BHS

In the United States, corporate taxes are at least 4% higher than corporate taxes here in Canada. Personal taxes in the USA are much lower than in Canada. What I would suggest to have "fairer taxes" is that we not continually cut corporate taxes, at the expense of the citizens of Canada. By that, I'm referring to the fact that as a result of Martin's barrage of corporate tax cuts, we have had cuts in public medicine, education, and much much more.... but personal tax cuts have not matched corporate... not even close... In fact, a large percentage of Ontarians have had their taxes increased as a direct result of provincial "tax cuts". Large tax cuts cut more tax from big business and the wealthiest 1% of the population that they do from other 99% of the public. Much of the burdon of the provincial costs, ei. social programs, were moved to municipal budgets so that Ontario could afford to implement the tax cuts. As a result, property taxes have gone way up, provincial tax cuts have ended up being miniscule in comparison, and services have been cut. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So in other words, your idea of fair taxes is to bring our tax system more in line with what the Americans have. And, perhaps, to hike taxes all around, in order to strengthen social programs.

Abortion - since you aren't actively encouraging infanticide, we'll leave well enough alone. Free Trade - go ahead and fear it, if you must. Keeping in mind that Free Trade has made the Auto Pact obsolete (even while GM, Toyota, etc. continue to produce some of the most sought-after cars in Canada) and has had a similar effect across our economy. Why do you think the Europeans are integrating their economies? I agree with you on Gay Rights and Gay Marriage. It's the libertarian in me. What do you mean by "fairer" taxes? Our tax system is already "progressive", attaching higher tax rates to higher incomes, so you can't mean that. As far as I'm concerned, fairer taxes means flatter taxes. As to teachers having the right to strike: it's a pity that any of the public services in this country are unionized, but what're ya gonna do? Blame the sixties and move on.

I understand all of that. The news reports that I read didn't suggest any immediate danger. I wonder if the GG's office will clarify her condition. It's not exactly great PR if she got a free pass to the front of the line, but they aren't saying she was in danger either.

A huge problem with the concept of policy by referendum is the fickle nature of the electorate. A sound system of government relies on consistency of approach, guided by party politics and mandated by periodic elections. Allowing the electorate to make law by the equivalent of public opinion polls would lead to chaos and endless Supreme Court challenges. Even if you disagree with the government's policy decisions (and believe me, I do) the alternative is a nation at war with itself, making laws to increase civil liberties because of thuggish cops one week, and laws to curb civil liberties to catch child abusers the next. And so on.

Giuliani is less of a moderate than you think. True, he's not a born-again Christian, but he is a religious Catholic and will be more of a friend to the religious right than you're giving him credit for. He's very pro law-and-order and as far as I know he wouldn't make changes to the current administration's foreign policy. However, I don't know that any POTUS has ever been elected after only having been elected to municipal government. I would look for Giuliani to make a run at New York's governorship before the presidency. As for John McCain, no matter what the polls say, there is just no way the Republican party is ever going to nominate him. He's despised by the libertarian (free speech) wing of the party for the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance laws, and a large swathe of the Republican party will never forgive him for the filibuster compromise. He's seen by most as an untrustworthy renegade, which makes for good news copy (and hence good general population poll numbers) but not for nuts-and-bolts coalition building. Further to your posts: Jeb Bush is too smart to try to follow his brother in 2008, knowing that Bush fatigue has already set in. Look for him to run after the next round of Democratic presidencies. Time is on his side. Condi Rice is an intriguing possibility, but like Giuliani she lacks big-leagues electoral success. If she's serious about running for office, I'd expect her to start at a lower level. She would probably make a good Vice Presidencial candidate. Colin Powell has the same electoral draw-backs as Condi, with the added problem that he appears to be uninterested in electoral politics. Another possible VP candidate, but that's a big stretch. Schwarzenegger has his place of birth working against him. While there was some talk after his election of attempting a Constitutional amendment, this option has more or less died. There are rumours he intends to quit after his first term. Cheney suffers from two major problems: his heart condition makes him a risky proposition, and he's been largely invisible since 911. But since there aren't any other ranking members of the current administration who even come close to his stature, look for him to run for the nomination as the current administration's flag-bearer. (Barring his death.) Newt Gingrich is well loved for nostalgic reasons, but he's been out of office for way too long. He might make a good VP candidate for whoever gets nominated. The other candidates you mentioned will probably run against Cheney. They're all weak prospects, Cheney included. I'd look for one of them to get the nod and then lose to Hillary, barring some lesser known Republican governor coming from out of the blue to steal the nomination a la Clinton in 1992. But he'll still lose. The only thing that could lead to another Republican presidency at this point would be another war. (Even then it's a long shot.) Unless the terrorists strike again, Bush isn't going to start another war, and Congress wouldn't approve funding for another war even if he did. My personal belief is that if the terrorists could strike the US again they would, but they don't have that capability any more, and won't for a long time.

