Mad_Michael

Please explain how Parliament is ineffective. I believe it is one of the most powerful and effective institutions in Canada. The Senate is irrelevant so don't bother addressing that.

A universal morality requires a universal God to originate such a moral system. We don't have a universal God, ergo, we don't have universal morality.

Here is your theory distilled into logical form: Premise #1 - God exists Premise #2 - God created everything Conclusion = Therefore God exists and created everything. And you dressed up this 'logic' with all kinds of assertions about how you seem to be personally and intimately familiar with God's own will and reasons for doing things. I'm not sure which is worse - the silly logic or the presumption that you alone know God's mind.

Here is your theory distilled into logical form: Premise #1 - God exists Premise #2 - God created everything Conclusion = Therefore God exists and created everything. And you dressed up this 'logic' with all kinds of assertions about how you seem to be personally and intimately familiar with God's own will and reasons for doing things. I'm not sure which is worse - the silly logic or the presumption that you know God's mind.

How about starting simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat And consider: http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis...u/msg02794.html Thanks for your links. The first one confirms my assertion - it is a Marxist notion, not a theory of Marx. The second one shows Marx using the phrase - though in the context Marx uses it suggests the term is meaningless and contradicts Marx's own theory of history (not uncommon). On the basis of the second link, I will admit that Marx obviously used the term. However, I do stand by the meaning of my original assertion that the phrase has no theoretical basis in Marx. A casual reference in an letter that in itself devalues the phrase by stating, "that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition..." does not provide any theoretical structure or support. Indeed, if the forces of history are immutable, there is no place in the theory for any active 'dictatorship' of anything. Thus, the phrase contradicts Marx's core theory of history. I know nothing of the vanguard theory and suspect it is different from the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. No, it is the same. The vanguard are the ones who will run the dictatorship. They are the self-appointed leaders of the movement. This is contradictory to the immutable character of Marx's theory of history. One cannot 'make' a communist revolution. It is categorically impossible according to Marx's own theory of history. Any idiot knows there's more to Marx than the Manifesto. But the Manifesto does contain substanial distillations of his scholarship. 1. You are being needlessly insulting here. 2. The Manifesto contains nothing of the sort. It is a polemic pamphlet, nothing more - a speech designed to rouse the faithful at the 2nd International. For example, please show me where in Marx's substantive works the argument is made that revolution is the normative form of changes in the dominant mode of production. Marx's theory holds that evolution is the core mechanism of changes in the dominant mode of production over time. Marx's theory also holds that communism is inevitable. Yet the Manifesto holds that active revolution is the only way to make communist society. This is illogical and a contradiction. Exactly the kind of thing the Manifesto is full of.

That is insulting and duly noted - though not unexpected given a summary of your style of posting. What is rather odd is the fact that attacks against my level of intelligence and/or education have always come from US rightwingers.

Please cite where "on paper" it says this. You are describing utopian socialism - that has nothing to do with Marx's theory of history. It really is amazing how much crap gets attributed to Marx. This is absurd. Communism doesn't need anyone to share anything. Indeed, they don't have to be moral or non-corrupt either. Those are all irrelevant to communism. As a matter of fact, communism, according to Marx, is 100% predicated upon self-interest. But please, don't let any actual facts get in the way of your utopian socialism.

Not a word in Marx about this. What you speak of is doctrinaire Leninism. Are you sure? I've never read Lenin, but I have read Marx. Yes. Please cite a Marx reference for this crap about the dictatorship of the proletariat. The whole 'vanguard' theory belongs to Lenin. Btw, merely reading the "Communist Manifesto" does not constitute having 'read Marx'. The Manifesto is nothing more than a polemic or a propaganda. It contains no actual scholarship.

That's one side of the story. Making judgements without the other side is just journalism and/or sensationalism. Exactly what we expect from the media. Great for selling newspapers... not a good way to run a country.

Literature on the forced amalgamation of municpalities, cities or regions (US data) suggests that this would not be efficient. According to the research literature, amalgamations of political units are only efficient if the resulting amalgamation is more than 100,000 and less than 1 million population. If the amalgamation produces a unit larger than 1 million pop (or less than 100,000), the research suggests that overall costs will rise.

