Jerry J. Fortin

I do not mean to imply that administrative expenses are the only factor, but they in fact are a factor. To this I will add that GM is not exactly a good model to point at and claim economy and efficiency of private ventures when the company is in the process of going belly up. Short leash? How many billions were paid in bonus and salaries? These inflated the unit cost per vehicle which has in conjunction with the high cost of labour adversely impacted competitiveness in the industry. The confusion you speak of is founded in the speculation involved in funding, that is a true statement yet it does not address the real issues of the additional expense of a profit. That profit must be paid for, but by whom? Look at the cost of healthcare to the citizen in Europe. Yes the facts state that it is either X or Y but the reality is that the citizens AND their employers are spending money hand over fist in addition to the money that governments kick into the pile by way of direct and indirect taxation. Heathcare funding is the third rail in Canadian politics, mess with the system and face political uncertainty at least. Taken in small measures as in the case of Alberta or Quebec provincial efforts is one thing and taken in large measures by the federal government is another altogether.

Then you wear blinders and are locked into questionable ideology.

The reality of the numerous American military interventions was not the question, the specific difference between pre and post Kennedy foreign policy was. In fact it was your inadequate response that danced around the issue. The fact of foreign policy is a far cry of the reality of a change of that foreign policy. The use of nuclear weapons was the means to end a war and actually save lives. Yes Kennedy almost brought the world to the brink of WWIII, as a response to a national security threat of having nuclear missiles 90 miles away and directed toward their nation. That strategic policy saved lives as well. Ike was a cold warrior, that was true, but he actually commanded troops in a hot war. In any case the departing speech was a warning based on his personal experience, it was not heeded. Ike and CIA head Dulles were not satisfied with the 1954 Geneva Conference that divided the ountry at the 17th parallel, so Ike brought South Vietman into SEATO later that year. This placed the US against Ho Chi Minh and was a political effort to oppose communism being imposed on South Vietnam with a unification agenda from the North. Having said this, things changed shortly thereafter with Kennedy's death. America's advisory position morphed into massive troop deployment. That was what Ike avoided, becoming physically involved. From that day forward America began a process of foreign policy changes. The nation of America has not changed but its foreign policy did. No reasonable person can deny the reality of Vietnam on American foreign policy. My foray into gunboat diplomacy was a direct response to your suggestion that it was a American trademark, that is another of your exposed falsehoods. It is not I who can be found dancing to the sound of war drums. Yes America was for all intents and purposes broke after the second war to end all wars. As a result Ike was a fiscal conservative who watched military spending like a hawk, and has been much quoted in his comparisons of military to domestic spending. The expenditures of the second war were imposed upon America from being attacked in 1941. war was forced upon them. Combating the AXIS forces forces who pursued aggressive actions that took many lives was not a bad idea, and the world owes much gratitude for the sacrifices made by Americans, without whose help the ALLIES never could have prevailed in eventual victory. The harsh reality here is that your arguments imply an ignorance of the perceptions of the rest of the world as related to America. That is either disdain or arrogance, with which brush do you wish to be painted with?

The public health care system in Canada is being degraded by bureaucracy, additional administrative expenses. Those expenses increase with a private/public system. A functional solution to that problem would be reduce administrative expenses. Look at the reality of the current system; a federal system implemented and administered by provinces on a shared cost basis. If that is not bad enough add in all of the regional authorities inside each provincial system. Now factor in all the individual administrative efforts of the separate hospitals and clinics. Suggesting that you would reduce administrative expenses by adding in another private administrative effort is simply foolish and unbelievable. It defies logic to reach that conclusion as no form of a private public system yet proposed addresses this issue.

