Mad_Michael

Good gosh. The quote you are lifting from Trudeau was given during the October Crisis when Trudeau declared martial law! He wasn't talking about handing out tickets for jaywalking here. There were tanks rolling down the streets of Montreal.

Not quite. For the USA, that's 1941-1945. And you are pretty quick to lay claim to ownership of several specifically NATO operations (that the USA generally politically opposed - such as Bosnia).

Universal morality requires a universal God. Nothing more, nothing less.

And yet, apparently, Marx thought there was. And as I've pointed out, this thought of Marx contradicts his theory of history. A dictatorship of the proletariat contradicts the principle that under communism, the state withers away. A dictatorship is the very definition of a state. So, according to Marx, under communism, we will have a dictatorship of the proletariat while the state will wither away. That is absurd. I tried to point out earlier that it is not a contradiction. It is inevitable that SOMEONE will do these things. Inevitable doesn't mean there is no human participation, it simply means that the humans involved will certainly do it. No. To state that it is "inevitable" means not that someone will do those things - but that they will absolutely be successful doing it - one cannot fail - it will be. No. The vanguard is merely the group of people tasked with establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. The concept is highly related. The vanguard is supposedly necessary for the same reason the dictatorship is needed. And they are absurd for the same reasons. The communist revolution is inevitable, unstopable and entirely dependent upon capital to create the means for the transition. But apparently, the theory still requires that a bunch of activists have to do the deed and run the show like tyrants. If you need a bunch of activists to create the revolution and you need a bunch of dictators to rule the revolution, then the revolution is not inevitable or natural. It is entirely politically manufactured. That is why I call this 'dictatorship' business absurd. It flatly contradicts Marx's general theory which is sound. True. I think it's fair to observe that history has proven it wrong. History has 'proven' nothing of the sort, and that wasn't my point at all. My point was to mock the absurdity of something being 'inevitable' or some 'immutable law of history' being dependent entirely upon the successful actions of some radical activists. That is absurd. As for the historical necessity of the change in the mode of production, that is occuring even as we speak here. No political revolution is necessary to bring this about. And as it should be according to Marx's theory, this process is most advanced in the USA where it ought to be. No vanguard or proletarian dictators anywhere in sight. Indeed, the one place on the planet that had a vanguard and a proletarian dictatorship is totally out of the loop here. Russia's economy is as comparatively backwards now as it was in 1917.

I've always considered ADD to be a middleclass phenomena - an attempt to medicalise parental failure as a way of protecting the feelings failed parents. I've never seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Really? That sounds trite - like the propaganda of the victor. What I notice is that all the victims of genocide were always a small minority - the perpetrators always in a strong position of majority (Jews in Germany, Natives in USA, and Armenians in Turkey to use the three most famous examples). This 'pretext of survival' crap is nothng more than propaganda used to justify the act. And simple animal instincts are NOT moral acts. A mother sacrificing herself to save her child is not engaged in a moral act. Anyone engaged in 'survival' is not engaged in moral acts. If the building catches fire, those that run for safety are not engaged in a moral act.

My interest in liberty prevents me from ascribing to such systems. There is liberty in cash. History has taught us nothing if not that Governments can and will abuse every power you give them. Hand over everything you have to an electronic system and you will have to ask permission to use your own money. What if the government doesn't approve of your purchase? They will have the physical power to prevent the financial transfer. That is a loss of liberty.

Yes, highly taxed countries correspond directly with a very low birth rate. And even lower taxed countries (like the USA for example) show the exact same low birth rate. Prosperity is the common factor, not taxation. Btw, Some African and South American nations have absurdly high rates of taxation and equally high birth rates.

The Chinese could flood the planet with US dollars which would cause a melt-down of the value of the US currency, which would cause a huge shock to the US economy. But of course, the value of the Chinese reserve would drop at the same rate. Thus, they'd lose hundreds of billions of dollars doing it. Yes, they could and would do it if the USA were to annoy them (like over Taiwan for example), but otherwise the Chinese own interest suggests that they would not do this. There is. Many of the big old Chinese State owned enterprises are entirely unreformed and hideously inefficient and corrupt.

