apollo19

I think Ignatieff does see the issue properly, but he cannot stake out the position of supporting a combat role while being Dion's deputy leader (though I think it is quite clear he does support it, based on his voting last year for the extension). The report generally has it right, in that Canada does need support in Kandahar. The easy way out of this issue would have been the Americans adding more troops to help Canada, but (thankfully) the pressure has been applied to other NATO nations. So many people hope for involvement in Darfur, yet they are quick to advocate changing what Canada does in Afghanistan. It would be a shame if we step away from taking the lead in moving towards goals virtually every Canadian agrees with. We also need to energize other nations to move towards missions which support human rights and development, and I think the first step has been taken with France considering sending troops into combat in Kandahar. There is no doubt that we will see more of these Darfur/Afghanistan cases in the coming years, and there is also no doubt that 20 years down the road, Afghanistan won't remain dead last on so many lists measuring human welfare.

If the tax was on consumption and not production, then it would not be nearly as effective because the origin of production would not have any incentive to produce less (or more efficiently), other than a questionable shift in demand. Also, if you put the tax on production, the cost will be passed on all the way to the point of consumption, whereas a tax on consumption leaves the producers free from any cost whatsoever. I disagree with the fact that there would need to be a few years time before the tax could be implemented -- it could likely be implemented immediately with little effect as long as the tax rate was started low enough, with a timetable for ramping it up. Looking at the additional (and ever increasing) cost of construction for many oil firms, I doubt that a minor addition cost to their production would hurt much. About the lumber -- wood is carbon-neutral, whether it rots on the ground or is cut down and burned, it emits the same amount of CO2. Ontario would likely be dinged as well with the tax, as would BC with their growing oil industry. Quebec likely wouldn't be hurt by a tax, but that is not the point. The revenue from the tax (at least what I propose) would not go to Quebec, so what would be the problem? You say that gas would shoot up the $2.00/litre -- doubtful. As I've said, putting the tax on consumption rather than production is a bad idea as it does not have a direct effect on the decision to emit less GHG's by firms. The cost would be passed on to consumers, so saying that regions which enjoy their wealth based on consumption would somehow be better off is just plain wrong.

I tend to agree with the idea, but I think the revenues should be directed towards a cut in the corporate tax rate. I don't think this idea would ever fly though, mostly because people in Alberta who are die-hard oil defenders will frame this as a NEP-2 trying to steal Albertan's money. Ideally, an international carbon-trading scheme like Kyoto would work, but it does not because there is no international government which can implement such a system. Thus, the next best measure would be the carbon tax -- not more regulation.

It is interesting in the world now that China is demanding so much resources -- the world is now awakened to what can happen when we have a finite supply of things and ever-increasing demand for them. I wouldn't say we will lose our high standard of living, but in the future things will become increasingly more expensive, forcing us to seek more sustainable substitutes. About the "threat" of China: I don't think China will ever target anyone militarily first (aside from possibly Taiwan, although that would be provoked). What is interesting about China is the fact that it is a dictatorship now, with ever increasing economic freedom for it's citizens. China has historically always been strongest with a powerful central government. In the future we will see if President Bush's theory of increasing economic freedom granting increased social freedom will happen. Personally, I think it will, but the Communist Party will not give up power easily to the people it governs.

Sorry, but I don't see the meaning in any of this. Why are you calling Harper fat? What does that possibly have to do with anything? I guess in your world, he should be a polar opposite of Bush, since apparently Bush jogs everyday. Since I haven't seen you post here before, I would suggest that you stop being so partisan and insulting people based on their physical appearance. About the "focus groups" and public money being spent on them -- I disagree with that. Why would the government spend money to craft a communications strategy for a political move?

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85 Compared to last time, I moved down a bit and stayed about the same economically.

I think there is zero chance that Clinton or Obama will win the White House. Obama won't even win the Democratic nominaton, Hillary will make sure of that. Both of their positions are too far out there, and while Clinton has maybe too much recognition (which makes her a divider), Obama doesn't have enough (which means people don't trust him). Whoever the GOP nomination is will have a very good chance just in the starting gate, without any campaigning.