Numerous ones but let us start with this one; in your little rant you list some but not all US military missions, and you include some but not all of the CIA missions, but fail to address the point I made about a change since Kennedy. You are attempting to bury or deflect the point that there was a change in policy by simply stating that military intervention was merely a due course of action as proven out through historical documentation. That would be a highly oversimplified answer, one lacking certain truths and explanations. Mixing overt and covert operations with military and non military actions is merely a smokescreen for the public and political struggles both inside and outside of the administrations of the day in command and control of the events depicted. Again not all incidents are listed and not all incidents could be determined to be successful due to reasons of national security. In other words you have failed to prove anything at all, other than taking up webspace. I suppose you will suggest that America, to coin a phrase, created "gun boat diplomacy". When in fact the phrase was originally used to describe the threat of military intervention by the British Royal Navy against the Chinese during the "Opium Wars". Not exactly original, more like a copy cat strategy on the part of your government. In fact you might even believe that America created the now accepted strategy of preemptive strikes, now accepted by the UN as legitimate that is. However that was another British strategy used against who you ask? The United States of America in the War of 1812 by "Canadians" on the Great Lakes. To return to the original point Ike had it right. The military industrial complex has taken control of US foreign policy in an insidious manner. Through its political influence by nature of the capital expenditure on the part of the federal government and its desire to "spend the wealth" in its pork barrel solutions, the industry has impacted the economy to the extent that a significant fraction of employment is derived through arms manufacturing and other equipment related to military infrastructure. In other words, since the departure of Ike and his administration, the US economy is arms dependent to the same extent that Canada is automotive dependent. There is huge power in economic terms with respect to this military industrial complex. Until Ike's retirement military intervention was political, it was the result of failed diplomacy. In today's political environment, military intervention is an economic requirement. America needs to use and replace those expensive weapons in order to retain and expand its economy. This is of itself a political survival strategy independent of international events. Even if war is not politically required, expending munitions and supplies is an economic requirement. Toward the next question, just how naive are the American people that they cannot see this reality? Or perhaps more accurately, how blind are the people of America to corporate ambitions?

There are better systems in use in this world. Some are private and some are a mix, and some are just public. The thing to concern ourselves with is this; what is the net cost to the patient? Does the system pay for everything or does the citizen pay out of pocket for everything? The long and the short of the options have to contend with the issues of who pays. The answer is no pay no service. So we can move to who pays as the next step in the equation, the tax payer or the patient?

That little document signed by a majority of house members provides all the evidence the Governor General needs to make a decision. In fact the Governor General is obligated under our law to provide the majority an opportunity to form a government.

I agree , the question is not whether or not profit is a good or bad word. It is not about the ineffectiveness of government or the efficiency of private enterprise. It is about the net cost to the consumer, and including a profit margin will in fact raise that cost.

You are full of yourself, and quite delusional. Let me make this very clear to you. America has changed its foreign policy since Kennedy. Johnson did what Kennedy would not. Nixon forward were all trapped by the reality Eisenhauer warned them about. It was true when Ike said it then, and it still is. American democracy was hijacked by corporate interests. Today the Americans even now are feeling the impact of their course of action. Massive debt, decreasing employment and now deflation during a recession. That is the legacy of a foreign policy gone off the reservation.

Iggy will wait and see what the throne speech says, he must appear reasonable. Do not mistake this for a weakness, for it is far from that. His next step is to pass judgment on the budget, both events feature an opportunity to bring down the government. Harper knows this, he is not a fool. Harper will either write a speech and a budget in isolation from the majority of members of the House of Commons, or he will pen something acceptable to the majority. Those are the only options he has. If he thumbs his nose to the majority, his government WILL fall, the coalition card will be played. If he pens something acceptable to the majority he will retain power. An election is only a possibility, the other possibility is a coalition government and the decision as to which way it goes down is not up to Harper.

There is room for much improvement within our system, of that there is no doubt. Yet privatization has a profit motive, which indicates an additional expense to all involved. That solution is one in which the individual is reduced to a paying customer instead of a citizen in need of help. Surely there is a way to improve our own system.