I'm the only Canadian in the top ten list at two different US political forums (5 digit posting totals) I don't see anything significant about that. Indeed, I've seen many Americans show more knowledge of Canada than many Canadians. As I've seen many Canadians show more knowledge of the USA than many Americans.

It won't budge the birthrate. It is a fact that rising prosperty is the cause of falling birth rates. Ergo, giving tax breaks to families ain't going to budge the birthrate. Bemused giggles. You are dreaming. Whining and bitching for more is the only thing the Provinces know how to do well.

I'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal. As far as I'm concerned, a spendthrift government with a regressive social policy is the absolute worst choice. The credentials of 'conservatives' to be fiscally irresponsible is now well established. Between Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Mulroney and Harper, those who call themselves 'conservative' have proven that they cannot be trusted with the nation's finances. Ontario's Mike Harris falls into the same category. Conservative? Compared to what? Apparently the only fiscal conservatives I've seen in the last twenty years were Bill Clinton and Paul Martin.

There is nothing 'fascinating' or even interesting about hatemongers.

That would be 'misrepresentation' for a representative to pretent they support the party in order to get elected but once elected, to reject the party (regardless of the issue).

In our Westminster model, yes. If a representative stands for election under that party label, they must toe the party line for that party label. To do otherwise is to commit fraud against the electorate. If any representative finds themselves unable to vote the party line, they must either resign their seat or resign from the party. I cannot imagine any valid exceptions to this rule.

Post reported to site adminstration.

It is a perfectly reasonable expression - wealth is understood to be 'created', and thus, one 'makes' money by creating wealth. Many other peoples only dream of 'having' money - presumably other people's money. I like the English way. Btw, I haven't a clue who Ron Jeremy is, but I figure he has a better chance of being President since I do know who Ron Paul is.

