight the auto registry today!!!"
First of all, in a 3:2 decision the Supreme court said the LGR was constitutional for 2 reasons: 1) It was under the federal jurisdiction because it was criminal law. 2) It was acceptably classified under the purview of criminal law because it was a law to protect from imminent threat of harm. So conversely, if the law fails to protect, it can't be under criminal law.
If it fails to protect, then its only value is as a registry of property. Property is a provincial matter. That is why you register your car--under provincial law, your house, your dog, whatever property you have is under that umbrella
Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.
So you want to apply vehicle registration to the debate? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic.
Vehicle registration has zero to do with safety.
There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade. Did a registry stop them? Vehicle registrations are about theft and insurance neither of which factor into the LGR debate. Because that is supposed to be about safety.
Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? Does that make you able to sleep at night?
Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens because of the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?
Fight the auto registry today!!!"
First of all, in a 3:2 decision the Supreme court said the LGR was constitutional for 2 reasons: 1) It was under the federal jurisdiction because it was criminal law. 2) It was acceptably classified under the purview of criminal law because it was a law to protect from imminent threat of harm. So conversely, if the law fails to protect, it can't be under criminal law.
If it fails to protect, then its only value is as a registry of property. Property is a provincial matter. That is why you register your car--under provincial law, your house, your dog, whatever property you have is under that umbrella
Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.
So you want to apply vehicle registration to the debate? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic.
Vehicle registration has zero to do with safety.
There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade. Did a registry stop them? Vehicle registrations are about theft and insurance neither of which factor into the LGR debate. Because that is supposed to be about safety.
Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? Does that make you able to sleep at night?
Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens because of the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?
Gun Registry politics.
I think you have a point. Had the registry's defeat been secured, anti-registry people would not be as energized in the next campaign. However this defeat is the best solution politically.
1.2 million people own a registered gun. 1.2 million people had to go through screening. 1.2 million people have to pay annual fees on their guns to keep their registry current. 1.2 million gun owners can have their homes invaded by the police so their guns can be "inspected"--all without warrant. So the very act of registry annuls section 7&8 of the charter.
The 1.2 million voter's vote will be hard as steel. They will vote. (had the registry gone down they might not have). They will vote against the opposition parties en masse. 1.2 million votes represent 10% of the last election's voters.
All of that said, the registry represents only about 1/3 of the gun owners in canada. The 2/3s those of us equally opposed, will be voting as well. In the face of previously being law abiding, but now being outlaws, criminals, how do you think we will vote?
That means gross numbers could be as high as 30%. Especially given the fact that entire families of an outlaw are probably going to vote with him.
1.2 million people own a registered gun. 1.2 million people had to go through screening. 1.2 million people have to pay annual fees on their guns to keep their registry current. 1.2 million gun owners can have their homes invaded by the police so their guns can be "inspected"--all without warrant. So the very act of registry annuls section 7&8 of the charter.
The 1.2 million voter's vote will be hard as steel. They will vote. (had the registry gone down they might not have). They will vote against the opposition parties en masse. 1.2 million votes represent 10% of the last election's voters.
All of that said, the registry represents only about 1/3 of the gun owners in canada. The 2/3s those of us equally opposed, will be voting as well. In the face of previously being law abiding, but now being outlaws, criminals, how do you think we will vote?
That means gross numbers could be as high as 30%. Especially given the fact that entire families of an outlaw are probably going to vote with him.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
F-35s again
Metasphere: Thank you for the report/comparison. The SU-35 is an interceptor. It was designed to attempt to achieve air superiority. The suitable counter is the F-22. Less than 200 of these planes were built at a cost of 500b. Production was halted and unfunded this year. The F-22 is not sold to ANY other country than the USA. However, if Canadians are balking at the cost of the F-35 at 134m each, how would it go if the price per plane was 250m each?
Russian planes have always been good on paper. Their numbers are essential equivalents to the planes of the West. The SU-35 is rated as a 4.5 generation plane however. The reason relates to the vastly superior avionics in the F-35.
It is easy for Canadians to default to the view these planes are for arctic interception. However, I think there was analysis that looked at all the roles we had need of in the past 25 years. Our F-18s were nice planes. But air superiority was achieved fairly quickly, and the usefulness dropped as we needed more of an Air-ground role.
Barring some radical turn, Russia's warming relationship with the west may lead to negligible threat from them. There are states overtly hostile to the west. God forbid we should need to clash. The future is best seen in hindsight.