I have always suspected that this belief explains the fundamental success of the federal Liberal Party, and the ability of federalist Quebecers to "blackmail" the rest of Canada. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right, except I'm not proselytizing for the Liberal party. I actually believe in the inevitability of Canada's wholesale acquisition by the American federation, or perhaps (but less likely) some sort of merger more suitable to Canadian sensibilities. The Liberals merely use this scenario as a scare tactic, suggesting that by voting Liberal in perpetuity the people of Canada can avoid becoming gauche.

I would say it will remain a fantasy for a good long time given the seething resentments that existing within the Canadian federation towards a long standing national gov't and the problems the EU is having creating new super-nation gov't. And those examples include peoples that would be philosophically predisposed to the concept of a world govt. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. I don't expect this to happen in the near future. There is talk, however, of the forming of a "democratic" voting block within the current UN, which might act as a stepping stone towards a purely democratically-oriented organization.

Democracy isn't the 'be all and end all', but there should be some mechanism in all societies for feedback to the 'lawmakers' of the land.That being said, a new 'UN style' organization could have an international law that could and should be upheld whether or not nations try to 'opt out' or not join. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree. The point of a Democratic UN is to establish a common set of rules that appeal to a majority of the people in the countries that participate. It is difficult for the developed world to come up with a solution for intervention in, for example, Sudan, because there are a lot of people who feel we don't have the "right" to interfere in a the affairs of a sovereign nation, as in Iraq. It will be no less difficult to come up with a commonly accepted policy for dealing with Sudan in a Democratic UN, if Sudan isn't a part of the organization. If the Democratic UN decides to enforce it's rules outside of the organization, but can't come to terms with the hardest cases, then what's the point?

I doubt it. I've seen the future, and it is full of Smart Cars.

Adrienne Clarkson, our head of state, managed to get a new pacemaker installed within days of the diagnosis of her heart condition. Does anyone know how long it normally takes for this sort of operation to be performed? Does this seem unusual to anyone else?

Before the Iraq war, reformers had control of the country's parliment and were gradually gaining more power - this is a fact that can be verified in numerous sources. Furthermore, they won power in the same electoral system that elected the hard liner - a fact that can also be verified.However, it is diffiult to know why they lost the recent election. One theory is that they failed to appeal to the masses of poor Iranians and it had nothing to do with geo polictics. Here is a link that talks more about the fortunes of Iran's reformists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would argue that the "reform" movement within the government is nothing more than a sop to Western nations and the real reformers, being the student movements and their supporters, who are keen to throw out the theocracy altogether. As both Argus and I have argued, it hardly makes a difference if the "leaders" of Iran are "reformers" or "hard-liners" - it's all just different packaging for the same party.

An interesting philosophical question: did Cromwell's rule of England in the 1600 lead to the democratic reforms that followed, after the return of monarchy? (Please note that I'm not playing devil's advocate here. This area of history is a little fuzzy for me.) Actually that is my point. Cromwell himself was an anti-democratic authoritarian, however, he united many groups who were opposed to the monarchy including democrats. Although he himself did not introduce democracy, the changes he brought out in society led to the introduction of democracy. In some ways, Cromwell is similar to Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran - a religious radical who deposed a depot that desperately needed deposing. Furthermore, similar to 17th century England, Iran is developing an open democratic society on its own without the help of the west. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has actually slowed this process down. The recent election of an anti-west radical illustrates an important fact: Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals. Let me repeat that to make sure people get it: "Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals". It is true that candidates have to be approved by the clerics, but the fact that there was a free and fair election between the sanctioned candidates is pretty amazing in my book. It also suggests that the best way to encourage democracies is the Islamic world is to stop proping up dictators like the Sauds, accept that muslims will elect religious extremists for the foreable future and be patient. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm afraid I have to disagree entirely about the Iranian elections. There's nothing free or fair about an election where you get to choose between A and A. This is hardly a step up from Saddam's "elections" in Iraq where the population got to choose whether or not they approved of his leadership. I also disagree that Iran's progress toward democracy has been slowed by the invasion of Iraq, but since there's no way of proving either of our cases, I'm going to leave it at that.

