Bush may have had it right...

newt,

Thank you for a wonderful post. You've made some great points.

I wish I had time now to say more -- before your post gets ridiculed and taken out of context.

Mark

 

Newk: A well thought out post. Don't be disheartened when those who oppose you attack you personally, or ridicule your post with their less-thought-out drivel. Intelligent, heartfelt posts do sink in to all readers whereas gotchya kneejerk responses are transparent and many don't even bother to finish reading them, nor are they food for thought.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

The big problem I have with the UN is that it appears to be primarily like a sand box full of 7 year old boys. Any "semblance of justice" quickly degrades to who can burp the loudest or fart the loudest. Of course, many nasty situations like the Rwanda Genocide were quietly hushed up by the UN.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

Yes, exactly. Hey, how about this: dramatically cut spending, slightly raise taxes, and the only pork is my package of bacon at the grocery store. Never happen.

We have an enormous Civil Servant force that ensures whatever party is in will continue to support the lavish spending programs and creative new ways to reach into my pocket.

We have to fire the entire lot of lazy paper pusher Civil Servants, but we'd probably have an easier time making a Mr Fusion Home Reactor out of Pop Tarts and Rice A Roni.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

In hindsight, yeah we *should* have anticipated a massive terrorist attack on our homeland. Of course, if we *had* anticipated a massive terrorist attack on our homeland, it wouldn't have happened ...

Did Bush et al ignore Richard Clarke. Yep. So did every other administration. The real question is why we developed a GroupThink that completely pushed the possibility of massive terrorist attack out of our minds.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

I think the "economy" as we tend to classically define it has been in decline since the 60's. The primary economic fuel of the 90's was cheap oil and cheap credit. You can't run on credit forever, eventually somebody has to pay *some* of it back.

And depending on how you measure the economy, you can have a magic "surplus" like here in Canada despite no income growth for 15 years, unemployment at 7-10%, and massive loss of high income manufacturing jobs.

If you understand statistics, especially ANOVA, Weibull analysis, Chi Square, and all the other icky mathematical concepts, you will quickly appreciate that the numbers quoted by whatever administration are pure s***. They're hocus-pocus.

Just the act of studentizing the raw data removes all meaningful value from it. IOW who determines how the data is trimmed? How are outliers treated? How much autocorrelation and homoscadesity do you create?

Then again, the average Joe Q. Public doesn't even know what the h*** such things as "mean" and "median" are. Once you stick that Sigma in front, eyes become glazed ...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

I always thought the Treaty Of Versailles started the ball rolling for the Great Depression? After WWI, only North America prospered, while Europe creaked to a halt under massive war debt.

When the first warning signs became apparent, the Hoover administration compounded the problem by cutting foreign trade. This was known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. International trade collapsed as a result.

In particular, Germany was bankrupted after using up all her gold to pay reparations to France and England. Their money became worthless and the absolute worst kind of hyperinflation began. People became desperate and started listening to an odd mustached fellow who frequently expelled spittle while shouting. The rest is history ...

Purchasing Power and Parity are frequently misunderstood and should serve as a warning about easy credit and the fine balancing act between exports and imports.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

So does that mean we should have higher taxes or lower taxes as a percentage of GDP? I note that Japan has lower tax rates than the United States, but her debt is 150% of GDP. The area of taxation wrt GDP and debt is complex.

For example, under Finance Minister Paul Martin, the Canadian government magically erased the public debt during the 90's. This was done by transferring "visible" public debt into secretive Crown Corporations not subject to auditing or disclosure.

An example in the Province of Ontario was MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation - responsible for property assessing and taxes) that was used to transfer most of the "visible" provincial debt into the closed MPAC system. Sort of like a Ponzi Scheme.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

That ball started gathering speed in the 60's. The Vietnam War was incredibly expensive by any measure.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

Both parties use that tactic. So do all the political parties here in Canada. That's because Joe Q. Public has become so dumbed down due to decades of watching that mindless flickering box - television - that everything has to be packaged into a 30 second soundbite with a Grade 6 comprehension level. And even then thanks to ADHD it usually flies over their head.

