Mad_Michael

Really, how many nuclear weapons have been used since there has been an imbalance? Your theory that more nukes are better and it doesn't matter who has them is downright scary. The only nukes that have ever been used in battle were used during a period of imbalance (one nation had a temporary monopoly). This supports the points I've made. Imbalance is inherently dangerous. And if you review what I said, you will see that I have not asserted that "more nukes are better" or that "it doesn't matter who has them". Those are your misinterpretations of my words. My statements were predicated upon specific conditions that you apparently choose to ignore. For example, if any nation in Africa were to acquire nuclear weapons, that would be very bad since it would introduce a new instability. Thus, it matters very much WHO has nukes and who doesn't. And more nukes (as in this case) would be a very bad thing. This is commesurate with my argument posted above - and proves your point to be an erroneous interpretation of my post.

Your rant isn't credible. George Soros and William Buffett are both of the 'liberal' persuasion, just to name two. They are both self-made multi-billionaires. The left is far larger than the 'dirty hippies protesting the war' that you see so enamoured of.

Indeed. What's wrong with this? Our elected politicans are mostly idiots anyway. The less they do the better. If you want professional quality government and serious policy proposals, it is the senior public servants that provide it.

Compare Atlantic Canada 2007 to Atlantic Canada mid 19th century. I'm sure you will find that prosperity has generally increased overall (though admittedly, such comparisons are very difficult to make). The only valid point here might be to assert that the prosperity of Atlantic Canada hasn't increased over this time period as much as the prosperity of other parts of Canada.

Sure, I'm all for assisting in regional development. Indeed, I should like to see a portion of the money wasted on subsidies used more productively or beneficially. Mailing cheques to non-fishing fishermen seems very silly. Unfortunately, this is a generally tough issue. Cutting off subsidies is really, really difficult. Just look at that Bathurst Steel company or the Cape Breton coal mines. Those were outrageous wastes of subsidies that did nothing but delay the inevitable. Newfoundland (for example) has more heavy equipment operators and hair dressers than they know what to do with. Why? Because these are job categories for which government subsidies for training are available. Similarly, Newfoundland has the highest concentration of public swimming pools in the country - again, more wasted subsidies on make-work projects are the cause of this. Do you have any suggestions about how the rest of Canada can assist Altantic Canada to increase their economic efficiency? I certainly don't, though I admit, I've never given the topic much thought. I should certainly like to do so.

And in context, the recidivism rate for theft or burglary is above 75%. Which was my point. Btw, the category of "sex offenders" in the USA usually includes any person busted for hiring a prostitute or anyone caught urinating in a public place (charged with indecent exposure) and thus is not a very useful category for such analysis.

This is false. Does that matter to you? The big scary conservatives paid down 13 billion in debt the last budget and will balance this upcoming one with significant tax decreases. Your anti-Americanism is clouding your judgement. I will not reply to you or your baseless accusation of "anti-Americanism".

Charles Anthony, it is clear to me that we are addressing two different issues here and criss-crossing them similtaneously. To be honest, I haven't a clue what your point is at all. I tried to clarify my point, but you seem to be misrepresenting my point to address some other point here that I know what.

I don't reply to this kind of crap. You will address me by my user name or not at all.

1. Fiscal conservativism has always been a very strong political value in Ontario. That's what feuled the Big Blue Machine, that's what made Mike Harris Premier and that's what supported Paul Martin's fiscal policies through the 1990's. 2. Even in the west, social conservativism is a minority position that is concentrated in rural areas which are disproportionately represented in Provincial Legislatures and in Parliament, which creates a fake appears of electoral strength. Use equal sized electoral districts for all ridings, federal and provincial, and the power of the social conservative rural base will be significantly reduced. Indeed, rural areas have been falling in population pretty much non-stop for half a century now with no end in sight to this trend. 3. I am a strong fiscal conservative and always have been - meaning, I'm no leftwinger at all. That is the number one reason I've dropped support for the Conservatives and prefer the Liberal party. The Liberal Party is the ONLY party since WW2 to actually balance the budget - indeed, to also pay down the national debt. For this, Paul Martin is my hero. I do not trust the Conservative party to be fiscally conservative. 4. Social conservatives are certainly accepted - they are entitled to their political viewpoint and are welcome to contribute to our great nation. Indeed, is not the present Prime Minister a representative of social conservative interests? Your point that social conservatives cannot be accepted is obviously not reflected in reality. Fact is, even if social conservativism can be sold to the voters, it is only in the West as you say. The West cannot hope to make a majority on their own and thus, it is an electoral dead end. Social liberalism has a solid majority constituency (Ontario and Quebec and urban ridings across the country). It is only social liberalism that has any hope of providing a unified political government in the country. Ergo, I see no reason why a majority of social liberals ought to sacrifice their core values and accept/adopt a minority position of social conservativism. This is tripe. Just a rightwing talking point imported from the USA. Apparently, in order to prove their liberal credentials and prove they are not hypocrites, Canadian liberals must all accept and support US social conservative policies. This is absolutely outrageously absurd. And liberalism does not hold that one must "accept everything". That is equally absurd, but hey, what's a good political argument with a decent strawman fallacy anyway?