Nonsense? Hardly. American foreign policy has changed in dramatic fashion in the last forty odd years. Vietnam was the beginning of its folly, but that was merely a starting point. It was hardly the end of their changing policies. The rise of the military industrial complex has fed much on the tax paying citizen, their influence finally rising to where it is found today. In all of its forms it alone has withstood the economic slide, supported as it is on tax dollars. That is the pointed edge of American foreign policy. America is very different from what it was at the turn of the last century, the modern empire of America rose from the ashes of the first and second world war. It brought peace and prosperity to the world, until the profits of war were realized by corporate interests. Now, those profits spell much grief for the American people. America is not my puppet, then again it is not their own either. America is now a puppet child of its own design from corporate greed. Transnational corporations control much political influence and that influence has made a mockery of American justice. America was once a paragon of virtue, but no more.

Canada has conducted military operations for decades, more often than not those were of a peacekeeping nature, but not always. In this case, in Afgahnistan, our military mission will in fact cease conducting offensive operations. Humanitarian aid, military aid will continue for an indefinite period. America has NEVER been a paragon of virtue. They have however had a much more respectful foreign policy at some times in the past, that was a luxury they can no longer afford. The world has changed for them, and it has not been a kind or gentle change at that. The world cannot afford to have the Americans stand by and watch. There is China, and the entire Asian matter to be dealt with. There is the Russians for the Europeans to deal with. Last but not least there is the powder keg of South America to ponder.

Canada's military mission in that nation ends in 2011, and there is a zero chance of that being extended. America has lost much respect in the world. I can only hope that their new leader will be able to reverse that trend.

Harper would be a fool not to link Iggy to the coalition. Iggy would be a fool not to play the coalition card. The Governor General is OBLIGATED to provide the opportunity to form a government for any group that can show a majority of support in the House of Commons. These are the facts folks, do with them as you will.

Iggy will surprise many folks. He scares Steve, so look at it from that viewpoint. This is the first guy that can actually contest Harper for the top job.

No poll is meaningless, they were all designed to say something. Ask the right question and get the right answer.....

Why is Stevie thinking about hiring Kim?

After Christmas, and after the economy comes completed unglued then Canadians will start looking for answers. Until then, very few will give a damn.

Under the current system, Harper has both the right and responsibility to appoint Senators to the Upper House. He can however appoint people at the pleasure of the provinces, nothing to prevent that at all.

They are fighting with what they have. Unfortunately we are not. This is Canada's Vietnam.

Although a tad light on its complexities, you are right about the Americans August.

Spare not a one of the bastards. That group should include those elected representatives that would vote in support of giving tax dollars to corporate efforts.

A poll showing a Liberal that few citizens know anything about being tied with Harper as best choice for a leader has cause for concern to any thinking citizen.

Well folks, its not Alberta or Ontario and Quebec or anywhere else that will get money from the feds. Its the corporations that get the money people. This is a wealth transfer from tax payers to business. People need to understand that what is going on is a severe case of shifting ideologies. Forget capitalism and communism, this is about the rise of transnational corporations and global economies. Citizens only matter to the extent of their ability to preform services for these corporations. To see the reality of the situation you need to understand that the shift in income taxes has reversed from a majority share being paid by business to a majority share being paid by citizens. This is happening all over the world, not merely just here. Governments are literally sponsored by corporate interests, their members supported with all they need by other than the citizens. This is comparable to how DeBeers uses folks to find diamonds. They cover the costs then they take control, all agreed to ahead of time by the prospector and the company. This latest round of corporate welfare is the first mistake of those in control. So greedy are they that they are willing to become visible in order to come out of the dark to collect their money. Before this, they were in the shadows. We all knew they were there, but you could prove nothing. This is no mere conspiracy theory people, this is the reality of our times. Take a look at the past and present members of the board of directors of the Carlyle Group. Look at what they do and what they invest in, some of it is visible and some isn't. The important thing is who is and was on the board of directors. Things are not what they seem folks. This isn't about the lives of autoworkers, its about the profits and investments of the most affluent of citizens from around the world.