That was interesting

Saw him on CNN. The man knows of what he speaks,having lived under socialist rule. We would do well to learn from him.

He did a couple bits on Glenn Beck last week.

Can we clone him? Please?

Such maturity, forthrightness, and expertise is a refreshing change from the Gainsburgers our politicians try to sell.

I am a bit confused. In the western world where 'diversity is our strength' and oxymoron if I heard one, is to suggest a coming together of different factions, cultures and ethnicities within a common boundary is a Utopian idea.

How does the support of the separation of Kosovo from the larger Serbia serve that end?

When a region opts to separate from it's larger country, that is the antithesis of multiculturalism.

What am I supposed to think about that?

Human nature dictates that 'likes' attract and others are shunned. Simple observation tells us that. Much of Quebec wants out of Canada, why is that? Don't they support the idea of multiculturalism? It surely is not a good economic move. Why then do people continually want to separate from those who are different in some way?

Why do our native Indians want to be nations of their own. Note the 's' on the end of Nation. They don't want one native nation, they don't like each other for whatever reasons either. Their difference may only amount to the recipe for pemmican.

Again, it is human nature to want and demand a culture and society of shared values. That is why we will never see success in forcing disparate groups together.

Note the running like Lemmings by Black America to Obama. Note the large support for Hillary by older white women.

Likes attract. Everything else is an uneasy compromise or it is war.

I want to separate from the 'warmers' because my planet has no real long lasting environment problems caused by human activity other that some dirty water and air. My planet doesn't want to become tax-slaves to the false claim that it is.

This human failing in tolerance is most exemplified in the body of the Middle East where Israel wants what amounts to the little toe for a country of their own to be who they are, yet, it is completely unacceptable.

There is no hope, only compromise and war.

The Left and Right in our Western world appear to be at the end of compromise and war will soon follow.

John West - you have written another very insightful, thoughtful post. Getting along with 'others' is a never ending job here on earth.

This author of this article is obviously not a big fan of President Vaclav Klaus - he/she states at the end of this write up that President Klaus is a 'loose cannon' who enjoys his status (sort of inferring that Mr. Klaus is a Showman). I disagree with the writer, I perceive President Klaus as a very Civilized Man. He is a Statesman.

President Klaus rejects the idea of running a country like a mental institution, a schoolyard or a courtroom. A country is an entity and loping the limbs off a body does serious damage to the whole unless gangrene has set in (then it has to go) - cutting off ones nose to spite one's face is irresponsible and is always based on fanatical emotionalism. President Klaus does not think that the state should react with human hating bans and laws to address raw emotional reactions to unproven, emotional alarm ism among SOME sectors of society...he does not 'feel' responsible to the 'cries of the people' for irrational knee jerk token reactions to fairy tale nightmares. He thinks and makes his decisions based on what is be best for the health of the entity/country.

Statesmen are far removed from Nanny: people want nanny's when they are children; when people grow up they should be forced to put nanny's in their memory banks, not rely on them for sustenance. It seems to me that today, many people want 'pamper to depends' existences.

I am old enough to remember a Dad as the big boss of our family; my Dad did not change diapers or put up with whining kids, he did not wash clothes or mop the floor and he told us to 'get the hell out of the way' when he was busy. We respected (and loved) our Dad and we did not cross him BECAUSE he took care of us and told us that when we were paying our own way we could call our own shots - we couldn't wait to get a place of our own, so we could. Mom was a lot more understanding but she had the freedom to be nicer to us because she had Dad to back her up if she needed some help curtailing her willful offspring.

A country is like a family and in a Free State the family is the bases of the country. All individuals in a family have their own agendas but they will get along for the good of the family, if they have to - eg if the family falls apart all members go down the drain too!

Nanny states like Communist countries destroy the family first and the state endeavours to be mommy and papa to all individuals. People never leave the cradle because individuals never earn any authority, consequently, everything goes downhill fast. No one grows past the pablum stage. They do not endeavour to get along to make things better for themselves, their children, or their country because Communism will not allow that to happen...so nothing happens...people who do not grow up never live, they just exist.