Greetings Andrew! Perhaps I might lend a hand. * * * When it comes to the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons, I respectfully submit that there is no substantial increase in danger to world peace here. Indeed, if it is our general goal to maintain a relatively peaceful planet, then the development of nuclear weapons capability by Iran is not something that ought to be rationally feared. 1. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has proven to be extremely effective in maintaining 'nuclear' peace amongst nuclear powered nations - as long as a relative balance is maintained. It is important to keep in mind the converse of this - that an imbalance of nuclear weapons capability is inherently a dangerous or unstable condition. 2. The long standing (and bloody) conflict between Pakistan and India has actually reduced and improved - only once nuclear weapons were balanced on both sides. 3. The NPT is actually a closed club of elite powers that is in itself, nothing more than a political monopoly, which is ultimately, destabilising. Given the subject of nuke weapons, instability is the absolute worst negative. 4. At present, there is a nuclear imbalance in the Middle East region caused by Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. This is a major contributing factor to Middle East regional instability. 5. Ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian State has acted in every way as a rational state actor. On this basis, I do not see the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology by Iran to pose a significant danger to world peace. Indeed, post-WW2 history suggests that Iran's eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons capability will, in all reasonable probability, act as a stabilising measure in the region. The Middle East is desperately in need of some major elements of stablity. Nuclear weapons parity in the Middle East is the most likely way to achieve some stability in this tormented region.

Great thread with some very interesting posts! On a related, but slightly different point, the angle that interests me most here is the political-legal side of this issue. This issue has not always been this way - traditionally, the mentally ill have been sequestered in asylums - religious, charity or state sponsored. Against that, our constitutional laws hold that we cannot hold people against their will - or force their treatment. And that is why all these mentally ill people are out there wandering our streets costing society a small collective fortune in various incidential expenses. So how can we resolve this problem? Without resolution to this legal issue, our courts will just strike down most attempts to herd the mentally ill into public treatment and/or shelter. And do we want to do that?

Being born and raised in Toronto, if there is one political issue that is totally off the media radar here, it has to be the Canadian Wheat Board! On this basis, if anyone would care to give me a brief summary of the present political situation regarding the CWB, I'd really appreciate it. For example, which of the parties tend to favour/support it, or who doesn't like it and who perhaps might want to get rid of it or reform it? And is the issue of the CWB very significant or important out there in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta? Or is it a sacred cow or 'third rail' type issue? (I am generally familiar with the CWB and how it works and what it generally does, so I'm not looking for an explanation of that stuff - rather the politics of it all) I'm curious.

That is true. The original poster failed to include "NDP" in the title. The NDP was campaigning on the $10 min wage in the 3 by elections. There is no Min wage increase on the Legislative agenda. The campaign was tested in the Toronto riding and they pulled off an upset. See Ontario Bi Election Thread. Yes, I just wanted to make it clear that the Ontario Government has not floated this as a 'trial balloon' or initiated any legislative proposal on the topic - it is an NDP policy proposal being advertised (which is of course a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do). I'm not crazy about increasing the minimum wage in Ontario at this time - though I'm not necessarily opposed to it either - unless perhaps we split it, one for minors, one for adults. Raising the minimum wage can hurt the local governments themselves hiring summer lifeguards for wading pools and stuff like that. I like to see hiring of local teens in such summer jobs - raising the minimum wage hurts this teen job market. On the other hand, raising the minimum age that helps adult working poor is generally pretty good public policy.

Hey, I'll even admit that I voted for Bob Rae's NDP in the 1990 election (my one and only NDP vote). Without a doubt, I am extremely political - but I'm definitely not partisan. I have voted Liberal and PC on the federal level and I've voted Liberal, PC and NDP in Ontario elections going back some 20 years. The fact that I do have a degree in political science tends to make one jaded about the topic of partisanship.

