BS: Canucks... Trudeau?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM

Better that than a term for the wurst.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 10:07 PM

This thread has taken a turn for the better.

Some fascinating posts!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 09:40 PM

Charmion, you ask a fundamental and important question. I intend to respond with a few thoughts, but not until tomorrow. I'd like to formulate something thoughtful, because this is too important for off the cuff or glib.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:52 PM

Now? We simply say that all of these posts are meritous and show great insight. If ony ALL Canucks had such a grasp of our history we wouldn't allow our government to sell such an amazing nation to the highest bidder but that is what is happening. Money. Greed. It's sickening.

One comment... "But, does that make them [NDP] anti military?" They were clearly so "back then" and that's a BIG reason why they were ignored by the voters "back in the day". My comment, thanks for the support, refers to "back in the day" as I said it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:41 PM

Goot qvestion!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:39 PM

I agree with both of you. Now what do we do?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 04:44 PM

That's exactly how I see it, 999.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 04:37 PM

Peacekeepers need to know how to fight. The only way to know how to fight--that is, know what's involved in a fight--is to have fought. Training sharpens the blade but experience hones it.

Generally, Canadians built a reputation in WW I and as much in WW II. Korea didn't hurt, either. The resolution of the Suez Crisis by our then Prime Minister indeed brought a certain prestige to our country, but with Trudeau we had a PM who wasn't about to kiss Washington's rear end. Canada was involved in the Gulf War, but wisely stayed away from the Iraq War, once again incurring the wrath of our neighbours to the south. Our read of the proxy battles in Central America kept us out of there, and we had the indecency to see that those 'wars' had CIA written all over them. The former Yugoslavia was a dog's breakfast, but MacKenzie's leadership was excellent. I think we caved in a bit to do with Afghanistan--sent a few thousand troops from the PPCLI so that the idiot Bush could get some troops into Iraq, pdq. That said, the soldiers acquitted themselves well and continue to do so. HOWEVER, it has come to pass that our military people--those we send to support/enforce national policy--have been betrayed by various governments that have in OUR names underfunded them, egregiously. Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire along with the earlier Major-General Lewis Wharton MacKenzie were stalwart examples of what is best in military leadership, and the men and women who served under them would without hesitation attest to that, imo.

Political parties themselves change. It is a changed NDP to which I referred many posts ago. I detest the Conservatives and really dislike the Liberals. No party will be accepted by all people. That's a given. But the way it stands, unless the NDP and Liberals do reach some sort of accommodation, as a country we will be ruined. The Conservatives HAVE to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 11:46 AM

I'm going to be very blunt here, and I hope I don't completely derail the conversation.

Lester Pearson won the Nobel Prize for coming up with a neat way for the super powers of 1956 to back away from the Suez crisis without losing face. The principle of his proposal was that the intervening forces would not come from Britain, the Soviet Union or the United states, but all had cultural and political ties to at least one of those powers. Consequently, everyone knew that if either the Egyptians or the Israels touched a hair of any head that wore the UN blue beret (the teeny weeny, baby blue don't-shoot-me beanie), the super powers would drop the gloves and start World War Three.

Every single successful peace mission was based on this principle, and when the end of the Cold War brought an end to Mutually Assured Destruction, "classic" peacekeeping died with it. I'm talking about Bosnia and Croatia here, of course.

Canadians are very fond of the touching belief that we had a central role in the success of UN peacekeeping. A closer look reveals that, Mr Pearson aside, for the most part we provided soldiers skilled enough and un-American enough to conduct each peace mission within its rules of engagement --for what that's worth.

Sixty years on from our first deployments to the UN Truce Supervision Organization, the Middle East is no closer to peace than it was in 1947, Cyprus has grown accustomed to a constant military force that is a relable source of foreign exchange, India and Pakistan still can't agree on who owns Kashmir, and the Congo region is hell on earth. These are the places with the longest UN engagement, incidentally, and Canada has participated in all these missions from their earliest days.