Who would *you* vote for:

Candidate "A": "Well folks, we have to drastically cut spending, raise taxes, and all take a huge bite from the s*** sandwich. Oh, and the price of a gallon of unleaded will have to rise to $4.49 minimum. Please pay attention to the following 75 minute PowerPoint presentation as I carefully explain why, using a lot of statistics and calculus. A note of correction: the integral on page 137 where the term A sub i is? That should read A sub y. Sorry about that, we missed it in Proof"

(Blank empty stares from audience and some drooling out of corner of mouth)

Candidate "B" "More jobs and lower taxes!"

(Wild cheerful applause)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newk\";p=\"73195)</div>

That's how every politician operates. They lie their a** off. Deal with it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn\";p=\"73258)</div>

John:

I'm not opposing him or attacking him. I mostly agree with him.

The reason I went off on such a t** fit a few posts ago was when somebody threw out the blanket "liberal good conservative bad" spiel and then blamed all of Canada's problems on Canada Free Press and Fox News.

:roll:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"73271)</div>

Sorry, but you are re-writing history here. You need to read Clarke's book. Although Clarke felt Clinton could have done more, he made it VERY clear that Clinton DID NOT ignore Al Qaida. Indeed, we all know that the cornerstone of Bush's foreign policy until 9/11 was missile defense and that TWO members of Bush's cabinet said that Saddam was the enemy for those first 8 months and terrorism and Al Qaida were never mentioned.

History also tells us that back in 1999 when there was increased chatter about terrorism, Clinton met with his team every day and asked his team to go back to their agencies and "shake the trees" for information. There was no "event" in 1999, nor were there any known arrests so nothing came of it.

History also tells us that in the summer of 2001, the terrorist "chatter" exceeded the chatter of 1999. Rather than meeting every day with his people to get them to go back to their agencies and "shake the trees" for information, Bush went on vacation.

We now know that the FAA was studying reports that Al Qaida was talking about flying planes into buildings. This came out a few months ago. We also know that some low level FBI agents were aware of some Al Qaida operatives taking flying lessons in Florida. We also know that those Florida operatives had computers with the names of the some of the others of the 19 terrorists.

History also tells us that Clarke and Clinton himself told the incoming Bush administration that the biggest threat to the US was from Osama and Al Qaida, but again we know what happened, nothing. Missile defense -- which is little more than welfare for military suppliers as it has no strategic worth.

The above is history, though in our pro Bush corporate media you won't hear that much about this history.

Below is speculation..

What if in the summer of 2001 there existed a President that paid attention to the chatter and met everyday with the leader of the FAA and FBI and others, like what Clinton did in 1999?

What if that FAA and FBI chief went back to their agencies to "shake the trees" for more information on terrorism.

What if that "shaking" led to the data that we know existed at lower levels of those agencies reached the higher levels of those agencies?

And what if on one of those daily meetings President Gore called (oops, I mean "that President"), the FAA chief and the FBI chief were able to share their information? Seems to me that this would have been sufficient probable cause to go in and look at those computers in Florida, even prior to the Patriot Act.

Just follow this to the logical conclusion and if you have to conclude that 9/11 may not have happened.

To me this is a completely plausible and reasonable scenario for the summer of 2001. If we did not have an idiot in the White House in the summer of 2001, 9/11 may never have happened.

Of course, this suggestion will be ridiculed and you will never see this in our media. Why, because we all know what a great and brilliant leader GW Bush is. Now why does my mind wander to "My Pet Goat" all of a sudden?


But the suggestion that all administrations ignored Al Qaida is simply a lie. Clinton may not have done enough, but he did something which is tons more than Bush did in his first 8 months. And even since 9/11, we've been in Iraq while world terrorism is expanding.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"73274)</div>

I'm the one who spoke of liberals versus conservatives and commented on canadafreepress. And your characterization of my post is incorrect.

IMHO, from what I have read about canadafreepress they are part of the "agenda oriented" news outlets that care more about the corporate and right wing agenda than they do accuracy. I never said that they were the source for all that was wrong with Canada. Nor have I ever said that "Liberals" are the source of all that is good.