I dispute your examples of 'appeasement', and/or your black/white interpretation of various historical events of the 19th and 20th century. I'll try to be brief. Prussia fought and defeated France in 1870, not Germany. Germany did not exist as a unified State until it was created as such, in 1871. The mere existence of Germany as a unified state, post 1871, could be (and was) interpreted as 'defacto' aggression by France, Great Britain, Imperial Austria and Czarist Russia. Germany was held to be aggressive by definition of existing. The German states were supposed to stay independent and weak and divided so they could be dominated by the Great Powers. Germany was an upstart that rocked the boat by merely existing. I might add that in the last quarter of the 19th century, post 1871 creation of Germany, the German military was less used in action than that of France, Britain, Austria and Russia. So how exactly was Germany "becoming increasingly aggressive with Western Europe"??? I should also like to add that you didn't bother to mention what aggressive games France was up to in North Africa during this same period, or what Great Britain was playing with down in Southern Africa, Egypt, India, etc., or what feeble Imperial Austria was up to the Balkans, or that the neurotic and generally incompetent Russian Czars were fanatically sensitive to any act of Europe being 'aggressive' to Russia. Nor did you mention that all of the four Great Powers in question had made war on German soil many times prior to the 1870 year marker you chose to draw as 'the beginning'. Sanctions? Who could impose sanctions in 1870? And Prussia merely took back from France what most Germans consider to be rightfully German. It was Louis XIV's pride and joy of his reign that he added this piece to France in the first place, what he felt was lost to France when Charlemagne's empire was split three ways in the 9th century. If we have any nationalist Germans or nationalist French here, they can argue this piece of turf for hours. It certainly is not 'clear-cut' example of anything. This is totally hindsight. Events that triggered WW1 do not support your interpretation. All except the last statement (which is heresay) is standard late 19th century affairs. No outrageously aggressive act by any of the Great Powers received any kind of substantial 'international rebuke' in the way of warnings or sanctions or even symbolic wrist-slapping. They were all guilty of the most outrageous acts of international rapine and colonialism (this period also includes the US playing gunboat diplomacy with their own Spanish War). That is to say, in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was no such thing as 'international law' or any 'international body' that could convey such a thing. There was no mechanism to invoke sanctions or warnings or symbolic wrist-slapping. Indeed, to try to engage anything of the sort would open one State to 'tit-for-tat' from the other State who would then publicise what the accuser nation was actually up to in their own affairs (that would look equally nefarious and aggressive) spoiling the whole game. That old adage about 'those who live in glass houses ought not to throw rocks' was very pertinent at this time of cut-throat Great Power rivalry around the planet. I knew we would come to this one! Fact is, Hitler had the invasion of the USSR on his mind since day one. That was the whole reason for his being. He was obsessed with it entirely throughout his career. Everything is just a stepping stone to that ultimate goal of the conquest of USSR (which he believed was run by the Jews). In this respect, Czecho was just the first confrontation that anyone reacted to. Hitler's first 'bold move' was re-taking the Saar. Given everything we know about Hitler, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any reaction from anyone would have changed his ultimate plan. If France and Britain reacted to Hitler's aggression in the Saar, he would have fought then. If the Brits and the French drew a line in the sand over Czecho, Hitler would have gone to war right then and there. If the Brits and the French didn't he'd move on to Poland. If no one reacted, he'd just move on to France/Belgium, then the Balkans and the, finally, ultimately, USSR. Nothing anything anyone could have done at any point in the cycle would have changed anything. Indeed, lets just say that instead of Chamberlain's 'peace in our time', Chamberlain came home from Munich in 1938 and declared war on Germany over the issue. Hitler would have just invaded and taken over Czecho in some 15 days or something silly like that and then what? Nothing. The world would still be deciding what to do about it until Germany invaded Poland a year later. And still, the world would be standing by, doing nothing. So how did this policy of 'appeasement' fail here exactly? In my mind, the policy worked perfectly well. Hitler's interest in the Sudaten German portion of Czecho was quite reasonable - the place was definitely German. What if the policy worked and that was all Hitler really wanted? If all Hitler really wanted was to re-unite the Sudatenland to Germany, then France and Britain going to war over the matter seems quite silly and frivolous. But because Hitler signed the deal and 'promised' - then turned around and ignored it and did exactly what he wanted and take all of Czecho, that proved immediately right there that Hitler was a dangerous tyrant. Thus, because of the Chamberlain deal, the truth about Hitler became known very clearly. Ergo, the 'appeasement' policy generally worked - it didn't give away anything that wasn't already gone, it cost nothing, there was NOTHING anyone could do about it anyways, and best of all, it showed up Hitler for exactly the tyrannical monster that he really was. The opposite policy, applied in the same circumstances would have resulted in exactly the same outcome. Hitler would have taken over Czecho and there wasn't a darn thing anyone, anywhere was able or willing to do anything about it. Churchill was entirely correct, but 'appeasement' had nothing to do with it. Yes, Hitler was a monster and was going to try and take over the world. Saying 'no' firmly the first time he tried to take a little piece wouldn't have made one whit of difference - at best, it would only have started the war sooner rather than later. Given that delaying the war was in the interests of the allies and against the interests of Hitler (who had started mobilizing his military long before the others, and thus was at an advanced point in weapons development cycles), the appeasement policy of Chamberlain's had the beneficial effect of increasing the likelihood of ultimately defeating Hitler by delaying the war for another year. Um... aren't you missing a few steps here? Like the ones that provide the counter-evidence to your theory? The deal signed by Clinton had the effect of locking down the plutonium rods under seal and inspection. Subsequently, both the USA and N.Korea violated the various terms of the agreement. But the plutonium stayed sealed. Fast forward now to President Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" speech, naming N.Korea as a direct threat to the USA. It is generally understood that the seals were popped on the rods that night and the nuke program went into high gear. Thus, the 'appeasement' strategy that President Clinton applied to N.Korea was generally successful. N.Korea did not go nuclear on his watch. The N.Koreans very specifically interpreted President Bush's belligerent rhetoric (on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq) as a direct threat to themselves. They responded to this threat by going nuclear. So, the N.Korean 'case' suggests that it is President Bush's aggressive rhetoric that was the 'trigger' for N.Korea going nuclear. Once again, a policy of rational 'appeasement' did function reasonably well. It didn't solve the problem, but it didn't make it worse. President Bush's rejection of that policy definitely made the situation worse - N.Korea went nuclear on his watch. Iran has been vastly empowered by the insanity of the US invasion of Iraq. And Iran is to be blamed for this? USA screws up big time and inadvertently empowers Iran and now USA is annoyed at Iran for being empowered? Iran doesn't care about US sanctions or threats. USA has already done so much damage to Iran (from an Iranian point of view) that nothing the US says or does can be believed - or disbelieved. The intimate involvement of the USA upholding the Shah and his secret police is a memory Iran will never, ever forget. Iran also will not forget that the USA supplied aid, chemical weapons and military support to Saddam and Iraq in a war of aggression against Iran, that ended barely twenty years ago. And the USA refuses to even met directly with Iran, but this is supposed to be evidence of the failure of appeasement? Rather looks more like a failure of US belligerence again (like N.Korea). Good gosh, this post is getting silly. Israel? Have you looked at a map of the West Bank recently? In case you are unclear on the issue, giving back land that you directly took away at the point of a gun does not constitute 'appeasement'. I won't comment upon this one as the events of this issue are rather controversial. Suffice it to say that I wouldn't offer it as evidence of either a failure or a success of any appeasement. It is a good example of the dangers of belligerence and aggression though. Given the US track record in Vietnam, Iraq, N.Korea and Iran, of that, I have no doubt. But it won't be for any failure of 'appeasement', you can be sure of that. True. But it does work with non-aggressors and as such, it is a very useful tool in discerning the difference. Making an aggressive error with a non-aggressor state would be very ugly and unjust. Once a policy of appeasment has failed, aggression is self evident. However, before the policy is tried, one doesn't really know if the other party is in fact, aggressive, or not. In many cases, one's own country might be trying very hard to foster a war (or a threat of war) in order to satisfy a large constituency of military-defence contractors itching for actual 'live-action' testing and a market for more sales. As such, one needs to try out a few non-bloody policies (such as appeasement) in order for the 'truth' of the situation to become apparent (truth can be so shy sometimes). If the policy fails then the warmongers can have the war that they want so bad. But if the war isn't just, you just going to get a big problem on your hands - like Vietnam or Iraq. Unjust wars have a way of rotting from the inside outwards.

