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 //. .\. | _|_