And I think conservatives as a group are wrong, not evil. I may have used the word "bad" but in the context of "not good for" and not the context of evil. I pointed this difference out to you in a post above also. So please stop mischaracterizing my posts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

I have read Richard Clarke's book. Overall, "B" and an interesting read. I find it fascinating that Mr. Clarke was in similar positions under Reagan, Bush #1 - until that spat over Israel selling weapons to China -, and Clinton

I have my concerns that Mr. Clarke was a "typical" public servant who - like the rest of them - disregarded opinions that countered his viewpoint and supported opinions that furthered his office.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

As far as "agencies" the dividing walls between them became higher and more difficult to scale after around 1990. This didn't change until around a year ago, and still has a long way to go.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

After a fire in a suspected terrorist's apartment in the Philippines, in the mid 90's, the Philippine government came across all this weird information about flying planes into buildings. So this information has been around long enough for somebody to have "connected the dots."

But we're dealing with public servants here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

And thanks the mentality at the FBI, they sat on it. Once again: typical public servants.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

There have been some nice documentaries on the subject, which are rightly damning and deserving of attention.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

What if all those walls between the FBI, CIA, DEA, NSA, FAA and other acronyms had been removed in the 90's so the "pieces of the puzzle" would have been put together??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

Which idiot are you refereing to? Seems to me, you've just described +85% of the public service workforce. In most public service associations, CYA rules.

A friend of mine - college buddy - recently left a certain federal service branch after only 8 months on the job. He first had experience with that federal service branch while still in college as an internship in 1997. He thought it would be a good permanent job with good benefits, at least the benefits were good.

From the way he described his brief stint, anybody with a hint of intuition or creative thought process is actively discouraged from providing any input whatsoever. First of all, you can't make the other employees with seniority look bad.

And if you did happen to find a mistake - a very easy and common thing to do - you were supposed to ignore it. Start "shaking the branches" as you quaintly refer to it and you're liable for a slap on the wrist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

I never said that, and I really don't believe that. No President is a "great and brilliant leader." As I've stated before, all politicians lie their a** off to make themselves appear to be the best thing since Pop Tarts.

If something good happens, automatically take the credit for it. If something bad happens, ignore it or blame the other a** hole.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

Since when have "we" - the United States and Canada - ever worried about terrorism and especially Al Qauida?? Domestic terrorism was ignored (Eg Janet Reno and McVeigh) and international terrorism was a soundbite on the news.

Up until 2 years ago, Al Qaida operated in Canada as a legally registered non-taxable charitable organization. Hezbolah still does. I think the attitude up here is one of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73303)</div>

Wow you must know a lot about Canada. Way more than I do and I live here.

So the Canada Free Press is *wrong* when they reported that CIDA is helping the Chinese purchase the Athabasca Tar Sands?

So they're *wrong* about all the public debt the Liberal gov put into Crown Corporations to claim a "surplus?"

And they're *wrong* when they reported about all the Canadian taxpayer funds used to support things like foreign cheap labor at the expense of Canadian jobs??

Hmmm.

It's rather odd then how they used, among their sources that you now claim are *not* accurate, ATIA (Access To Information Act, similar to FOIA) requests to the Canadian government.

Also public domain sources from the Auditor General Of Canada, Sheila Fraser, who may soon find herself out of a job if she doesn't "shut the hell up" as former Mississauga Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish told her.

Also documents obtained by Probe International, a Canadian environmental protection outfit also under ATIA. Although Probe International and CFP may be diametrically opposed on some viewpoints, there is no misunderstanding on Canadian taxpayer dollars propping up 3rd world regimes.

http://www.probeinternational.org

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73296)</div>

So please stop "mischaracterizing" the "liberals" in Canada. Deal? Good! That was easy ...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"73329)</div>

The same could be said for you about your knowledge of the US.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"73329)</div>

In a much earlier post you laid out a lot of information and every single one of your "references" was canadafreepress.com. So I went to canadafreepress.com and read a bunch of the articles and then I went to the editorial page and saw that one of the editorial writers they seemed to be the most proud of was Ann Coulter. This told me something about the perspective of canadafreepress. I then tried to do an internet search to see who owned them. From the slant of the news I thought that Murdock looked to be the owner. But I could not find who the owner was.

I never said nor would ever say that canadafreepress was wrong all the time, nor would I think it. But from what I read, canadafreepress is "agenda news", similar to Fox News which is also often accurate in what they report. Gosh, even the Nazi's were often accurate in what they said.