What Trudeau added to the mix was a core belief that Canada's highest priority should be home defence, which did not sit well with the large sector of the public for whom our expeditionary operations were the greatest source of pride. NATO was where it was at, not tramping over the tundra. We needed a big-ship, blue-water Navy, an air force fully kitted out with the latest in fighter jets, and an army trained and equipped for that mythical confrontation in central Germany --the one that required main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, mechanized infantry. The one that never happened.

What we got in expeditionary operations was insurgency, which regular armies are notoriously bad at -- but that's a topic for another day.

For the record, Pierre Trudeau was right; in the late 60s, the Canadian Forces were tightly tied into international alliances at the expense of domestic needs. Unfortunately, he was arrogant about it at a time when public perceptions of Canadian national identity had not quite caught up with him.

And even after 11 years of Afghanistan and tub-thumping for support to the troops, many Canadians remain woefully ignorant, not only of our real military history -- not the fantasy whipped up for the 1812 bi-centennial -- but also of our present-day capabilities and commitments.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 10:34 AM

I don't see, from historical logic, that the NDP should alone be singled out as being opposed" the military or USA realted items mentioned. It may have been more a reflection of the countries mood at that time in history, which leaned more towards peace efforts rather than USA led "military war preparation in the cold war atmosphere." It cant be forgotten that Pearson won the Noble prize for peace efforts and many Canadians in the 60's were very proud of the countries reputation in that area. Citizens mood toward the Vietnam War should also be considered.

Diefenbaker and Trudeau were hardly big supporters of USA military policies of the period, or putting Canada in the forefront of a USA nuclear missle defense system.

Dief (57-63) was against accepting Bomarc nuclear missiles from the United States. He cancelled the Avro Arrow project. He had very poor relations with the Kennedy administration. He also refused USA pressure to join the Organization of American States, which at that time, would comit Canada to military action in the event of aggression of any of the member states.

""Prime Minister Pearson (1963 1968 and leader of the Opposition 1958-1963) infuriated Johnson by criticizing US bombing policy in Vietnam in a speech in the USA. For a Canadian prime minister to criticize US actions on American soil violated every code of diplomacy, but Pearson the Nobel Peace Prize winner felt a moral obligation to state his views. The event effectively ended Canadian influence on American Vietnam policy. ""

Prime Minister Trudeau (1968, to 1979, and 1980 to 1984) did little to build up the military and maintained a good relationship with Russia and Cuba. He was not seen as a big supporter of many USA international military approaches.

Trudeau established Canadian diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, when the USA viewed them as a military threat. He had official visits to both countries. Trudeau questioned Canada's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and cut Canada's NATO force in Europe in half.During a visit to the Soviet Union in 1971, he said that "the overwhelming American presence posed "a danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view." (hardly a pro USA statement or move. When visiting Canada in 1972, President Nixon declared that ""the special relationship between Canada and the United States was dead"".

""At a press conference in 1983, Trudeau denounced American policy in Central and South America. He indicated that Canada was appalled by human rights abuses in client states of the United States such as Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, and did not share the American antipathy for the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Canada openly condemned the United States at the United Nations for its attack on the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada, whose Marxist government had been friendly to Cuba"".

""With his own retirement looming, Trudeau sought to use his remaining time in office to work toward a lessening of international tension. In October 1983, he launched a peace initiative, proposing a comprehensive nuclear test ban and a ban on testing high-altitude weapons, a five-power conference on nuclear arms control and the implementation of a consultative process between NATO and the Soviet bloc. Trudeau personally brought his plan to Western capitals as well as to Moscow and Beijing. "" While this met with little success, and angeres the USA (as he did not consult with them first), many of the suggestions bore later fruit.

Historically,the NDP surely has had an influence on Canada's policies (far beyond its political support) because it often held a balance of powere between the liberals and PCs. The party MPs often asked pointed questions on Canada's military position on international conflicts and defense agencies and initiatives. But, does that make them anti military?