If Chinese oil demand consists of 'speculation' where are they storing all that oil they've been buying? Merely bidding up the futures market might be considered 'speculative', if one doesn't execute the option. But if the buy is not executed, the 'fake' demand of the futures speculation itself, also evaporates. But if you do execute the 'buy' option, then it isn't speculation - it is actual demand and the price of oil reflects actual supply/demand actions. Except one small little piece of data that you are overlooking. China is no longer the lowest cost producer in the third world - not even close. All of the growth in the Chinese economy has actually produced inflationary pressure on factory wages inside China. While some low-cost companies are moving out of China because of this, seeking lower cost labour elsewhere in order to satisfy the US market, there is ample evidence that China is doing exactly what you'd expect them to do, following classical economic theory - they are trying to move up the value-added chain - just like every other (well managed) developing nation on the planet. Btw, it isn't actually "slave labour" if wages are rising amongst private market companies according to the law of supply and demand. Indeed, it is classical economic theory and downright 'free market' like. And I wouldn't call Chinese standard-of-living to be 'prosperity'. It is prosperous by 3rd world standards, it is average by developing world standards a long, long way from what we in the first world would call 'prosperous'. China's economy is booming, meaning it is growing fast. That does not mean the people there are prosperous - they aren't (yet). And there is a huge disparity in 'GDP per capita' type numbers between the coastal half and the inland half of the country, making general or average 'standard of living' comparisons inside China problematic. While I don't doubt the truth of this in the case of most 3rd world dictatorships, but the evidence with China suggests rather the opposite. Haven't you noticed that China holds $1.5 trillion US dollars in US Treasuries in the Central Bank of China? They pretty much own the US national debt (Japan owns a big chunk too). If the leadership of China was secretly sucking away the billions into foreign banks, that would have a beneficial financial effect (for the USA) of reducing the size of this monster reserve (and the increasing rate it is growing at). Except in Malaysia, Indonesia and Russia circa 1997-98, there was ample evidence of very high levels of asset valuation, rising debt levels and weak foreign currency controls. All three also showed (and continue to show) extensive institutional weaknesses in their financial markets. China shows no signs of the same factors (though their financial institutions are similarly 'weak'). As for the Hunt family 'game' back in the late 1970's up to 1980, that was an attempt to corner the market in silver - an attempt to 'corner' the market on silver and force the price upwards. That was the private act of a private speculator, and as such, I fail to see how it is relevant to this topic of China. China is not yet prosperous by western 'first world' standards. But they are well on their way. And for a 'Potemkin village' they sure are pumping out the industrial pollution on a big scale, so those factories aren't empty facades - they are pumping the outputs. They are still a minimum of 30-40 years away from achieving economic equality with western status (measured by GDP per capita). The real disparity is that for half of China's population (the coastal half), life is picking up, lots of jobs, houses, etc. but for the other half of the population (the inland half), life is still stuck in the 14th century with no education, animal drawn plows, wooden carts and living in one room shacks. Sorry for jumping into this thread like this - I just saw the comments about China that I felt compelled to reply to.