But IMHO, canadafreepress, like Fox News, cares very much about promoting the procorporate pro "rich and powerful" agenda. So when they report, I would always be suspect over how much was true and how much was "spin".

Indeed, I find it ludicrous that many still belive that the media is all "liberal". The most florid example of this was the recent demonstrations in Lebanon. The first demonstration amounted to about 50,000 people and was anti Syrian. This event was all over the American news and the pundits had a field day with how this proved that Bush is so brilliant the way he was bringing democracy to Lebanon. Then a few days later a Lebanese friend of mine told me about a massive -- up to 1 million people -- PRO_SYRIAN demonstration was currently going on in Beirut. I scoured the internet and finally on a BBC site I found the story. Later that day I found a small story on MSNBC about a "big" demonstration. The following day CNN and Fox still did not have the story on their web sites. It was almost 48 hours later that the American press started to report this story and this was quite peculiar. This second demonstration was anti American and anti Bush and it took 2 days to get some significant coverage in the USA.

Then a week later, 800,000 demonstrate again AGAINST Syria and now this story is all over the news as it happens. All US outlets are covering and giving it major play. Yet even with this story, the fact that the anti American sentiment in this demonstration was ignored by the Press.

To rephrase.
50,000 demonstrate. It gets construed as "Pro Bush" and gets major coverage.

800,000 demonstrate it what was clearly an anti Bush slanted demonstration and it gets short thrift in the American press.

Then another different 800,000 demonstrate and it gets construed as "Pro Bush again, and it again gets major coverage.

I'm sorry, this is not an accident. Although there are some liberals in American media, and there are some who want to just give the facts, there are now numerous people in the media who want Bush to succeed and want that above all else. And to them, it's OK to spin because if Bush wins, they win.

And IMHO, as Bush gets more and more of his agenda passed, "regular/common" Americans lose. And lose also are all the "regular" citizens of the world.

So I'm sure canadafreepress sometimes tells the truth. But IMHO, canadafreepress is not good for Canadians like Fox news is not good for Americans. And I have never once said I know a lot about Canada. But I do have an idea about what is going on in America. And from reading canadafreepress, it looks like it's sadly going on in Canada too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pjo1966\";p=\"73336)</div>

I'm a Dual Citizen. I've only lived 1/5 my life in Canada, moving here in 1997.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73369)</div>

Point your browser to the following URL's:

http://www.cbc.ca

http://www.ctv.ca

The CBC or Canadian Broadcast Corp is owned by the Canadian government. As you would expect with a State owned media outlet, the CBC will minimize anything critical of the Liberal government. That or risk getting their budget cut. An "agenda" here?

CTV or Canadian TeleVision used to be owned by a murky partnership but was recently acquired, along with the Toronto Globe and Mail and ATV (Atlantic Television), by Bell GlobeMedia, a secretive subdivision of the giant telco Bell Canada. And Bell Canada is owned by the secretive holding company BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises). Possibly another "agenda?"

If you want to examine "agendas" and self-serving institutions, perhaps look into Prime Minister Paul Martin's ownership of Canada Steamship Lines, its connection to Power Corporation of Canada ("Power Corp") and some interesting financial and defense contracts.

Bell GlobeMedia also pushes a "friendly" government approach to their news and abhors covering "sensitive" news issues like the ongoing Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. They also own the Canadian rights to Animal Planet, Civilization, and a growing list of channels broadcast in Canada.

Canada Free Press is owned by the same folks who own the Toronto Free Press, itself a response to the liberal friendly Toronto Globe and Mail, especially after the Liberal government encouraged Bell Canada to purchase it.

So, to answer your question about who owns CFP, which is also available in the "About Us" section: Judi McLeod is owner/editor; attorney Arthur Weinreb is Vice President; Toronto real estate developer Klaus Rohrich is on the BOD; and freelance writer Marinka Peschmann is also on the BOD.

It is *far* easier to get the information about CFP than about CBC and especially the secretive CTV/ Bell GlobeMedia. Though CTV will boast it saturates 99% of English Speaking households in Canada.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73369)</div>

Like how they always poke holes in the Liberal Government, Bell Canada, Imperial Oil, Nortel, Bombardier, knocking down Big Business ruining the environment in 3rd world countries ... hmmm, doesn't sound very "pro corporate" to me. And if they're supposed to be "pro conservative" I wonder why they're poking so many holes in the Progressive Conservative party??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73369)</div>

The news media is "the news media" nothing more. It's nothing more than sound bites at a Grade 5 level to satisfy the bleating sheep that have become our society. The "news media" is an entirely self-serving enterprise that exists to nudge us in the "correct" direction.