I can tell you in 1977 we could not see that within a decade the Soviet Union would fall.
A military command is charged with looking at as many scenarios as possible, and to prepare the military as best we can to meet them. At least under the conservative watch, we don't have to stand on a runway with our thumbs up looking for a ride. A vast improvement. We are moving in the best direction in my view.
Jablonsa: "Its a rotten deal considering the Americans are paying 132 million per plane while Canadians are being asked to pay 246 million per plane."
Ok considering your are repeating this nonsense, here is the logic:
The projected purchase price of these planes which includes cost over-runs is 134 million. It actually is less, closer to 95 m a plane. But the 134 number is used because we wanted to include cost of missals etc, AND we wanted to make sure our cost at this stage was on the high side.
Secondly, opponents have disingenuously added 7 billion dollars to the cost for maintenance for the next 20 years. Some including this paper buy into it hook-line-and sinker. While it is outstanding our government is willing to publish total cost of ownership, never has this standard been employed. It wasn't for our F-18s which just had a maintenance contract approved for 1/2 billion. Do you really think that 1/2 billion was in the original purchase price? Give me a break. So the government tries for transparency, but the partisan shills on this board turn it into a vice instead.
So, this 250m per plane is a crock. Since no one else is calling you guys on this, I guess I will.
Russian planes have always been good on paper. Their numbers are essential equivalents to the planes of the West. The SU-35 is rated as a 4.5 generation plane however. The reason relates to the vastly superior avionics in the F-35.
It is easy for Canadians to default to the view these planes are for arctic interception. However, I think there was analysis that looked at all the roles we had need of in the past 25 years. Our F-18s were nice planes. But air superiority was achieved fairly quickly, and the usefulness dropped as we needed more of an Air-ground role.
Barring some radical turn, Russia's warming relationship with the west may lead to negligible threat from them. There are states overtly hostile to the west. God forbid we should need to clash. The future is best seen in hindsight.
I can tell you in 1977 we could not see that within a decade the Soviet Union would fall.
A military command is charged with looking at as many scenarios as possible, and to prepare the military as best we can to meet them. At least under the conservative watch, we don't have to stand on a runway with our thumbs up looking for a ride. A vast improvement. We are moving in the best direction in my view.
Jablonsa: "Its a rotten deal considering the Americans are paying 132 million per plane while Canadians are being asked to pay 246 million per plane."
Ok considering your are repeating this nonsense, here is the logic:
The projected purchase price of these planes which includes cost over-runs is 134 million. It actually is less, closer to 95 m a plane. But the 134 number is used because we wanted to include cost of missals etc, AND we wanted to make sure our cost at this stage was on the high side.
Secondly, opponents have disingenuously added 7 billion dollars to the cost for maintenance for the next 20 years. Some including this paper buy into it hook-line-and sinker. While it is outstanding our government is willing to publish total cost of ownership, never has this standard been employed. It wasn't for our F-18s which just had a maintenance contract approved for 1/2 billion. Do you really think that 1/2 billion was in the original purchase price? Give me a break. So the government tries for transparency, but the partisan shills on this board turn it into a vice instead.
So, this 250m per plane is a crock. Since no one else is calling you guys on this, I guess I will.
Monday, September 13, 2010
On Doctors Supporting a Gun Registry
Prairie Lady said:and the Medical Doctors, nurses etc... are on board for a gun registry. Public workers not only police who deal with the horrific results of previously not having a registry are on board.
Horrific results? Any more horrific people dismembered by a drunk driver? Does it matter in this regard that the drunk's car was in fact registered? ER doctors get exposed to a lot of excruciating stuff, and we respect them for it. But this issue is one that daunts even their intelligence I guess.
I am sure the list would be long what they want to ban...
from Marijuana to Heroin to Drunk Drivers, to incompetent ones. From pill overdose to CO poisoning. Lets keep everything in context
Horrific results? Any more horrific people dismembered by a drunk driver? Does it matter in this regard that the drunk's car was in fact registered? ER doctors get exposed to a lot of excruciating stuff, and we respect them for it. But this issue is one that daunts even their intelligence I guess.
I am sure the list would be long what they want to ban...
from Marijuana to Heroin to Drunk Drivers, to incompetent ones. From pill overdose to CO poisoning. Lets keep everything in context
Friday, September 10, 2010
More Registry as the NDP drop predicably spaced to maximize the bill's demise
Thursday, September 9, 2010
More LGR debate.
proffessorx said: "Why is it ok to register a car, a tractor, a trailer, a boat, or a dog - but registering a gun is an infringement of liberties?"