The term in question is used only by Marx in some letter of a relatively late date. I've read and studied all of Marx's important works in an academic environment. I have not read every letter he may have written, or much of his other non-scholarly work. I objected to that statement on the basis of Marx's theory of history. There is no place in Marx's theory of history for any kind of vanguard or dictatorship of the proletariat - indeed, that is counterproductive and contradicts the theory of history (if something is a historical inevitability, why does it need specific acts by specific individuals? That is contradictory - if something is a historical inevitability, it will come to be regardless of anything anyone does anyway). As noted previously, it is Lenin who is most famous for the explication of the idea or process of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of a vanguard party. Establishing that Marx may have used the phrase (at least once) in some letter does not the change general dynamic of this. Why would you like me to show you that? Because, there is no substantive argument or evidence given upon that particular and important concept. That is why I wanted you to state it - and you did. The historical record (as Marx lays it out) is entirely evolutionary in process. However, the theoretical basis for assuming the all-powerful and all-necessary revolution is nothing more than the pure philosophic theory of dialectic - which you stated rather well: Indeed. Marx may have believed this, but to me, this is pie-in-the-sky pronouncement that does not have anything substantive to support it - only Marx's emphatic enunciation of it. It is metaphorical or allegorical at best. Marx's own historical theory does not provide substantial material support for this interpretation. Suffice it to say that I read Marx's work with a critical eye. I don't accept ideological pronouncements - I accept only substantiated arguments. Material dialectic is like the holy eucharist - one takes it on faith, or not at all. No, I'm sorry but that's wrong. Marx held that changes come through the thesis and antithesis process of diaclectic materialism whereby each stage of production is met with a specific challenge that sweeps it aside until finally communism emerges. This is not an evolutionary process. Sorry, my phrasing was a bit loose and therefore very misleading. Marx certainly doesn't make the point I was suggesting that he did. What I should have said there was that Marx's historical theory, when viewed dispassionately by a non-Marxist, without recourse to ideological arguments for support, essentially describes an evolutionary process in the dominant mode of production. It is only when one applies Marx's dialectic that all of a sudden it becomes revolutionary, because that's what the theory states that it is. Only the dialectic can make that deduction. Perhaps. I'm not sure they are directly contradictory concepts. But in any even, you overlook that Marx viewed the revolution itself as inevitable. Marx appears to me to be rather poor at accepting his own core theory. His core theory work is excellent stuff, very well supported and substantiated. Then he takes that and applies a whole lot of mystical dialectical mumbo-jumbo to get the theory to support what he wants it to support (a revolutionary proletariat - or some kind of socialism). I need hardly add that asserting that an action that is supposedly dependent upon the material actions of a specific class of people - will occur according to historical necessity is absurd. As noted previously, if you toss aside the dialectic mumbo jumbo that is supported only by 'faith', then we are left with Marx's historical theory that is inherently evolutionary in character. When Marx's feet are planted on the ground, his scholarly works are excellent. As soon as Marx starts getting all mystical, that's when the theory goes out the window and starts looking like the Manifesto and Marx's fervent dream/wish/want/desire of the 'workers of the world' to 'unite' to overthrow Marx's own oppressors (his all too numerous bill collectors). As far as I'm concerned, the only way to make any sense of Marx's work is to separate the man (and his emotions) away from the theory he discovered. The theory is larger and more interesting than the use to which Marx puts it. Indeed, Marx's own dreams/desires seem to be the biggest stumbling block to any rational assessment of Marx's theory. Up against the dialectic, it is like arguing the existence of God with some true believer. Nothing anyone says is going to make a difference.

