500channelsurfer

Jean Charest was the real hero of the 1995 referendum. While Chrétien and the Liberals were making the sponsorship scandal, Charest organized a massive pro-Canada unity rally and got participation from people in all provinces. Charest would appeal to those voters undecided between Liberal and Conservative in an election. However, Charest is tied to Mulroney strings, I live in Quebec and while Charest was Premier, the almost entire province voted NDP federally and he picked a political fight with students resulting in university closings and mass demonstrations throughout the province.

Russia has completely withdrawn from northern Ukraine. There is no military logic to this from a ground point of view. If there are such logistical problems on the ground, Russia would have sent in supplies via private enterprise. Putin could be planning to nuke northern Ukraine. The takeover of Chernobyl is evidence, as there was no strategic value to that.

The battery argument involves the physical size of the larger batteries for propulsion being many times over what we currently utilize. And we have been doing a terrible job with the smaller ones for as long as any of us have been alive.

We need to define 'silver bullet.' I agree with the posts above: EVs are a step forward in increasing energy efficiency. The energy to move a vehicle is reduced by having said energy mass-produced at power plants instead of in individual vehicle-mounted internal combustion engines. I would like silver bullet to imply transportation at near-zero carbon emissions. As such, we will need to figure out how to dispose of safely and/or recycle the batteries we will be making at the new Windsor plant. The battery plant also does not offer solutions to the fact that much of our energy is still produced by fossil fuels. So, there are two different issues here. But at least with the new Windsor plant, Canada will be at the forefront of transportation energy transition.

The courageous citizens of Ukraine have fought back against Russian invaders to the point where some news agencies are reporting that the Russian invasion is stalled. Is there a chance that Ukraine could actually win this war? Russian military production is definitely a factor they have in their favour at the moment. However, Russia's economy will continue to deteriorate due to sanctions faster than Western nations even with fuel shortages, inflation and other Western problems exacerbated by the conflict. If Ukraine has any industrial capacity, it might be possible for Ukraine to ambush and begin pushing back Russian forces. Is this a likely scenario?

Don't forget that every so often, there is an attempt to begin taking out America. September 11. Bombing of American military ship USS Cole. America has also a history of belligerent foreign policy such as its support for coups and dictators in Central and South America such as Pinochet, and embargo against Cuba. But, like has been said, overall American products, trade and innovation are beneficial even if only in some cases for self-indulgence. Also remember that the internet and much IT and scientific innovation are largely courtesy of America.

Does Poland not have the right to donate fighter jets to Ukraine? How can USA decide Poland will not to send planes Ukranians are trained to use into Ukraine? That plan made perfect sense. It would have provided immediate help to Ukranian ground forces by having fully utilizable planes help in the skies defend Ukranian air space. Meanwhile, NATO is already beefing up deployments all over Eastern Eurpe's NATO countries. By supplying Poland with newer planes to replace the ones donated to Ukranian army, NATO members are merely more effectively pursuing actions they are already taking.

How is Ukranian defense working? Is their defense mostly depending upon drone attacks? I was expecting Ukranian army to launch counterattacks utilizing terrain etc. such as North Vietnam did in Vietnam.

Yes, is anyone with a sane and intelligent set of real policies such as these above going to come forwards and, first, enter the Conservative leadership race, second, be able to be elected both Conservative leader and then Prime Minister? Or, is it more likely that rhetoric about vaccines, freedom, wokeism/anti-wokeism is going to rule the Conservative leadership race and the Conservative party is going to split again via some Reform/PC repeat, maybe PPC/PC this time?

As soon as Erin O'Toole made his first flip-flop during the election campaign, he was on his way out. The most non flip-flopping name potentially available is Maxime Bernier. The appointment of Candice Bergen shows her party is trending in that direction.

This is a description of Fascism. Solution: Taking imposing governments, businesses and institutions to court over specific civil liberties violations generates electoral support for freedom and the visibility of new leaders capable of defending civil liberties.

In democracy, if the people realize elected officials are not whipping bureaucracy into effectiveness, said elected officials lose their jobs at next election. If elected officials realize bureaucratic officials preventing doing better, bureaucratic officials should be fired by elected officials. In dictatorships and other forms of government, eventual coup d'état or revolution may take place if do better does not occur. It is quite noticeable the rates of coup d'états and revolutions are much higher in dictatorships than democracies. Even in Soviet Union, failure to do better led to eventual dissolution of Soviet Union.

