Michael Hardner

Arguing about the bias of media misses the point entirely. Look at the issues you're discussing - scandals, gaffes and graphic violence. This should give you a clue as to the real problem. There is a dearth of suitable information available to the mass public. The information given is either too detailed, or entertainment-based. Why is the news entertainment-based ? Because media organizations need to sell information to make money. They will only behave "journalistically" if doing so helps that prime directive. Entertaining news reaches a mass audience and attracts advertisers. But making oneself aware of issues requires paying attention to less entertaining aspects of the headlines. The information on such issues is only available to the patient, and the studious. Therein lies our problem - we're trying to make reasonable decisions based on sideshows.

Hugo: I could buy into your philosophy if you were truly independent of the government that makes you its slave, but in at least two cases, you rely on the collective to assist you with your way of life: In policing: And in the use of a central bank, unless the money you're referring to is barter. So, given that you agree with the concept of a collective authority, you have to agree to the concept of compromise, and you're already on the slippery slope towards taxes and what have you.

Can we please stop using terms such as 'unfair' when it applies to PR ? 'Unworkable' is a better term. What you write, MS, has been true for Canada because minority governments happen in frequently. If we were in perpetual minority, we'd end up in perpetual gridlock.

Yes, and polling does a lot of the work before election day anyway.

I worked for the government as a student, and have friends who are in the civil service. The pension is good, but you have to submit yourself into the "machine". It's like 1984. God help any ambitious person who gets caught up in that - it will crush them.

I agree Sweal. It's futile to try and eliminate something which is part of human nature, but we can make failure less catestrophic. Did you realize that accounting preceeded language as a form of communication ? That is why our 'A' looks like an ox upside-down - it evolved from the accounting 'symbol' of an ox.

But I do think you can discuss the issue dispassionately, and take a pragmatic approach without justifying the act itself.

Brian Mulroney was unpopular, partly owing to his new tax - the GST. The economy was bad as well. There were two political errors made in her campaign. 1) A decision to start off with a fluffy-feel-good campaign. She gaffed by saying something like "I don't think elections are the time to discuss issues" or somesuch. 2) An ad that appeared to make fun of Liberal Jean Chretien's appearance, which is unsightly and affected by some kind of palsy as well. She wasn't in power long enough for anybody to tell. She wrote a book, too. I read part of it but it was a little dull. She seems practical and bright, and might have done better at a different time. The Liberals are a middle-of-the-road party in Canada. They are liberal compared to American parties. The key thing to note is the economy was doing badly at that time, and both incumbants were thrown out of office - Mulroney and Bush Sr. The Progressive Conservative party and Alliance party merged late last year to form the Conservative party. They're slightly to the right of centre in Canada, but to the left of the Republicans in that they officially support socialized medicine and other programs. They tend to shy away from social issues, preferring to leave those items to a free vote of the members in parliament. There are elements of social conservativsm in the Conservative party, mostly (but not completely) from ex-Alliance members which was generally viewed as a more socially conservative party. The big difference between Canada and the US is the effect of regionalism. While the US and Canada both have a Rural Vs Urban bias, Canada also has more regional biases. The cities tend to support the Liberals. The west (except for cities) tended to support Alliance, now support the conservatives. Quebec supports the Bloc Quebecois. The Maritimes tend to support the Liberals. Ontario is a battleground. The Liberals held almost all of Ontario seats for 10 years, but the Conservatives are making steady gains in that province. The NDP (far left party compared to US parties) holds a handful of seats scattered across the country. Make sure that you study an electoral map to see what I'm talking about. Here's one that takes awhile to load. Electoral Map

The people should be reformed. We need and want a government of good managers, yet we can't understand how these politicians keep getting elected. People need to pay more attention to the long-term and less to the scandals and gaffes.

Government provides a medium for balancing out the various forces that affect our lives. What you seem to be advocating is anarchy. In such a state, power will accumulate in a small number of individuals and institutions with no recourse for the average person whatsoever. I'll ask an honest question here: are you also against laws that protect individuals from assault and murder ? If you are, then how much different are laws that are designed to protect people from being economically abused ?

Even if such a system would work, the conditions requiring that to happen would be impossible to produce. And in the end, countries with no advantage at all would become virtual slave states, wouldn't they ? I'm asking here, not telling.

Hmmm... Sweal, have you modified your stance on this in the last year or so ? I have read your arguments on this in the past, and you seem to have added a nuance. Or maybe no one asked you about 'futile relativism' before...