Here in our country, Canada, we FINALLY have a Statesman in charge, he wants to make us make our own choices so when the minions DEMANDED that we have a global warming thingie our Prime Minister said Okay but we would have to pay for our own stupidity...other bans like smoking and burning wood/coal are the brain bubbles of municipal/provincial elected officials...again , we choose so we have it and we must pay for it. Canada is going through teenage growing pains because we have had a 'nanny' (Puffin/Dipper) state for sometime...the Czech people did not have the luxury of inheriting a vital fee -enterprise country when they moved to the nanny - they were war torn and conquered so they RESENTED the Totalitarian nanny and wanted rid of restrictions - they know the danger of allowing a state to run people's lives. We are still learning....

Live and Learn or Perish my Dad ( President Klaus and our Prime Minister) would say - thinking of the consequences of people's rash emotional actions instead of 'feeling' our pain and trying to 'make it better' by taking responsibility for our mistakes for us.

,

Klaus, on the Progressive Elites and more:

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=wFYl3mgsTzI6

A Sample:

[ Europeans ] applaud the growing formal opening of the continent, but do not see that the elimination of some of the borders without actual liberalization of human activities “only” shifts governments upwards, which means to the level where there is no democratic accountability and where the decisions are made by politicians appointed by politicians, not elected by citizens in free elections.

… It is Europe, where we witness the crowding out of democracy by post democracy.

Thanks, Jem. I like your strong family, strong society analogy. The family is the fundamental group that build the nation with the shared values.

We shake our heads when we see immigrants with a dozen or so members of the family sharing one house. Consider how many incomes in that household and much support including the much needed child care of the real caring variety.

Soon they buy up the neighborhood and have a strong like-minded community and so on. There will be a lot of tolerance in that community because of the shared values. They will then make great progress in building that community. Watch for the envy and contempt by others who don't have that unified strength to work with because they don't have those strong family and community ties.

"Together we stand divide we fall." Those old nuggets are oh-so right on.

When you don't belong to anything, you have learn a lot on your own and do everything without the support of others, thus as you point out, the government becomes your family and they are very very bad parents.

I disagree with John West.

He states that: "to suggest a coming together of different factions, cultures and ethnicities within a common boundary is a Utopian idea".

No it isn't utopian if these differences collaborate to produce shared values and beliefs. That's the basis of the USA.

It is utopian only to consider that these differences ought to remain and that the people should live separately and isolate from each other - rather than interacting to develop common values.

He says: "When a region opts to separate from it's larger country, that is the antithesis of multiculturalism."

That is implying that a 'larger country' is a biological organism and that the 'region' biologically belongs to that larger organism. I disagree. A nation is not a biological but a political construct. As such, it can separate into smaller political parts or merge to develop larger political systems. It is up to the people who live there; separation or merger is not a 'natural biological property.

Also, the development of shared beliefs and behaviour is a natural property of all systems- but such beliefs and behaviour are cognitive developments. They aren't biologically inherited. Therefore, people of different ethnicities, genetic composition, etc,etc - can collaborate to develop such a society of common shared beliefs and behaviour. That's because we are all, as members of the same species, similar in our cognitive and biological properties.

A modern society, to be robust, must also permit dissent and diversity. Without such 'deviation from the normative standard', the society loses its capacity to adapt. [As we can see in socialist and fundamentalist nations of today.]

So, while 'likes' attract, it is also valid that 'differences' attract as well. Both are constructive and necessary properties within a robust society.

ET:
So Abe Lincoln had it wrong?

What a great man.
It's unfortunate Vaclav Klaus is the only world leader willing to speak rationally regarding the weather...

What of your disdain for multiculturalism and the racial abuses it instills, ET? The growing pockets of minorities that are paid not to integrate into the host society? Or worse, the minorities (ie. Muslims) who have proven throughout the west that they will not integrate - in fact, creating no go zones and incorporating their own law?

See Hazel McCallion's interview in the Star and Post last week.