Like how a herder guides his sheep, sometimes using the dog to nip at the legs of more stubborn members of the flock. Not a pretty picture

It doesn't matter which administration is in, the "news media" of the day will more-or-less go along with it with token resistance at most. The only thing more self-serving than the "news media" is the "opinion poll."

I think we can agree on the fact the vast majority of the "news media" is self-serving and even superfluous. I've had the misfortune to notice, since living in Canada, the completely in-your-face level of this bulls*** from "standard" Canadian news sources.

So, I tend to discount the "popular" news media as nothing more than self-serving drivel that is good for putting under my cat's litter box. I also tend to mistrust large corporations and government, as they are also self-serving.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"73486)</div>

Point your browser to the following URL's:

http://www.cbc.ca

http://www.ctv.ca

The CBC or Canadian Broadcast Corp is owned by the Canadian government. As you would expect with a State owned media outlet, the CBC will minimize anything critical of the Liberal government. That or risk getting their budget cut. An "agenda" here?

CTV or Canadian TeleVision used to be owned by a murky partnership but was recently acquired, along with the Toronto Globe and Mail and ATV (Atlantic Television), by Bell GlobeMedia, a secretive subdivision of the giant telco Bell Canada. And Bell Canada is owned by the secretive holding company BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises). Possibly another "agenda?"

If you want to examine "agendas" and self-serving institutions, perhaps look into Prime Minister Paul Martin's ownership of Canada Steamship Lines, its connection to Power Corporation of Canada ("Power Corp") and some interesting financial and defense contracts.

Bell GlobeMedia also pushes a "friendly" government approach to their news and abhors covering "sensitive" news issues like the ongoing Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. They also own the Canadian rights to Animal Planet, Civilization, and a growing list of channels broadcast in Canada.

Canada Free Press is owned by the same folks who own the Toronto Free Press, itself a response to the liberal friendly Toronto Globe and Mail, especially after the Liberal government encouraged Bell Canada to purchase it.

So, to answer your question about who owns CFP, which is also available in the "About Us" section: Judi McLeod is owner/editor; attorney Arthur Weinreb is Vice President; Toronto real estate developer Klaus Rohrich is on the BOD; and freelance writer Marinka Peschmann is also on the BOD.

It is *far* easier to get the information about CFP than about CBC and especially the secretive CTV/ Bell GlobeMedia. Though CTV will boast it saturates 99% of English Speaking households in Canada.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73369)</div>

Like how they always poke holes in the Liberal Government, Bell Canada, Imperial Oil, Nortel, Bombardier, knocking down Big Business ruining the environment in 3rd world countries ... hmmm, doesn't sound very "pro corporate" to me. And if they're supposed to be "pro conservative" I wonder why they're poking so many holes in the Progressive Conservative party??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73369)</div>

The news media is "the news media" nothing more. It's nothing more than sound bites at a Grade 5 level to satisfy the bleating sheep that have become our society. The "news media" is an entirely self-serving enterprise that exists to nudge us in the "correct" direction.

Like how a herder guides his sheep, sometimes using the dog to nip at the legs of more stubborn members of the flock. Not a pretty picture

It doesn't matter which administration is in, the "news media" of the day will more-or-less go along with it with token resistance at most. The only thing more self-serving than the "news media" is the "opinion poll."

I think we can agree on the fact the vast majority of the "news media" is self-serving and even superfluous. I've had the misfortune to notice, since living in Canada, the completely in-your-face level of this bulls*** from "standard" Canadian news sources.

So, I tend to discount the "popular" news media as nothing more than self-serving drivel that is good for putting under my cat's litter box. I also tend to mistrust large corporations and government, as they are also self-serving.
[/b][/quote]

Well, I do not trust people who are not acting out of self interest, or more correctly claim not to be. People ought to be self serving, and I expect them to be so.