"The LGR protects?" "We register Cars, why not guns?"
Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.
So you want to apply vehicle registration to the debate? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic.
Vehicle registration has little to do with safety.
There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade. Did a registry stop them? Vehicle registrations are about theft and insurance neither of which factor into the LGR debate. Because that is supposed to be about safety.
Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? Does that make you able to sleep at night?
Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens because of the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?
"The LGR protects?" "We register Cars, why not guns?"
Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.
So you want to apply vehicle registration to the debate? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic.
Vehicle registration has little to do with safety.
There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade. Did a registry stop them? Vehicle registrations are about theft and insurance neither of which factor into the LGR debate. Because that is supposed to be about safety.
Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? Does that make you able to sleep at night?
Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens because of the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?
Supreme Court decision
An exhaustive read:
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/CourtofAppeal/Judgments/tabid/84/ctl/previewSelectedResult/mid/664/Default.aspx?results=3CFD0C24-DB34-413D-9C78-B7CD77ADF323&doc=8
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/CourtofAppeal/Judgments/tabid/84/ctl/previewSelectedResult/mid/664/Default.aspx?results=3CFD0C24-DB34-413D-9C78-B7CD77ADF323&doc=8
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
http://www.garrybreitQuotes From: kreuz.com/publications/violatescharterofrightsandfreedom.htm
?impact said: "Absolute BS. You do not give up any of your rights after registering a gun. That is simple fear mongering used to stir up distrust in the registry. The police are under the exact same obligations with regard to search and seizure regardless of how many firearms you may have registered."
Oh really?
"But C-68 goes far beyond these legitimate objects of state regulation and strikes at the mere act of possessing a Firearm inside one’s own home. This is done in the absence of any evidence of harm to others or threat of such harm—the primary justifications in a liberal democracy for the state to interfere with the personal liberty of its citizens. C-68 imposes an intrusive and stigmatising regulatory regime on the lawful activity of merely possessing a firearm in the privacy of one’s own home. As noted by Justice Conrad of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the first constitutuional challenge to C-68:"
And More:
"Section 105 of the Firearms Act also violates section 7 (and 8) of the Charter.[vii] Section 105 requires a person to bring in a firearm for inspection when requested to do so by a government official. Section 113 makes it a criminal offence (punishable on summary conviction) to refuse to comply with a request made under section 105. This violates the “principles of fundamental justice,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that a person cannot be coerced into providing police with self-incriminating evidence...However, as Wicklum has pointed out, section 105 is an attempt to circumvent the search warrant requirement. When drafting Bill C-68, the government anticipated that it would be wildly impractical, inefficient and costly to have to apply for a search warrant for every suspected unregistered firearm. Section 105 provides a much more efficient and less expensive way to achieve the same end: just tell the suspect to bring the evidence to the station “for inspection,” and make it a crime not to comply"
____________________
In addition to prescribing procedures to obtain a search warrant, sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize warrantless searches in two instances: if the inspector has the consent of the occupant or has given the occupant “reasonable notice.” Since these two exceptions allow the police to conduct searches and seizures—in private homes--without prior judicial approval, they are prima facie violations of section 8 of the Charter. Neither of these criteria meet the requirements spelled out by the Court for warrantless searches
____________________
?impact: Here read this. My argument is fully substantiated. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar because you disagree with me.
I see very little fact from the pro-registry argument. But a lot of unjustified put-downs.
A sign they have lost the debate.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/hail+these+chiefs/3462216/story.html
____________________
?impact said : "How do you come to that conclusion? There is nothing in the act that allows that. If they believe you have a gun they can demand that within a reasonable time you produce that gun for verification."
_________________
Wow, its simple to find that information.
Here is a court finding, and a quote from the act itself.
"While Canadians have a right to protection only against ‘unreasonable’ intrusions upon their privacy, the provisions of Bill C-68 go beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The search and seizure powers granted by C-68 are unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes “at any reasonable time” and to search “any place where the inspector believes . . . there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]” and “may open any container . . . examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police “fishing expeditions” imposed by the courts’ interpretation of the section 8”
"Section 102 in particular states: “102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may..."
Oh really?