Evolutionary theory does not preclude the existence of these things. Alternatively, asserting that God-Creation is necessary for these things to exist is hilarious and bizarre.

Evolutionary theory is much larger and more rigorous than Darwinian theory. Much of Darwinism has been debunked or ignored, however, nothing of a critique of Darwin impinges upon the validity of evolutionary theory. As soon as someone uses the term "Darwin" to represent the entirety of evolutionary theory, I know I'm seeing a creationist playing games. At best, the term "Darwin" is often used as a pop-culture short-hand for evolutionary theory. It does not imply acceptance of all of Darwin's crackpot ideas.

This is Canada, not the USA. Parliament is the government. Parliament cannot be considered in opposition to the government. That is a purely American notion. We use the Westminster model here in Canada. A parliamentary vote against any government policy necessates a general election. And please feel free to explain how, with a minority government in Parliament, the PMO controls everything?

Get a grip. Alberta has spent most of its history as a typical subsidy sucker like the rest of Canada. BC dropped off the 'net-contributor' list just about the time that Alberta joined it - during the 1970's. From 1904 till the mid-1970's, Alberta was a subsidy sucker like all the rest. So get off your high horse. I commend Alberta's good fortune to locate itself on top of a nice pile of oil and gas. I commend Alberta's generous contributions to the grand Canadian subsidy game. But I find it really annoying that some Albertans act like they invented this subsidy contribution game (conveniently forgetting for how many decades they sucked back the subsidies). Ontario has been paying these subsidies every year since 1867. Ontario has the maturity to recognise that it is done for the greater good of all.

Huh? Canada does not have a centrally planned economy. Private enterprise establishes their facilities where they choose to do so. Ontario dominates manufacturing because of various reasons mostly to do with geography - Southern Ontario has excellent and easy transportation links to the US mid-west or to the US eastern seaboard. Ease of access to raw materials and a large educated workforce is also beneficial. Thus, Southern Ontario is the most logical place in Canada to locate a large manufacturing facility. BC, the Prairies or the Atlantic region are the worst places to locate a large manufacturing facility for the same reasons. Private enterprise is usually quite logical and ruthless about this kind of thing. Quebec consumes the most subsidies - no other province even comes close.