West. It would be naive to think they didn't despise the West and didn't wish it ill. And let us not forget there are numerous Islamist groups in the West preaching hatred of Western society and Western values. Britain is full of them, as is France and Spain. There's no dictatorship there, so why are they "wrapping themselves in the Koran"?Many Muslims feel there is something wrong with their societies and want change. Some of those wanting change use religious extremism as the justification for change in the belief that having an Islamically 'pure' state would correct the problems that they see in their societies. The 'west', as we call it, is simply a prop being used in a bloody civil war within Muslim society. The are significant parallels between the Muslim religious extremism that we find so distasteful and the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell - Cromwell believed quite firmly that he was remaking England according to the directions of God as he slaughtered thousands of people. That is why I think it is important that we protect ourselves from those who would do us harm but it is equally important that we do not become the dupes of these extremist that want to provoke an over-reaction in the west. So far, Bush has become the willing pawn of the Islamic radicals as he plays the part that they have written for him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> An interesting philosophical question: did Cromwell's rule of England in the 1600 lead to the democratic reforms that followed, after the return of monarchy? (Please note that I'm not playing devil's advocate here. This area of history is a little fuzzy for me.)

I live a couple of hours away from Cambridge, Ontario, where Toyota has a plant. Apparently it's a non-union shop. I imagine that all of their plants are. From what I've heard the work conditions, pay and benefits are very good, and no one wants to unionize and fuck it up.

Too true. However, the problem lies in the fact that most tyrants were supported by other nations for their own (and the individual tyrant's) personal interst. This would mean that to address the real cause of most of the 'human rights' problems, Canada would have been at odds(or at war) with the US, Russia, France, UK, China.....The only way to really deal with, and change the way things are done, is by having an organization like the UN with a lot more power to effect change. The UN, presently, is in sad need of an overhaul, or even scrapping, and a new 'global police force and 'impartial international court'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. It would be nice, and it's pretty much every science fiction fan's fantasy, if humanity could come together to form a global government that functioned with the same powers as our national governments do today. The UN in it's present form doesn't have the potential to go there. It legitimizes the world's worst regimes. Though it may be said that "all men are created equally", all nations are not, and do not deserve the equal stature that they acquire through UN membership. That some nations scrupulously play by the rules, while others use the rules only for their own benefit, is the greatest reason why the UN can't be given more teeth than it already has. I believe the UN should be replaced with a United Democratic Nations. Price of entry: free elections that compare favourably to the kind of elections we enjoy in Canada. In other words, elections that DON'T feature armed thugs at polling places, opposition party memebers being thrown in jail the week before the election, or ballots to "confirm" the rulership of the present dictator (with a manditory 100% turnout). Such an organisation could, over time, be given more authority to act over memeber nations to enforce a common code of standards, more "teeth" if you will, because democratic nations by their nature are more enclined towards following the rules. It could also provide a common a front for the furtherance of spreading freedom and democracy to non-democratic nations.

I totally agree, this tack is borderline trolling. Besides, of course the .00002% directly affected would feel slightly different than the rest in any given case. Well said, yes, some do want theocracies, (and if the majority supported it in a 'democratic election, could the 'west' have a leg to stand on in protest?) and as to 'none of our business', the old (half) joke on Capitol hill is "What's our oil doing under their sand"? It isn't all about oil, of course, but western economic interests have indeed led to meddling in the affairs of others, often for exclusive western benefit.The sooner the US/UK 'MasterBuilders' acknowledge the truth, the sooner things can change. Change isn't likely the way things are handled now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you guys ever heard of this thing called "history"? It turns out, some of the present day's circumstances stem from stuff that happened in the past, some of which was beyond the Western world's control. There's more to it than just a bunch of greedy capitalists sending poor people overseas to kill foreigners and interfere in their perfect way of life. It's true: some of the things we did in the past, some of the regimes we've supported, turned out to be wrong. Some of these mistakes have come back to bite us in the ass. To assume that these mistakes were made because of evil and greedy motivations is to completely ignore the geopolitics of the time they happened in. So is the solution to duck and cover and hope it all goes away? I say no. I say it's time to right the wrongs that have been done to the Middle East, and that a good first step in that direction is to establish working democracies, so that the people of that region can decide their own fate. And if they want a theocracy, or a thug dictatorship, or communism, or something else of their own devising, then they can choose that for themselves.