"But C-68 goes far beyond these legitimate objects of state regulation and strikes at the mere act of possessing a Firearm inside one’s own home. This is done in the absence of any evidence of harm to others or threat of such harm—the primary justifications in a liberal democracy for the state to interfere with the personal liberty of its citizens. C-68 imposes an intrusive and stigmatising regulatory regime on the lawful activity of merely possessing a firearm in the privacy of one’s own home. As noted by Justice Conrad of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the first constitutuional challenge to C-68:"
And More:
"Section 105 of the Firearms Act also violates section 7 (and 8) of the Charter.[vii] Section 105 requires a person to bring in a firearm for inspection when requested to do so by a government official. Section 113 makes it a criminal offence (punishable on summary conviction) to refuse to comply with a request made under section 105. This violates the “principles of fundamental justice,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that a person cannot be coerced into providing police with self-incriminating evidence...However, as Wicklum has pointed out, section 105 is an attempt to circumvent the search warrant requirement. When drafting Bill C-68, the government anticipated that it would be wildly impractical, inefficient and costly to have to apply for a search warrant for every suspected unregistered firearm. Section 105 provides a much more efficient and less expensive way to achieve the same end: just tell the suspect to bring the evidence to the station “for inspection,” and make it a crime not to comply"
____________________
In addition to prescribing procedures to obtain a search warrant, sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize warrantless searches in two instances: if the inspector has the consent of the occupant or has given the occupant “reasonable notice.” Since these two exceptions allow the police to conduct searches and seizures—in private homes--without prior judicial approval, they are prima facie violations of section 8 of the Charter. Neither of these criteria meet the requirements spelled out by the Court for warrantless searches
____________________
?impact: Here read this. My argument is fully substantiated. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar because you disagree with me.
I see very little fact from the pro-registry argument. But a lot of unjustified put-downs.
A sign they have lost the debate.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/hail+these+chiefs/3462216/story.html
____________________
?impact said : "How do you come to that conclusion? There is nothing in the act that allows that. If they believe you have a gun they can demand that within a reasonable time you produce that gun for verification."
_________________
Wow, its simple to find that information.
Here is a court finding, and a quote from the act itself.
"While Canadians have a right to protection only against ‘unreasonable’ intrusions upon their privacy, the provisions of Bill C-68 go beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The search and seizure powers granted by C-68 are unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes “at any reasonable time” and to search “any place where the inspector believes . . . there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]” and “may open any container . . . examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police “fishing expeditions” imposed by the courts’ interpretation of the section 8”
"Section 102 in particular states: “102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may..."
A slightly different spin on LGR.
For my urban friends, I need to say that the registry issue for over a million Canadians is so serious, it could become THE single reason for the rural vote. More than infrastructure, free-trade, immigration, balanced budgets, and abortion put together. Liberal MPs are wiped out west of Sudbury. The vehemence is on par with that which still lingers over the National Energy Policy of the Trudeau era. Does that mean everyone in the west are anti gun registry? No, obviously that would be impossible. There are urban centers out here too which simply can't understand the rural Canadian.
This issue has the ability to make the next election a one button issue for 1 million of us. Iggy could stand on his head, dress in a tutu and not squeak one more vote out here. Had they allowed a genuinely free vote, rural Canadians in question would be far more likely to swing their votes on some other issues. But this will harden their opposition, create volunteers and door knockers for MPs that voted on the basis of their personal integrity and the wishes of their constituencies.
StanL: I think you have misjudged the mind of the Rural voter. What you fail to see is that we are far more pragmatic that you seem to give us credit for. Had the rural gun owner been treated fairly, and the state had stayed out of our homes, and had we not born this injustice for so many years, this issue could fade away. If the registry dies even moreso.
It could otherwise be virtually forgotten by the next election. The Liberal voter might be concerned but not *that* concerned. It is different with us. To not appreciate this is to continue to misunderstand us, and further deepen the schism between the rural and urban classes. Assuming the west is not alone, that rural voters across Ontario,Quebec, the North and Maritimes feel the same way,the old East vs. West polemic loses its strength.
Last election 35% of of registered voters voted. In round numbers, 12 million votes. 1.2 million gun owners is 10%..
This issue has the ability to make the next election a one button issue for 1 million of us. Iggy could stand on his head, dress in a tutu and not squeak one more vote out here. Had they allowed a genuinely free vote, rural Canadians in question would be far more likely to swing their votes on some other issues. But this will harden their opposition, create volunteers and door knockers for MPs that voted on the basis of their personal integrity and the wishes of their constituencies.