Very good point. We have one riding in Toronto that has one MPP and one MP - with a population larger than the whole of P.E.I. which has 6 MP's, 4 Senators plus an entire freakin' legislature. Fact is, if Altantic Canada were to merge and have seats assigned on a fair and reasonable basis commesurate with the rest of the country, I suspect they'd lose about half of their MP's and Senators. A federal vote in Atlantic Canada is worth roughly double what a vote in Southern Ontario is worth. That being said, I can't imagine how outrageously inefficent it is having all those useless Provincial governments (Nfld, NS, PEI and NB). As far as I'm concerned, the provincial level of government is the worst and least efficient government in Canada to begin with. In this respect, reducing from four to one sounds good. However, given Altantic Canada traditions, I'd say this would be impossible in practice - you will get all of the downsides of merging and won't be permitted to benefit from any of the upsides. Politics will force you to have 4 separate regional departments for everything. The forced merger of Toronto is illustrative. It is a nightmare and has massively increased costs. Idiot Mike Harris forced it on Toronto ostensibly to 'save money'. Like most other things, Mike Harris didn't have a clue what he was doing and it all turned out wrong - and we are stuck with it.

Of course I read the article. Here is my opinion - you like to pretend you know more than you do. And you are doing a very good job of convincing me not to bother reading anything you post. Btw, the opening post of this thread asks "can it be fixed?" Don't bother apologising for your error. I don't care.

Wow. That's some pretty fringe stuff you are digging up there and not very credible at all.

Babylon was destroyed some 2600 years ago.

No, I have no personal dislike for Pellatt at all. Just his social-type. To me, he is a classic example of a type of pompus colonial bastard that used to be very common in places like Canada, Australia and South Africa back around the turn of the century, who uses their upper-class connections in order to leverage huge profits as a middle-man. He then brags about what a great entrepreneur/industrialist he is for making himself rich from this method. Secondly, this class of person is almost always an ardent royalist & militarist supporting the most belligerently nationalist positions that coalesced into war in July 1914. It is to be noted that Colonel Pellatt paid (out of his own pocket) for a portion of his Regiment to tour Britain in 1910 in order to show the Brits that the Colonies can and would stand behind Britain in the foreshadowed war that was coming. Thus, Pellatt (and others of his type/class) is one of those people who encouraged WW1 to be fought. They wanted it to happen. WW1 was one of the most disgusting bloodbaths in the history of warfare. It was fought for no substantial reason at all other than the egos of the leaders and the ardent nationalism of the participating nations. This is probably more than he deserved, but I don't begrudge him this. Casa Loma is a nice chateau. A fake Loire-valley chateau, dressed up with mock gothic battlements. Tourists may like it (and that's nice) but that doesn't make this building architecturally interesting or important. It is a tourist trap about as authentic as Disneyland.

Why is it fair to say that? Atlantic Canada was booming before Confederation, doing better than Central Canada. And then the Brits banned slavery and Canada adopted principles of free trade. Bad luck for Nova Scotia who's 19th century prosperity was dependent upon slavery and extremely high tarriffs.

Scary part is that previous studies in Ontario have identified that there is a huge internal 'gap' existing between Toronto and the Province, essentially equal to any gap between Ontario and Ottawa. In effect, that means the vast majority of any fiscal gap between Ontario and the Ottawa is in fact, a gap between Toronto and Ottawa. The Provincial government of Ontario is just the middle man here with fat fingers in the pie. As a Toronto taxpayer (and business owner) I can afford Toronto taxes - it just gets annoying that Toronto gets so little in return for all that money. For example, the Toronto Transit Commission runs its operations almost 90% funded by the fare-box. No other mass transit system in world operates on a 10% public subsidy - the average is 35% to 75% across North America and around the world. This just shows that the tax money collected in Toronto doesn't stay in Toronto - it is exported around the Province and across the country. As for 'equalisation' payments, again, I wouldn't mind this program in principle, but in practice, apparently 8 of the 10 Provinces not only need these 'equalisation payments' but are becoming inceasingly reliant upon them over time. Bottom line is that public subsidies for Provinces (or people) just provide anti-economic incentives and encourage people to take a 'gimmie' approach to the government for more and more over time. Canada provides endless examples of this. Newfoundland, for examle, has the most outrageously lax rules for collecting unemployment insurance (which they don't really pay for at all). Ontario, which actually pays the lion's share of UI spending, actually has the most strict rules and the shortest terms. This just creates a culture of 'entitlement' in Newfoundland (for example).

If you signed up, then yes, the ads are good. But if you didn't sign up, then you are in no position to praise the ads (indeed you are suggesting the ads don't work very well). The ads ought to be judged on 'sign-up metrics' or not at all. One thing you can be certain of, even if the ads do not work at all, the ad agency will get paid and they will pad their expenses by 250% and the contract will be renewed. The government committee that authorised the ads, regardless of the effectiveness of the ads, will get bonuses and promotions. Good ads, bad ads, what's the difference? They all get raises and promotions and that's all that really matters here. Btw, did you know that the Canadian Armed Forces has the highest ratio of General officers to non-General officers in the western world? Figures.