Exactly, Sweal. If their opponents had no access to advertising and it's cousin PR then they probably would have won. North American politics is based on the idea of the individual, but our political campaigns are fought with mass-marketing which is philosophically at odds with the former. Hence our dilemma. Steps have already taken to reduce the effect of mass advertising. I think this is a good idea to try out. Those of you who oppose the Liberals would have to agree right ? I mean, with all the money they spent and with Canadians being such sheep etc. etc. etc.

Great thread going here. I'm learning a lot. takeanumber seems to be mostly arguing against economic absolutes such as "government has no place in trade" Are you saying the government has no hand at all in the building of new plants ? Ernie Eves delivered his last budget at an auto plant, I believe...

The Liberals' campaign consists of mainly of pushing the 'fear' button. If Harper can take this wind out of Martin's sails, there won't be much left to run on.

I agree, but Harris isn't it. He has floated trial baloons a few times, and the poll numbers just don't look good. Mr. Harris might as well get used to being in the boardroom. I think Mr. Harper has an excellent chance at winning if he stays on. The east will be familliar with him next time around, and unless the "new" Liberals prove to be superlative managers, they will not be able to live up to their promises. Harper will only need to reign in the social conservatives, and Martin will have no attack left.

Eureka: Hugo may have been referring to Soviet funding of radicals in the West, such as peace groups etc. I don't think there's any doubt that that happened, but to what degree it had an effect is anyone's guess.

There's always a tipping point at which it's a net negative to society for corporations to exist. Many jurisdictions give tax breaks or other financial incentives to corporations for locating there. Corporations pay taxes and employ people in return. Where is that tipping point ? How do we determine what makes sense and what doesn't ?

Auguste1991 says: I wouldn't call myself a leftist, but others might. Corporations helped build (N) American into what it is today, and even leftists have to acknowledge what they have done to improve millions of lives. But how do we decide who owes what to whom ? Are we indebted more to the corporations or they to us ? I propose better modes of discussion and clear, good-quality information from moderate representatives of both sides of the political divide to help guide us into the future. We need this becasue we've now stumbled into something called a Global economy which might be the road to an unprecedented global cooperation and wealth. Or perhaps not. The working people of North America have been judged as being overpaid. So they're asked to accept outsourcing, layoffs, reduced benefits and so forth. And they have done. But when will the system balance itself out ? Can we trust the current modes of information to tell us that the pendulum has swung enough the other way ? If it's truly a race to the bottom as some have suggested, then the only signal we will have that it has gone too far will be violence and upheaval. If the problem is that CEOs are making hundreds of times the wages of the lowest employee, that's not really a situation that will spark wide outrage. People have even accepted lower wages and benefits while the richest do better. What will cause a problem is loss of homes, hunger and disease happening amidst pockets of increasing wealth and affluence. The media systems we have now cannot tell us whether things are getting better or worse. The internet may be a thousand points of light, but without any prevailing authority. If we as a society can't agree on answers to simple questions such as "who are we ?" "what are we doing ?" "what do we want to achieve ?" then we shouldn't be surprised at our lack of direction.

Crosbie is/was a very smart man with good political sense. I heard tell that his thick Nfld accent was a bit of a put-on though.

Don't forget to mention the doctors, cops and other civil servants in the same breath, though. Yes, salaries account for something like 80% of government expenditure in any department.

You don't blame the thermometer when you have a fever do you ? People need to start rejecting shallow thinking, shallow values and poor health choices. The media will improve only after the people do.

Hjalmar: They serve the members of the union, yes. It is what's called a symbiotic relationship, I believe. Corporations help society and society helps corporations They can do this, yes. Envirionmental disasters, price-fixing, are some examples. Wages would go down, and the buying power of these workers would be lowered as well. You don't know this. It's conjecture. Even an economic genius wouldn't be able to predict all the cofactors that would result from such a radical move. We could pay a dollar an hour. That would be competitive. Obviously, the business world will try to get the best deal they can. It's up to the people to decide what's fair and what isn't.

Well... we don't. I've yet to see any evidence of this. An anecdote about somebody's friend in Ottawa who thought that Albertans all wear cowboy hats doesn't cut it. Even if they did think that, such things don't constitute negative stereotypes. Regional thinking isn't useful anymore. It's a borderless world. You have might have more in common with a call centre operator in India than with a fisheries worker in Nfld.

To answer BBM's question. A minimum wage earner takes home about $1100/month before taxes. I believe welfare pays about $500 to single people.