StanL: I think you have misjudged the mind of the Rural voter. What you fail to see is that we are far more pragmatic that you seem to give us credit for. Had the rural gun owner been treated fairly, and the state had stayed out of our homes, and had we not born this injustice for so many years, this issue could fade away. If the registry dies even moreso.
It could otherwise be virtually forgotten by the next election. The Liberal voter might be concerned but not *that* concerned. It is different with us. To not appreciate this is to continue to misunderstand us, and further deepen the schism between the rural and urban classes. Assuming the west is not alone, that rural voters across Ontario,Quebec, the North and Maritimes feel the same way,the old East vs. West polemic loses its strength.
Last election 35% of of registered voters voted. In round numbers, 12 million votes. 1.2 million gun owners is 10%..
Gun Registry the illusion of safety.
"The LGR protects?" "We register Cars, why not guns?"
Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.
Apply the logic to vehicles will you? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic. Make that point and suddenly you are approaching this from the position of hysteria. There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade. Did a registry stop that?
Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? How safe does that make you feel?
Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens in the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?
Safety is an illusion on this one.
Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.
Apply the logic to vehicles will you? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic. Make that point and suddenly you are approaching this from the position of hysteria. There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade. Did a registry stop that?
Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? How safe does that make you feel?
Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens in the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?
Safety is an illusion on this one.
Treatise on Canadian Right to bear Arms.
The Right to Bear Arms--A Canadian Thing?
First of all, let it be accepted that most Canadian law has its roots in the British Legal system--Quebec excepted.
Secondly, let it be noted that the Canadian constitution explicitly states that the constitution recognizes in sec 26, "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as to denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada." It simply limits the constitution's purview, and explicitly states it shall not usurp other rights and freedoms just because it doesn't mention them.
3)It is possible then that Canadians have rights and freedoms not identified in the Charter.
4)How are we to know about such rights? Firstly because of legal precedent--both in terms of earlier laws, and subsequent judgments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not toss out all legal precedent. Rather it is deemed that the Laws, Rights and Freedoms that existed before the charter existed after.
5) Where is the precedent? It stretches back to 1688 under article VII of the English Bill of Rights. The same sort of root of law we look to in our own Bill of Rights. This was in effect in Canada for so long as it was under British rule.
Legal decisions both before and after the BNA act of 1867 looked to this document as a fundamental to law. Additionally, all British legal precedent weighed in on Canadian legal decisions.
6)The exact quote is: "That the subjects which are protestant may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law"
7)Following this there are centuries of precedent, Blackstone's Commentaries in the 18th century for example, included the right to bear arms as one of the five most fundamental rights.
8) Bill C68 that gave rise to the registry, violates fundamental rights on far more levels that quoted herein.
The Canadian Charter states Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure."
In every other case, Canadians who do not register a gun have this right. Once you register, you lose it.
You lose it because instead of getting a warrant the rests on reasonable proof at the hand of a judge, your home can be invaded if an inspector believes (suspects) you have a gun in the home.
Ironically, unregistered gun owners are still protected by the Charter sec. 8.
First of all, let it be accepted that most Canadian law has its roots in the British Legal system--Quebec excepted.
Secondly, let it be noted that the Canadian constitution explicitly states that the constitution recognizes in sec 26, "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as to denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada." It simply limits the constitution's purview, and explicitly states it shall not usurp other rights and freedoms just because it doesn't mention them.
3)It is possible then that Canadians have rights and freedoms not identified in the Charter.
4)How are we to know about such rights? Firstly because of legal precedent--both in terms of earlier laws, and subsequent judgments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not toss out all legal precedent. Rather it is deemed that the Laws, Rights and Freedoms that existed before the charter existed after.
5) Where is the precedent? It stretches back to 1688 under article VII of the English Bill of Rights. The same sort of root of law we look to in our own Bill of Rights. This was in effect in Canada for so long as it was under British rule.
Legal decisions both before and after the BNA act of 1867 looked to this document as a fundamental to law. Additionally, all British legal precedent weighed in on Canadian legal decisions.
6)The exact quote is: "That the subjects which are protestant may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law"
7)Following this there are centuries of precedent, Blackstone's Commentaries in the 18th century for example, included the right to bear arms as one of the five most fundamental rights.
8) Bill C68 that gave rise to the registry, violates fundamental rights on far more levels that quoted herein.
The Canadian Charter states Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure."
In every other case, Canadians who do not register a gun have this right. Once you register, you lose it.