This is less about saving the planet then its about controling our lives its BIG BROTHER telling us how to live and big brother is a evil green maniac

ET,

Your comments completely missed my point and I consider your rebuttal a load of crap.

You say ...
"That is implying that a 'larger country' is a biological organism and that the 'region' biologically belongs to that larger organism. I disagree. A nation is not a biological but a political construct."

Wrong. A nation is a collection of people with "shared values" that uses a political construct to govern itself and deal with outside influences and maintain law and order.

Of course the USA is a nation of all races and so on, but that developed over a long time with strong enforcement of the melting pot to create those SHARED VALUES.

Show me a country that was put together and thrives by a bunch of politicians and I will show a communist collective that is shit from top to bottom.

We failed to assimilate our Indians and now they want their own nation within a nation. After Wolfe and Montcalm we failed to assimilate Quebec and they want to separate. Why is that? The political construct of Serbia tried to consolidate/assimilate it's regions, (method notwithstanding) but the Muslims managed to get the West to defend them. Now we have Kosovo.

Sometimes your posts are thoughtful, but sometimes I think you just like to hear yourself talk. In this case you have either not understood what I have said or you are just running off on your keyboard.

what a sane approach.
contrast that with the lunucy of Dr. Mengele Suzuki or the evangelical nutterish of Al Gore.

no wonder he doesnt get coverage on CBCpravda ,CTV(tass) or the rest of the MSM. it dont fit the agenda.

Saw Tim Ball again lately, the only man in Canada that has any credibility to speak about the climate, yes he is a climatologist. Mengele Suzuki.. I like that Cal2, can we use it, it fits, anyway the great Suzuki, at least on the cbc, has about as much credibility as the cbc. This despicibale man has sucked more milk from the public Canadian teat than any other cbc sycophant since Ann Murray, please Mr Suzuki quit discharging your untreated sewage into the Pacific before you take your sorry show on the road to tune the rest of us you sorry little partially bearded man.

and the their beer is the best!!!!!!!
pilzen)))))

Well said John West - ET I think that you did misread John's post, as he says himself. Immigration should not be something our nation is concerned with at this age. We should be reproducing our own population not be importing people - Canada is well over 100 years old! People from other countries, who wish to live here because they want to adopt the Free Canadian way of life should apply with all credentials and plan to become citizens of this country - their life should then become Canadian; previous country in the memory bank with nanny. It should be STRESSED that it is a privilege to become Canadian and that our country is not to be USED by foreigners for their own or their home county's benefit - massive immigration is not healthy for a country as old as ours - this is not the 'New World' anymore.

As for the lack of 'workers', especially young workers, that is the boomers own selfish faults - they should take that responsibility too and just work longer. It is not the first time in history that a nation lost most of it's young people: the Civil War in USA wiped out most of the young men from the Confederacy, the French Revolution and Napoleon's Campaigns did the same to France, WWI and the Russian Revolution in Russia, WWI and WWII in Great Britain, war and famine in Athens...

As Ashley Wilkes said to Scarlet O'Hara (Hamilton) in Gone with the Wind: in times like this, when civilizations are brought to their knees, only the strong survive, the weaklings are winnowed out. (Not the exact quote). Canadians are going to have to pull up their socks, put a little steel in their spines, start behaving like adults and CARE about the country that we live in by making sure we have good citizens living here and that we elect good men and women to tend to the political considerations of the nation. Adult citizens do not require elected officials or public servants to meddle in our lives, they are there to serve us.

We should demand that Private Property Rights be restored..IMO, that would kick out nanny faster than any gument 'grow up' program.

Optimism and disasters always produce babies..I'm looking to the former to restore this nation.

Bartinsky - I think you're being a little unfair to Ann Murray. I'm not a fan of her bland pantsuits and matching pseudo country-pop music, but hey, she's an entertainer. That's what they do. They perform for whoever pays them, even if it is the CBC. And, really, has she ever tried to force a crackpot ideology down our throats, or indulged in the kind of demagoguery that Suzuki has?

Ann Murray may not be everyone's cup of tea, but at least she deserves some credit for having the good taste to not join the trend of entertainers who use their fame as a soapbox to expound on subjects with equal measures of stridency and cluelessness.