Hospitals are increasing in their patient loads due to Covid. Visit any hospital, and people begin flooding in at first cough or sign of fever. There are people who are obsessed with getting tested and/or seeing a doctor at first sign of illness, people who do not have family doctors and who go to hospital instead, and it is not appropriate to turn them away. Some people are more Covid-savvy than others. There are folks everywhere who do not even wear a mask properly and wear it only over mouth and not nose. Yet they still put masks on even though this wearing practice defeats the point entirely. This is just one example and this is 20 months into this.

Yes, there is going to be protesting, civil disobedience, etc. Leaving everything open will led to a Brazil situation with Covid out of control and health care system ruined. However, restrictions as Legault has implemented them are detrimental to Covid-savvy citizens (can't work out in gym or jog at night, evening shift workers' lives turned up-side-down, service industry small business bankruptcies to soar again). Force-slow restrictions might be more effective, as people are going to party during the day in private and spread Covid anyway as they did last year. Force-slow = keep all businesses open longer so that capacities can be reduced much more, hire more employees to disinfect surfaces, etc., instead of curfew simply shut down gas stations and public transit during those hours to prevent activity during those times and allow night shift workers and healthy joggers to continue uninterrupted, reduce all factory and construction projects and jobs to reduce workplace contacts.

I did not want to do this debate, but: Governments do run at least arguably acceptable education and health care systems, and with proper public and political pressure, could do much better. The alternative of more privatized education and health care is proven unpopular and detrimental to the majority of society. Government housing in most forms is admittedly disastrous; however, proper regulation of real estate and rental markets does reduce homelessness and house-poorness. Less-than-optimal governance is my point, it is what leads to artificially low interest rates an attempt to compensate, which then leads to overheating of the real estate market, which causes property unaffordability.

Keeping interest rates too low for too long, and now at near-zero for over ten years, has caused a massive drive in available funds into real estate, which continues to inflate property prices. The reason for these low interest rates is simply an attempt to offset government policy failings. Everything posted above from inability to get lower-cost rental housing constructed to adequate levels, to inability to appropriately regulate finances to prevent financial meltdowns such as the 2008 one. If all government levels would simply do their jobs and keep people healthy, housed adequately and educated, then there would be less drain on the economy by unhealthy, under-educated, and inadequately housed people, and instead more workers available and working more productively, and competition by employers for workers instead of the other way around.

Russia would get away with a Ukrainian invasion (if successful) for many reasons. Historically, Russia has been the dominant inland power in Eastern Europe in multiple different forms. The self-identity of the post-communist Eastern Bloc is still a set of countries separate from the Western and more pro-democracy Western European states and other democratic countries. Russia has historically exerted influence over Eastern Europe through trading and politics even aside from the USSR, such as was the case in the Russian Empire of Czar Nichols II and The Commonwealth of Independent States post-Soviet co-operation. NATO is still seen as as a Western enemy, unfortunately, by many in the former Eastern Bloc. I sincerely believe that this didn't need to be so, but mistrust resulting from many peripheral issues during the Cold War and history is still engrained on both sides. Also, Eastern Europe has a greater historical tendency toward dictatorship than Western Europe has tendencies toward democracy. European Union weakness is real, as is proven by Brexit, and also reinforces anti-Western sentiment in Eastern Europe. As Russia again slides more toward dictatorial government, incompatibility with NATO is amplified. It is only natural for Russia to then put anti-NATO pressure on neighbouring countries. NATO is geographically removed from Ukraine; its countries are currently pre-occupied with migrant and Covid issues; no NATO country currently has an expansionist or pro-war head of state; NATO countries have become war-averse following historically recent adventures ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to Yugoslavia to Vietnam; NATO countries are largely indebted and their current political climate bounds them to economics over geopolitics; the perception of Ukraine being an Eastern and Russia-associated region still persists. NATO is definitely not looking for a war, and even less so in such a perceived "Eastern" country as Ukraine. Ukraine itself, whether or not it is actively violent in its eastern territory, is quite divided ethnically and eastern Ukraine definitely contains Russian support. Ukrainian elections have resulted in both pro-Russian and pro-Western governments. Russia would be able to exploit pro-Russian sentiment as support during any invasion. The alternate threat of sanctions instead of war by NATO is not very powerful. Russia supplies too much of the European demand for fossil fuels to be largely cut off from that market. There is not enough oil production elsewhere to make up the difference and so no boycott will happen. Russian exports to NATO countries apart from fossil fuels are too low for any boycott to make much of a difference. Russia is or should be able to keep geopolitical support for itself in many Middle Eastern countries as well as China. Could Russia win such an invasion? Would they even do so and want to occupy a western Ukraine that will stay anti-Russia, and become a possible fifth column as it was during WWII in the event of any conflict? I believe any conflict is more likely to lead to a successful annexation of eastern Ukraine should Russia decide to go ahead. However, Russia would not bleed itself for the entirety of western Ukraine as NATO clashes would become very costly to both sides should Russia make its way too far west into Ukraine.