This is much better than cutting the GST, IMO. I disagree. Income and business tax cuts can be entirely opaque, hidden with loopholes and deductions and credits and are always targeted to special interests or used as 'goodies' for favoured political supporters, groups or regions. Such 'cuts' can be trumpeted loudly, yet affect little or nothing. Indeed, no matter what, a politican can take credit here while doing nothing. Cutting GST is across the board - is entirely above board. No room for political spin here. No room for politicans to hide either. I am aware of the abstract economic theory of progressive taxes, regression by income and the relative character of consumption taxes vs income taxes. However, all that assumes that we have a perfect system of application. We don't. Our system is run by politicans who have every interest to lie and cheat and reward their own special friends.

I do not care for all theories about capital punishment. I honestly believe that the majority of capital punishment advocates simply want barbaric vengeance -- regardless of their arguments. Personally, I abhor capital punishment. I haven't made any arguments in this thread other than to say that "eye for an eye" justice is stupid (it just makes the world go blind) which is the topic of the thread. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. First, I just do not think the rationality of the criminal should matter when it comes to meting out justice. Second, your categorical assertion that crime is irrational does not make sense. If a person can secure their escape from justice, it does not follow that crime is irrational. I never said the rationality of the criminal is relevant to the judgement of justice (though legally it is a fact - accused must be judged psychologically competent to stand trial). Secondly, I have not stated that crime is irrational. I have stated that criminals tend to act irrationally. Big difference. Do you have trouble reading my words? I've not made any assertion upon that topic.

logical fallacy. You are suggesting that all criminals only committ one crime, once. Alot of the criminal activity taking place is from repeat offenders. One only needs to look at child molesters for proof of this. Locking them up longer will reduce repeat offences and therefore help 'fight crime'. I am suggesting no such thing. Indeed, that most offenders are repeat offenders suggests that legal punishment is not a deterrent. As for child molesters, oddly enough, they have the lowest recidivism rate. One last point - the amount of time spent in jail co-relates very closely with the probability of committing new crimes (murder being the only exception here). That is to say, if you send to guys to jail for the same crime - one for 5 years, the other for 7 years, the one with 7 years is MORE likely to commit a crime when he gets out. Your recipe for longer sentences (which is not "eye for an eye" which is what this thread is all about) will increase the likelihood of repeat offenses. The core issue is all about why we treat offenders the way we do. Many people want revenge, many want public safety, many want rehabilitation. No system can satisfy all three demands.

No. Ghandi made a mistake. He did not realize that some people are stronger than others and some people have the wisdom to realize that a world of blind people are not the best business associates. You say Ghandi is wrong? Suit yourself. Why is that a problem? It is a problem because all theories about capital punishment or increased penalties are predicated on the fact that they will reduce crime due to the criminals acting rationally to avoid punishment. They will not reduce crime at all since criminals don't act rationally (that's why they are criminals).

I don't understand this statement. Fanciful, but not true. A king is above the law. The PM is not. Democracy is a fiction. There is not a single democratic nation on this planet. Picking which member of the elite to rule over you is not democracy.

Who'd you vote for before? Mulroney in 1988 was my last vote for a conseravative party. Lately I've been voting Liberal in Federal/Provincial elections. Federally, that's fine since the Liberal Party has been fairly good at representing my interests, but I've never liked the Ontario Provincial Liberal party as they seem so amateurish in everything they do. I've also spoiled more than a couple ballots (i.e. "none of the above"), but that is mostly municipal or provincial where the pickings are very slim.

While I agree that the Spadina/YorkU subway extension does contribute to urban sprawl, your assertion that there is some kind of "net transfer of wealth from rural to urban" here is outrageous. First of all, the rural farmland is sold at very high prices to urban interests. That transfers wealth from urban to rural. Secondly, 905 belt land is hardly rural. Thirdly, the tax structure of Ontario is predicated upon using tax revenues collected in Toronto to subsidize schools in Thunder Bay. Toronto suffers a $10 billion tax loss per year, of which rural Ontario (and Quebec and the Altantic Provinces) consume. So, please feel free to outline exactly how this particular policy issue constitutes a "net transfer" of wealth from rural to urban. I await your explication.

sorry, error post.

I have no objections to people moving to other places in Canada where they might be better able to make a living suitable to themselves and/or their families. This is a major advantage of living in such a big country with free mobility. What I don't understand is why so many of those people feel the need to make up crap just to show spite? Or why people feel the need to assert that every place is inferior to the place they are at. It does seem to suggests that someone has some unresolved 'issues'. Ontario and Toronto are doing just fine economically. They are not dying or stagnant. Indeed, a little stagnation might be nice for a change in Toronto in order to play catch up to the high rate of population growth that Toronto constantly suffers from.

That would depend upon whether we are discussing Provincial Premier Idiots, or merely Municipal Mayor Idiots. Two distinct subjects here.