Do we really need more overpaid bathetic troubadors and mountebanks running their cake-holes about how much they hate President Bush, that we should only use one square of toilet paper, that9-11 was an inside job, or that we should have been nicer to Saddam? On that score alone, Ms. Murray is worth every taxpayer penny.

So, let's leave Ann Murray alone, and save our bile for those who really deserve it.

John West lost me with his second sentence.

In the western world where 'diversity is our strength' and [sic] oxymoron if I heard one, is to suggest a coming together of different factions, cultures and ethnicities within a common boundary is a Utopian idea.

Not so. Diversity and strength are not opposing ideas; think stock portfolio. How does John West, up there, go from one person's or group's strength supporting another's weakness being utopian? The fantasy of "coming together" might be utopian but it isn't an essential for strength. I've long resolved myself to my country's utter schizophrenia, grand hysteria would be more accurate. Granted, we might be unbelievably powerful were we actually unified, but that would would hardly be utopian.

Just when I think I've heard the very last real oxymoron possible, a new one springs up. The recent discovery of so-called "pygmy mammoths" comes to mind, "cold heat", "light dark beer",

something happened to the rest of my post, but you get the idea.

diversity will destroy all who embrace it.

in every compromise someone loses. until those of you with large vocabularies understand that action has to follow the words nothing will happen.

Gotta watch it with the diversified stock portfolio analogy. A diversified portfolio is only safer if you don't know what you're doing. Otherwise, you should dump all the losers, and put all of your money into the winners. If you have identified one excellent stock, put all of your money into it. You don't need to balance out your winners by adding a few losers. It can be like betting equal amounts on every horse in a race, just to be on the safe side.

No, I'll continue to disagree with John West. I agree with shared values, but these values are an evolving set of values which the community develops together.

It doesn't have a Set of Values engraved in stone (eg, the Islamic Sharia); but instead, evolves its values as its economic and political modes evolve. These values must be communal, ie, basic to the majority, but, general enough to allow variation.

This capacity to develop these shared beliefs requires diversity of input and dissent. A group that only allows membership to 'people who think like us' and doesn't allow dissent is frozen and unable to evolve. At one time women weren't allowed to vote; at one time they weren't allowed to work. In Sharia law, this still holds. But, with dissent within the community, this changed. Dissent and variation of beliefs are vital.

That's why I disagree with multiculturalism because it sets up immigrant groups into isolate, non-adaptive blocs, with frozen beliefs and behaviours.

No, immigration into Canada has to be a reality even now; we are hardly at a peak population capacity. Furthermore, in our global society, individuals are, more and more, going to be living in several countries during their lifetime, and even, at the same time. It is more common now for people to be constantly travelling during their work. Therefore, developing a basic substratum of shared beliefs and behaviour in a global sense is vital.

I agree with John West on the importance of the family. And, I also reject the intrusion of the govt into raising the family.

I prefer to see a nation as a business with all the citizens as shareholders.

Canada is a successful "blue chip" country that can attract the best people. It was built up by hard workers, good management and a strong foundation. Modernization, new ideas and flexibility are essential. But new recruits should be carefully chosen. Codes of conduct must be enforced. Dead weight employees need to be addressed. The company has done well so the employees and shareholders have all benefited.

Now the successful business model has changed. Instead we seem to have replaced merit based hiring (immigration) with affirmative action. Unions (special interests) are calling the shots. Management (government) is engaged in corruption and fraud. Profits are used to buy shareholder loyalty to management instead of strengthening the business.

The country would be far better off if it went back to the basics. Including being more selective of its immigrants. They can and do have a significant effect on the host culture. New immigrants are less successful than a generation ago. The unpolitically correct questions of which immigrants and why needs to be addressed. Then quit making the same mistakes. Bring in people whose values are more likely to integrate with our liberal democracy. Not exactly the same but at least religiously and culturally compatible. People who will be as productive as previous immigrants.

The ECO-NAZIS under the GREEN SWASTIKA