I'll give you a real world example. I have free time, I am picking up my early teen daughter from the mall. But, I end up having to wait a few minutes so I browse. When a salesperson asks if I need assistance in buying and I state frankly that I am just killing time (Can I help you? No thanks, I am just browsing). In that case, the salesperson is self serving by finding out if they are going to waste their time trying to sell a non prospect.

Suppose I am in the market for something and some bit of drivel about "I know this isn't in my best interest but...you'll be better, happier, etc. with this instead" well, I don't believe it. My faith is that people act out of self interest, and if they say otherwise, I think this person is being dishonest with me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"73494)</div>

Robert:

Yes, with people of course.

But the news media, or should I say more accurately "the news media" would like us to believe it/they are "fair, unbiased, and impartial."

Two words: bull and s***.

The "justice" system would have us believe the same. Bull and s***

Ditto the Government.

I tend to be very forthcoming with my viewpoints, much like you are. Is there an agenda? I suppose so, every human being on planet earth has an "agenda" of some sort.

But to honestly believe, for even a moment, that "the media" is unbiased? HA! That's a good one. Happy to see at least a few folks understand that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"73369)</div>

Yes. The only thing the Bush Administration has gotten right is its pay-offs to its coporate donors, the only people it recognizes as a constituency. Every GOP policy these days is aimed at enriching the rich or enforcing an insupportable status quo, and shifting more of the tax burden onto working Americans. Those who crow about added jobs are whistling in the dark, as the new jobs pay less than did the lost jobs they "replace."

We are seeing the return of the robber barons, and it's happening because we let Big Money into the political process. Big Money immediately set about buying itself more and more influence, and consequently the rest of us are squeezed out.

 

Jayman:
I've been following your comments regarding the Canadian government and other political matters over a fairly broad spectrum. While I don't expect other than fellow Canadians to be interested I would appreciate your feedback on the electoral system proposed at www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public ( and from anyone else who might wish to provide an opinion). :?:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Canuck\";p=\"74436)</div>

I've been following this for awhile. There are similar initiatives proposed at :

http://www.theurc.com

Though don't expect I Channel's Bill Cameron to provide any more thoughtful insight. He passed away last week.

Overall, I think this is a *very* good step in the right direction. As you may be aware, Premier Klein in Alberta has done this with Senators, which has really upset that boob Martin so he appointed his political pals to be Senator as usual.

It's rather obvious something has to be done, as currently the Western provinces are almost completely disenfranchised from the Canadian political system. Now on the other hand, if you live in Toronto, Mississauga, or Montreal, it's smooth sailing.

I hope that proposal passes. Good luck!

 

Jayman, appreciate your take on the STV system. I don't think there is a chance in h*ll that it will win in the referendum on May 17. Although Campbell came across as most magnanimous by supporting the study he did not allot any money to educate the citizens of BC as to the advantages of STV. That would be analogous to a condemned man pulling the handle on his gallows trap door. The final report was well written but stuffed in everyone's mail box along with all the other political junk mail and so I'll bet 95% of it went into the recycling bin. And to add to insuring that it wouldn't be adopted he set the bar of passing to 60% in each riding and 60% overall. If BC'ers don't take advantage of this opportunity they will continue to get the government they deserve and we deserve better. :cussing: ( always wanted to have an opportunity to use this emotion)

 

Well, Campbell has his boss to consider too. And now Campbell can rightly tell the voters "There I gave you a choice and you didn't approve it ..."

I would really like to see Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC get together on putting an effective opposition to Paul Martin's corrupt Liberal government. Until the petty bickering and regional horn-tooting is put aside, that won't happen.

Though at the moment, Klein has put the most effective opposition to Martin. And I'm sure you remember the recent Health Care Roundtable over the health care crisis, where the Romanow Report was mostly ignored by the Liberal government.

I think when you realize that federal transfer payments went from around 50% to less than 18% of total provincial health care expenditures under Finance Minister Paul Martin, it's easy to see where now-PM Martin has his priorities.

This is another Ponzi Scheme where Martin transferred a lot of Federal debt onto provinces, so the Liberal government can boast about their magic budget "surplus" to the entire world. Until Canadians are willing to demand accountability from their elected and appointed officials, nothing will change.

Hey, you never know, the nice folks of BC may experience collective understanding and actually vote this in!