What are you talking about? Do you know what a trade deficit is?

Hmm. I'd like to read this "Pax Americana" of which you speak. Do you have a URL handy?

Sparhawk, why are you arguing with this guy? If he can't wrap his head around the legalities of property ownership, and it's clear that he can't, then why bother trying to argue any of the rest of it with him? You can't make any better or clearer arguments than you made at the beginning of the thread, and he still doesn't get it. Time to wash your hands and move on.

Actually, I meant to compare the pre-emptive strike against Iraq in the early 21st century to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s. I should have made myself more clear. On the other hand, comparing America to Nazi Germany is ignorant bordering on insane, especially using the weak generalizations you've employed. When you can come up with a better set of comparisons than that, I'll be here. I don't actually live in constant fear. It's funny, because I'd have thought YOU would be the one in constant fear, living right next door to the regime you fear more than anyone, including the killers of Al-Aqaeda.

I understand your desire for a new world order, so to speak, but for America to start organizing like Europe would be like the dog chasing it's own tail. The European Union is an overachieving attempt to mimick the American union. If it fails, it's because they didn't take the simplicity of the American constitution closely enough to heart.

Sigh. The same principles which kept the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack against the U.S. (and vice versa) would most certainly apply to any rogue nation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sigh. Yawn. Scratch, scratch. Do you know what the word "rogue" means? Do you understand how it applies in the term "rogue nation"? Your post quoted above implies not.

Nice how you ignore the very first sentence of the Indian story, explaining that India doesn't want to be part of the US MDS effort because their building one of their own.

You seem to have missed the whole "future doesn't equal today" element of my argument in favour of missile defense (and military preparedness in general), so I'm going to give up trying to argue with you about that. In case you missed it, Canada and every other first world nations all have capitalist economies. So what's you're point about America being capitalist? And somehow we managed to have a large and capable military in the past, so what happened? Political spending decisions have depleted our military capability. Canada has the world's 58th largest army, behind dozens of third world nations. Of course the Soviets wanted to convert the world to communism. Who considers our health care to be "the best on the planet" other than Canada's Liberal party? By what standards do you make that comparison? Do you realize that there are only three countries on Earth that prevent their citizens, by law, from using private health care - Canada, North Korea and Cuba. Calling our health care system "third world" might have been a step too far in the right direction on my part. I still don't understand what your point is about spam and viruses and whatnot. You conjecture that most of the problems on the web originate in the US. But then so do most of the solutions to the problems, and most advancements in general. So what? So the BBC is behind the Afghan theory. I might have guessed. Anything to stick one to the Yanks, truth be damned. I suppose you'd also buy the line that Thatcher made no useful contribubitons to English society, like: "The unions were going to relax their stranglehold on the moribund economy anyway, she didn't have anything to do with the economic turnaround". As to you're last point, again I say, you're blinkered. The US is our largest trading partner, as we are theirs. We share a common language, a common culture, and the world's largest undefended international border with them. Bin Laden himself has named Canada to be one of the "Little Satans" that are in league with the Great one. We are very much in the sights, whether you like it or not. No, I don't think we're going to be attacked tomorrow, with suicide bombs or dirty bombs or missiles or planeloads of VX. I think we're in the clear for now, thanks in large part to the American efforts to route the terrorist networks that had grown. The terrorists have been broken down to scattered terror cells, and have been forced to concentrate their efforts on smaller attacks in European cities where they have large, unassimilated populations of supporters and sympathisers. But to assume our inherent anti-American streak, and our unwillingness to protect ourselves, and our unwillingness to assist populations being ground under the heel of tyrants, will protect us from terrorism is just wrong.

Yes the US is providing us protection by making themselves the bigger target. The only protection I see is that the US is stealing the limelight on this matter. Making themselved the target. The US can protect itself, leave the security of Canada, well to Canada. You don't hear Martin screaming out BRING IT ON !!! That will just invite more problems. When Bush talks, people listen to his crew's rhetoric and get angry with him. This is the protection you are talkin about. Him blabbing away about how they will clean house and make it all better. No other leader on the planet speaks like this. Not even Kim Jong Il. So when back to the main topic. Supporting gay rights will NOT lead to a terrorist attack on us. Well not from foreign terrorists. It will be a local dispute and be handled by local authorities. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I suppose you'll only be happy when the monsters of this world are all treated with kid gloves and appeasement. Too fucking bad. The lessons of WWII have been learned. Ignoring the terrorists won't make them go away. It didn't work in 1993.