Before the Afghanistan mission, NDP leader Alexa McDonough(then NDP leader) indicated she was ""opposed the US-led assault on Afghanistan, saying that the fight against terrorism should be waged under the the United Nations...not under NATO"". She indicated that this should not be seen as the NDP being anti-military, that the party supported Canada's military and as such felt more international endorsement was needed before sending them into a major conflict overseas. It is interesting that opinion polls at the time showed opposition to military action against Afghanistan was greater in Quebec than any other province. A good question is could that have contributed in some way to the more recent NDP election wins in Quebec? Beats me?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 08:13 AM

Gnu is on to something important here. From the late 60s -- Vietnam, remember? -- right up to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the NDP were solidly opposed to Canada's continued membership in NATO and everything that went with it, but most particularly our military cooperation with the United States. When the US wanted to test its new Cruise missiles in northern Canada, we were treated to frantic demonstrations and much demagoguery frequently starring NDP activists. The NDP position on the Canadian Forces at that time was all for "peacekeeping" (whatever that meant) and complete withdrawal from anything resembling war-fighting.

The CF response to that was confused disdain. How could we be effective peacekeepers without war-fighting capacity?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 07:50 AM

People didn't "sign up" with the NDP because of some of their policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 07:21 PM

My historical recollection is the NDP began in 1961.
Curious gnu, the MDP did not sign up for what since then?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 04:39 PM

Indeed, LH. The hard core NDP philosophies are unacceptable to many Canucks. Now, their stance today on, say, the military, might be quite different from years ago, but Canucks of yore still remember why they didn't "sign up". Now... try to find all that kinda stuff. Go to their website. It ain't there. Easy to find it on the web and research it? Somewhat, but not really entertaining enough for young BUSY Canucks. Anybody under about 40 years old gonna do it? No.

BTW, I pick their stance on the military years ago because my forefathers lived through wars and thought that anyone who would severely downgrade the military was not acceptable as a party. Debatable? Of course. Acceptable to my parents? Not a hope.

Now, I ain't gonna get into any debate or provide detailed support or anything else... I am just sayin that's the way I remember things.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM

That's pretty strange.

I think it would be a very good idea for the NDP and the Liberals to merge into one party, but I doubt they'll do it. They'd both fear to lose their own identity in the process...but most of all, the NDP would fear it...and probably with some justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 08:53 PM

Kinda looks like what a NDP_Liberal merger would look like:)

I prefer mine in the traditional colours, and would see one of these types as a partial turncoat (in more than just a colour).

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 07:57 PM

I am SO glad I clicked on the link, Ed, because I found
this link at that link.

Kinda resembles a politician, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:51 PM

It couldn't make things worse. However, I think there has to be a combination of NDP and Liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:35 PM

Alot can happen over a few months and years. But, a few months ago who would have thought Justin Trudeau would have had this poll headline in the news? Not me.


Who woulda thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:07 PM

Good article, Ed. Very interesting. Perhaps the Liberals can recover again and sieze the middle ground which is their natural place of strength.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:17 AM

"An interesting perspective:

Trudeau underestimated?"


Indeed. Good one, Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:04 AM

Another perspective, bring national unity into the dilema:


Unity-Hill Times

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:53 AM

An interesting perspective:

Trudeau underestimated?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 09:02 PM

Dominic has officially supported Trudeau. Smart move.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:57 PM

My last post should have read:


On profession alone: Should one prefer a lawyer (many politicians are), a professional politician (quite a few are), a lobbyist, or a teacher?

Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:42 PM

ABSOLUTELY "alone"? Pro politician.

Yes, I caught that. I think... maybe... I don't know fer sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:02 PM

On profession alone: Should one prefer a lawyer (many politicians are), a professional politician (quite a few are), or a lobbyist to a teacher?

Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:31 PM

High school teacher for a couple of years and then a pro student. Wow!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:18 PM

i used to be ndp, but my wing kept getting kicked out of the party. in nova scotia in the seventies and bc and federally soon after. ya get the message eventually.   i've been voting green mostly recently. but i have voted liberal when i thought there was a tight race. when i lived in toronto i was in gerrard kennedy's riding so i voted for him. i even voted for him in an advance poll one year. then the next day i met him on the street campaigning. he asked me to vote for him, i said "i already did,you could punch me in the nose now and i couldn't change my vote if i wanted to"

luckily he refrained from rearranging my face.

but justin trudeau needs to win serious seats in qhebec to revive the liberals. it might happen but mulcair is a formidable oponent in quebec. however oif trudeau pulled it off, and captured the moderate vote in ontario, he's on his way to power. his father did it, and chretien did it in ontario in spades.

to compare him the george w bush is silly. george w never had a job except with family money. justin taught school. its a world of difference to actually be in the regular workplace compared with being bailed out repeatedly with family money in losing businesses.i wish justin had more of his fathers history of the fight for civil liberties and advanced education, but pierre was very old world. who has that kind of education and bacjground now?

however i will keep voting green as long qs there is a good candidate in my riding.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 11:40 PM

What I am saying about W. is that he came to the job without a lot of experience. We gave him a lot of credit because of his father.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT JUSTIN!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 09:24 PM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:45 PM

"There are far too many confounding factors in Quebec to figure that one out now?"... no need for a question mark at the end of that sentence!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:33 PM

There are those wo believe that the majority of Canadians are not at the left or right, but in the middle.

Let's say the librals merged with the NDP. Would the NDP ever be able to capture those in the middle. Or, would the Conservatives be the party that would capture that position?

There was a time that the Liberals were the middle party, and benefitted by frequent support from the NDP. I seem to recall that PET's ass was saved by the NDP support quite often, with a benefit to the NDP by the adoption of some left-leaning programs.

In an era of where economic concerns are a priority, the NDP may show poorly. If the priority were environmental issuues, possibly they would do better? A major shift in the past few elections was the so called "new Canadian" vote. The libreals seemed to loose this vote to the Conservatives in the last election?

Another good question is where will the Quebec votes go in the next election? Could there be a resurged Bloc type vote? Can Justin Trudeau (or another candidate) "shake off" the federal poor showing for the liberals? Was the NDP vote just an anomoly? There are far too many confounding factors in Quebec to figure that one out now?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 07:17 PM

I'd like to see that merger as well - the Cons would be toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM

Not at all. Who WE elect in Canada is important. The Hair has got to go. Although NDP is my party of choice, were it to look like a close contest between Libs and Cons, I would vote for the Libs in a trice. In the best of worlds, I'd like to see the NDP and Liberals merge, but I don't think that will happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:59 PM

So, does that mean that it don't matter squat who we elect or even who runs ta offer ta lead the True North Strong and gettin fucked up the ass?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:38 PM

Pretty much, Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 05:48 PM

So... that shit about killing Saddam and destabilizing the region and getting at the oil and gaining contol of the WMDs and... that was all secondary to robbing the western taxpayers of their life savings and they were just extra bonuses, 9?

Nice work if ya can get it, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:29 PM

IMO, Bush was elected to be the front man for the biggest bank robbery in history. It worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:16 PM

GWB was "elected" to do a job, ONE job, that being "leading" a team that would exact retribution with one big ass-kickin at ANY cost. Apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:02 PM

Therefore it must follow that......

Can you say logical fallacy?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:57 PM

I've got three things to say to Canada about electing the son of a former leader.   George W. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:50 PM

A July column by Lawrence Martin.



Trudeau's inside players

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM

Trudeau's Turks

The people behind Justin Trudeau's bid to become Liberal leader

By Michael den Tandt, Postmedia News October 6, 2012 10:48 AM

"Without question, Trudeau's rebels embody a generational shift: generation X is finally at the head table. Whether what the campaign is already calling a "movement" also represents a philosophical and ideological shift remains to be seen.