You lose it because instead of getting a warrant the rests on reasonable proof at the hand of a judge, your home can be invaded if an inspector believes (suspects) you have a gun in the home.
Ironically, unregistered gun owners are still protected by the Charter sec. 8.
| For my urban friends, I need to say that the registry issue for over a million Canadians is so serious, it could become the single reason for the rural vote. More than infrastructure, free-trade, immigration, balanced budgets, and abortion put together. Liberal MPs are wiped out west of Thunderbay. The vehemence is on par with that which still lingers over the National Energy Policy of the Trudeau era. Does that mean everyone in the west are anti gun registry? No, obviously that would be impossible. There are urban centers out here too which simply can't understand the rural Canadian. This issue has the ability to make the next election a one button issue for 1 million of us. Iggy could stand on his head, dress in a tutu and not squeek one more vote out here. Had they allowed a genuinely free vote, rural Canadians in question would be far more likely to swing their votes on some other(s)issues. But this will harden their opposition, create volunteers and door knockers for MPs that voted on the basis of their personal integrity and the wishes of their constituencies. ____________________________ I think you have misjudged the mind of the Rural voter. What you fail to see is that we are far more pragmatic that you seem to give us credit for. Had the rural gun owner been treated fairly, and the state had stayed out of our homes, and had we not born this injustice for so many years, this issue could fade away. If the registry dies even moreso. It could be virtually forgotten by the next election by proponents and opponents. You are right Mr. Silver, the Liberal voter might be concerned but not *that* concerned. It is different with us. To not appreciate this is to continue to misunderstand us, and further deepen the scism between the rural and urban classes. Assuming the west is not alone, that rural voters across Ontario,Quebec, the North and the Maritimes feel the same way. The old East vs. West polemic loses its strength. Last election 35% of registered voters bothered to vote. In round numbers, 12 million votes. 1.2 million votes in the bag ought to give any party pause for thought. A 10% head start? |
Friday, September 3, 2010
The G20 issue drags on.
I am sure the Canadian public opinion will move. I think 17% disapproval is a bit low. It will rise in direct relation to time, as people forget the images of burning police cars, smashed windows, targeted businesses.
If a poster has had a negative experience with police in the past, I could see it overshadow the issue of the G20. Because the "unfair" encounter leads one to suspicion on this account.
The black block needs to be treated as a terrorist organization, and be hunted down and taken apart. They ruined the protest for any other group. It was a disgrace.
If it weren't for Blair's involvement in CPAC, I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now I just think he should do the right thing, & fall on his sword so we can move on.
____________________________
Another Opinion: "You want an answer to your question? Fine.
Stopping the mob from doing any further damage is enforcing the law. I'm sure if there was an easy way to stop them, the police would have used it... but there wasn't.
What would YOU have done?"
_____________________________
Excellent point. You can view this at least 2 ways: 1) There was a peaceful protest infiltrated by vandals. They were in no way protected by the protest, but were distinguishable by their black clothes and should have been seen for what they were.
2) There was not a peaceful protest. There was nothing peaceful about it. In many ways the vandals were protected deliberately by the crowd.
Lobbing feces, urine, stones, spitting etc are not acts of peaceful protest.
In the first case, one splits the groups up, as is commonly done in this forum. The second case views the group as a whole.
If a poster has had a negative experience with police in the past, I could see it overshadow the issue of the G20. Because the "unfair" encounter leads one to suspicion on this account.
The black block needs to be treated as a terrorist organization, and be hunted down and taken apart. They ruined the protest for any other group. It was a disgrace.
If it weren't for Blair's involvement in CPAC, I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now I just think he should do the right thing, & fall on his sword so we can move on.
____________________________
Another Opinion: "You want an answer to your question? Fine.
Stopping the mob from doing any further damage is enforcing the law. I'm sure if there was an easy way to stop them, the police would have used it... but there wasn't.
What would YOU have done?"
_____________________________
Excellent point. You can view this at least 2 ways: 1) There was a peaceful protest infiltrated by vandals. They were in no way protected by the protest, but were distinguishable by their black clothes and should have been seen for what they were.
2) There was not a peaceful protest. There was nothing peaceful about it. In many ways the vandals were protected deliberately by the crowd.
Lobbing feces, urine, stones, spitting etc are not acts of peaceful protest.
In the first case, one splits the groups up, as is commonly done in this forum. The second case views the group as a whole.
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
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.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Survivability vs Russian Bomber squadron
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)