In the realm of public governance there is one government. One Head of State whether ideological or not is not what I am getting at. In the private sector there is more than one economic sector. Companies that sell boots do not also sell spark plugs. There is competition among both boot and spark plug manufacturers, respectively. The public sector could be divided similarly. There could be Head of state for Health Care as well as a different Head of State for military, and this would better ensure that more competent people manage each public sector, as they would be more specialized in each field.

Currently, all nation-states utilize single monopoly government to rule all policy jurisdictions typically over single ideological lines. This is evidently detrimental to citizens as it is not logical that one party or ideology would perform competently over all jurisdictions. Monopoly government has almost always been the default form of government but since the advent of democracy the option to elect jurisdictional governments has not been explored. In the example of an automobile manufacturer, it would not be expected that an automobile company would manufacture the car and the tires, own and run the delivery trucks and trains to dealerships, maintain the roads the car would drive on, manage drivers' licenses, as well as manage the automobile financing. Any competent CEO would break up such a company into jurisdictions in order for them to function competently. Why is it then that citizens continue with monopoly government and expect ideological political parties to manage jurisdictions as diverse as the military, health and education systems and economic policy. Even with all governments being departmentalized, executive branches of governments adhere to one head of state and narrow ideology. Would nation-states not be better off electing separate councils for defense, economics and social services?

In an election campaign, politicians are salesmen. They try to sell the voters their platform. During non-election campaign times, they are out there asking the voters what they want in order to build platforms. It is doing both at the same time that caused O'Toole his trouble.

The voting electorate has been very slow to decide to change governments and you are correct it seems to be about a decade or so recently: Chrétien+Martin: 13 years; Harper: 9 years; Justin: going on 7 years. During this time, opposition parties who ditched their leaders quickly after an election did not do better in the next election: Day, Mulcair; but when parties kept their leaders on throughout multiple elections, they were able to grow their parties and eventually become opposition: Manning, Layton; and now look at Bernier increasing his vote share by staying on as leader throughout multiple elections. The left will change their minds once they become comfortable with a leader. Harper once took the 905 and Layton once took Quebec. But of course you are correct O'Toole made a few too many flip-flops rather than try to convince electorate of his original platform; this new leader too needs time to grow into the position/party/etc.

The almost entirety of the world's nation-states have agreed to this new OECD tax treaty. The leftover countries are not of soundness and security to likely to attract the big businesses that currently use such hives as Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands for tax avoidance. Will this tax treaty be a success, or will there be too much trouble with ratification, enforcement, loopholes, etc. among participants?

It will never be possible to prove definitively that this Covid strain originated in nature nor in the lab. In the meantime, China is a totalitarian dictatorship that will never let enough evidence of any coverup or conspiracy get out. Even with the Soviet Union dissolved for thirty years now, so many mysteries remain unsolved. They will remain unsolved.

Good posts! Also let's not forget that ditching a leader right after an election loss did not work out well at all for either Conservatives (Harper, Scheer) or NDP (Mulcair). In many ways it's better to keep the leader on as the leader can adapt to the party and win voters over time, much like the electorate seems to need time now to adapt to the idea of voting out a government or even changing their voting intentions.

Is it possible the recipient, CNN, might be rejecting some Canadians by CNN's own choice, or perhaps CNN is unaware and CNN's network provider is doing this; or even perhaps Scott Mayers' device is rejecting CNN's address as his device has some software or network block from his ISP or manufacturer?