I don't really think this is understood too well in Canada. We have governments that "keep a reign on spending", yet which have these generous social programs. The two combined effectively creates starved programs which do not do what they were designed to, creating a cycle of mediocrity. For people on the left, government should put more funding into these starved programs. For people on the right, these starving programs should be cut and put out of their misery. But taking a position "in the middle" and being proud of the fact that the government starves programs in an attempt to appease both the left and the right? I guess I just don't understand that. Back to the topic at hand, I don't think that Canadian govt spending is good at this point in time. Ideally, the government would grow to accomodate govt services in demand, yet not put pressure on the economy by growing faster than inflation. US govt spending isn't all that bad, considering what it spends on. People like to point out these debt-to-GDP ratios and govt spending-to-GDP, but at the end of the day both governments over history have not done a very good job of managing things.

I think I'm going to have to go to McGuinty at this point. The election is only what, 8 months away? Yet I still haven't heard anything decent from Tory. He hasn't announced positions on anything, except that he would be "different". Although I won't be joining any parties, I'll probably get a Liberal sign for my lawn (which is something I don't really do.. shows how bad I think Tory really is). Pretty much I think you can expect the Liberals to ease back into power with a reduced majority, with the NDP remaining unimportant. Unless Tory can start a fire beneath him, McGuinty will cruise in for an easy victory in an unexciting campaign.

Although I wasn't really old enough for the Mulroney years, the way I see this is as follows: a friend gave him some money in exchange for consulting on his business, which was seen by some as a bribe in order to help Airbus get a contract over Boeing. Nobody has any evidence of this being illegal, and when the Libs tried to bring the issue back, he sued the government and won. Which means they really didn't have any evidence. I say it's all good. From people's experiences who I know, Mulroney was one of the better PM's Canada ever had (looking back on it all). Yet some people absolutely hate him and will never stop beating the dead issues. I guess we will have to wait for these people to be in their graves before we will stop hearing this stuff, even though they have no evidence.

I generally think that the article is right on. Dion isn't exactly a well-set person in the political arena, and seems like if he gets roasted in a debate he will run off stage and cry, like he nearly did when Ignatieff debated him. He brings out these "waste disposal" arguments about no nuclear power, yet he likely has no idea whatsoever about the issue and how more nuclear power would help Canada reach it's emissions targets. He has no fire on any issues, and isn't really knowledgable or articulate about any of them (in French as well for that matter). I think its a pretty sad state with Federal leaders in Canada right now. Dion is a flimsy sociologist/professor, Harper is a lifelong politician cloaked under the appearance of an economist (when was he actually an economist?), and Layton is just your mainstream professor from a left-wing university who will never achieve anything. I'm hoping in the next few years we will get someone better like Charest/Ignatieff/Brison/Kennedy/Cannon/Prentice at the top.

Any ideas about what the parties will run on? Will Charest go for the same style as last campaign where he was for public cuts, or will he go happy-happy? From what I can gather about Boisclair, he isn't too well liked by the unions, which could mean trouble in the PQ's base. Will Bouchard make any pitches for anyone?

I think if anyone looks at Kyoto from a non-partisan standpoint, they will see that it is flawed and a do-nothing agreement. Yes, I'm sure through buying credits from other countries pollution will fall. It seems the only good way to get any significant movement on global warming is if every country individually works to reduce their GHG's, without any international framework. You can't have an international agreement like Kyoto without having an international government of sorts which could implement it... globalization isn't there yet.

I forced myself to watch the whole show, to see what all the fuss was about. What I saw was disgusting. Stereotyping white people, stereotyping Toronto people, stereotyping rural people. I have to wonder why the CBC would allow such a sub-par production to be allowed. Also, I don't see why many Muslims feel the need to overrepresent themselves in the world. Why did the CBC, a public broadcaster, allow a show about Muslims and their "hardships"? They are a smaller minority than others, yet they get disproportionately larger attention. The show is a slap in the face, although I guess it was green-lighted as I found it to have the little "Canadian" smugness in it -- showing an airport security person saying "oh you're a muslim, you aren't getting on this plane!"... ha-ha. I equate that to the typical Canadian who says "oh that American thinks we live in igloos! what a dumb country the US is!".. ha-ha. Hopefully it is pulled from the air promptly.

I think they should enter our food supply. To those complaining about the "little farmer", the day of the independent farmer is over and eventually they will disappear except for niches like organic food. If cloned food allows for cheaper food, then good. If it's more expensive, then I wouldn't expect to see the market accept it.