Certainly, there are early signs Trudeau intends to try something unusual: His stump speech is explicitly anti-ideological. His senior people speak about crafting "post-partisan" policy. Behind the scenes they are quietly but deliberately reaching across party lines in a search for ideas.

"I'm not sure I would characterize us a left-leaning," says Telford. "If there's a good idea that's traditionally seen as right … we're all pretty open-minded people. (Solutions) need to be results-driven, and evidence-driven."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What we see is old-school rules," says Chin. "Regional divides, regional mistrust … I don't think Canadians are ideological. I don't think Canadians are polarized. I think Canadians want pragmatic solutions that work, and policy based on facts as opposed to making up the facts to justify the policy. That's what we need to get back to."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We want to have a relatively flat organization, says Telford. "There are certain accountabilities, but we want to stay as flat as possible and as merit-based as possible. It's about who's willing to put in the work, no matter their background, no matter what party they've been in before, or (whether they've) been involved in past battles."


Read more:

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:03 AM

Yes, I did need to apologize because I was absolutely wrong... point blank. I said something I feel but cannot PROVE. Even if he was a saint, it doesn't say what he would do in future.

ollaimh... I agree with your take on Martin and The Little Guy. If Martin had Chrétien's skills and stayed in power (still doubtful, I think) we would be in far better shape. Of course, I can't prove that either... maybe it's just that I loathe The Hair.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

Gez gnu, no need to appoligize to anyone. You did nothing more than give your opinion, as we all do.

When someone makes a statement, I often ask questions for information - not to call them out, or challenge them beyond that. I do this to learn and possibly adjust my way of thinking and to see if I missed something.


Here is Dominics bio- not everyone can obtain a Masters of Law degree from the Harvard Law School>

Dominic LeBlanc

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: ollaimh
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 01:38 PM

gnu, martin and his followers got control of the riding associations step by step for a decade and that is how he forced chretien to retire two years before planned. chretien should have ridden out the scandals. martin had what ot took to govern but little political sense. ans he had no answer to harpsers dirty tricks.(like getting ther head of the rcmp zacherdelli to put out a letter in mid electio , that the liberals were ubder criminal investigation for budget leaks--then after the election zacherdelli says--opps no investigation after all)

chretien knew how to ride out scandals and dirty tricks.

remember the libertals brought us eleven surpluss budgets without cutting core social programs, and regulated out banks so we had no collapse. we will now have a debt crisis like under mulroney and the next government will have to clean it up.

if justin wins the pm office he will not abandon the liberal fiscal conservatives. he will go with mnore social programs but so did martin at the end.

however it may all be moot--mulcair may have quebec locked up and that would kill trudeaus hopes of governing.

granted justin does not have his fathers history of a phd in economic, studying at harvard, the sorbonne and the london school of economics. and especuially pierre's history of fighting for social justic in qhebec against duplessis, especially with cite libre. but who does? p trudeau was almost uniqie as a politician , having come from a totally inependant background with high education and a history of social activism. kinda like obama. these guys don't come along often. most politicians never have a job out side politics.at least justin taought school and made movies--with his brother.

and he could out box harper or mulcair!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM

Ed... ya got me there. Point blank. I can't prove a word of it. My apologies to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 07:00 PM

Well, gnu, I knew Romeo also, maybe not as well as you??? I did not know him when he taught school or lived in Cormiers' Cove, near Taylor's villiage....but it was later when he matured and was Fisheries minister. I can say first hand that he was "the real deal".

But, I know too many case where the offsprings are nowhere near their parents scale (and sometimes on the opposite pole) to base a judgement on. Basing a persons character on the parents, or the family's overall character alone does not make it with me. In my books, they have to earn my respect and show it for themselves for me to take notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 06:48 PM

"real deal"? I know the family. I could say Trudeau can be trusted because his old man did the right things by standing uo for Canada against any and all opponents but I have added trust in LeBlanc. As much trust as anyone can have these days. Trust the system? No. Trust the wo/man? Yes. It's all we have.