Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!majka
From: majka@ubc-vision.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Make the rich pay? - no, the middle class, as usual.
Message-ID: <329@ubc-vision.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Dec-86 13:18:21 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.329
Posted: Thu Dec 18 13:18:21 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Dec-86 00:33:10 EST
References: <2819@watdcsu.UUCP> <708@looking.UUCP> <3764@utcsri.UUCP> <2564@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Reply-To: majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Computational Vision Lab, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 49

In article <2564@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Here's my two cents worth: [...]

Thanks for the two cents, Jim, but I don't think you will be able to write
it off on your 1986 income tax :-)

Seriously, I was shocked to see Jim proposing what I thought were well
thought-out, reasonable ideas.  Which of us is feeling ill, Jim?  One
comment however:  You suggest that UIC is "Subsidizing those parts of the
country which are simply not economically viable".  You propose that some
UIC money might be better spent on re-location programs.  I could not help
getting a vision of Maritimers and Newfoundlanders being herded into cattle
cars bound for Toronto, there to be joined by Prairie farmers (travelling in
Alberta Wheat Pool cars) and former oil drillers (in tankers, of course).
This idea bothered me.  What is T.O. going to do with them all?  What
happens when the price of oil rises again?  Does our society become nomadic,
following "economically viable" economic resources around?


>And now some more reboot material of an entirely different sort:
>
>Let's make Canada nuclear-weapons free said the Liberal delegates at
>their recent convention. Can anyone out there explain to me how this
>is *not* an endorsement of unilateral nuclear disarmament? 

I can't, but I don't mind that in the least.

> ... is there anyone out there who can explain why it is to
>our advantage to let the other side have the ability to nuke us into
>oblivion secure in the knowledge that we cannot retaliate? 

Because maybe then they might not be terrified of us nuking them into
oblivion first.  The effect might be so calming that they might decide to
spend the mega-billions that *they* spend on arms instead on useful programs
for their people.  We, of course, would have beat them to it, spending our
excess mega-billions on good things like railways, so that the above -
mentioned Maritimers could travel to Toronto in more comfort.



                                    *
                                   /.\
                                  // .\
                                 ./.|.\
Merry Christmas to the Net!      / . \.\.
                                ././.\.\
Marc Majka                       //. .\.
                                    |
                                   _|_