The problem here is a difficult one. Centralised government in Ottawa is the most efficient, but also the least effective. Our local town halls, municipalities and local councils are the most effective, but least efficient. Which do you want? Government that is efficient/ineffective or inefficient/effective? Anything in between the local and the national level is just a pig-trough.

I don't consider the National Post to be credible on culture issues at all. They never let inconvenient facts get in the way of the ideological point they are trumpeting. Every word of every editorial must be signed off by the Publisher (Izzy Asper). Fox News North seems to be their modus operendi. If you read it in the National Post, I'd recommend searching hard for some other corroboration. It wouldn't be the first time no one found any...

Not a word in Marx about this. What you speak of is doctrinaire Leninism. They won't which is why this 'vanguard' theory is completely disreputable (just like everything involving Lenin).

Yes, the National Firefighters Association is hosting a bipartisan Presidential Forum with all canadidates of both parties - Guiliani was NOT invited.

Yes, Henry Pellatt was a British monarchist and ardent militarist, a proud example of British colonialism at its finest. Guys like him made WW1 happen. Secondly, and most importantly, I've spend a couple hours this morning trying to research this outrageous accusation you make about Pellatt being ripped off by the nationalisation of the Canadian Niagara hydro-electric project. To the best of my researches, I could only find a few references to Pellatt upon the subject, often in reference to him acting as a broker trying to sell electric power from one private company on the Niagara River to another company in Toronto distributing electric power. At a later date, Pellatt is listed as a financier or investor in a corporate enterprise established for this type of trading. There is no record of Pellatt forming or establishing any company engaged in actually producing or distributing electricity. His financial interests in the electrical trade are entirely of that of a middle man. Indeed, a Globe newstory cites him as such in 1906, as one of the reasons why the Ontario government needed to nationalise the hydro-electric power production of the Niagara River. It is further a matter of public record that the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario (HEPCO, the government agency created in 1906 to takeover all hydro-electric power generation in Ontario) actually purchased the Electrical Development Company (the company that was buying/selling electricity from Niagara to Toronto) in 1916, of which, Henry Pallett was a shareholder. I was unable to find even one word of reference to Pellatt receiving anything but what he was rightfully due as a shareholder in the Electrical Development Company when it was legally purchased in 1916. At no time did Henry Pellatt engage in any activity here other than investing in a small brokerage firm that was apparently engaged in the buyging/selling of electricity between Niagara and Toronto. There are oblique references to the fact that the actions of Pellatt and the EDC were not in the public interest, which is why this industry became nationalised by the government in response to widespread public demand. Also, as part of my researches into this matter, it became apparent that Henry Pellatt's financial difficulties began during WW1 due to lots of failed land speculations. In this respect, the crash of 1929 was only the last straw for Henry Pellatt.

A progressive conservative is what used to be known as 'red tory' or a 'pink tory'. It has been suggested that this represents Canada's ONLY unique contribution to the field of political philosophy. No less a figure than our founding father of Sir John A. MacDonald is the prototype of this type and a great many famous Canadian politicians fall exactly into this mode of classification (notably Laurier, King, St.Laurent, Pearson, Clark, Turner, Chretien and Martin. All were 'progressive conservatives' in a general sense. Trudeau and Mulroney were strong liberals with no real conservative tendencies at all. Diefenbaker was the most actually conservative PM we've ever had). As mentioned above, fiscal conservative/social liberal is a good description of this type, but it is not the only one as it fails to capture the pramatic conservative approach that this type is known for. For example, Sir John A. MacDonald's trans-Canada railroad policy was decidedly not ideologically conservative (indeed, it is anti-conservative in ideological terms). Thus, progressive conservatives are pragmatic conservatives - that is to say, inclined to conservatism, but never married to conservative ideology. In many ways, the US attempt to create something called "compassionate conservativism" is a similar approach (though mostly a failure in application - producing a new two-headed monster of 'fiscally reckless social conservative' of which Reagan was the precursor of this type).

You suspect incorrectly. I'm born and raised in Toronto and I know Casa Loma very well. Being the history buff that I am, I'm also quite aware of Pellatt's life as well. National hero? What did he do that was impressive? (besides military service) And as I've noted above, Pellatt was ruined in the crash of 1929. Up until that point, he was a very wealthy man. After that, nothing. And that is why Casa Loma is in the condition that it is - it was never completed because Pellatt went broke in 1929 while the house was only 3/4 built. It was never completed for this reason.