Michael Hardner

The articles don't specifically say what the various individual and organizations purported to "support NAMBLA" believed. But these types of articles intentionally don't differentiate between these things so that they can draw a blurry line between mainstream homosexuals and extremists, pedophiles and the like. Case in point, they equate allowing NAMBLA to march in a parade with agreeing with what NAMBLA says. It's intentionally misleading.

I think you have it backwards. No one anywhere cares about Jack's grandpappy. But the people of Quebec won't wholeheartedly support anyone who speaks French with an accent. The people of the west want someone from out there, if certain posters are to be believed. And the prejudiced Ontarians vote for people from anywhere, as long as they feel that that their choice can manage the economy.

You see, Angustia, you yourself have been fooled by the article in question. Have you ever heard of the famous quote from Voltaire: ":"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." I support the right for Nazis to state their views, but it doesn't mean I support Nazis. You seem to equate supporting a group's right to free expression with supporting the goals of that group. Articles like the one you posted purposely blur the line, making it sound like someone supports the goals of the group their advocating for. It's intellectually dishonest. But luckily, most intelligent people don't fall for these simple dirty tricks any more.

I'm in favour of rights for pedophilies, too. Any rights that are already guaranteed under the constitution should be granted to them, allowing for legal restrictions based on criminal acts, etc. So will somebody please now write an article saying that I advocated "rights for pedophiles" ? These articles, usually published by WorldNetDaily and the like, often fail to provide any context for their accusations. What does it mean to be a "NAMBLA" supporter ? Does it mean that you support the right for them to express an opinion ? That makes me a supporter of Nazis, Communists and almost any group out there. Joe McCarthy's methods shouldn't be used in 2004, at least not successfully.

It seems to me that Harper is still being his colourless self in the face of this Liberal scandal. How would Mike Harris or Ralph Klein have acted as opposition leader ? The one politician who seems to be most outraged by this is Martin, based on his on-camera performance. And his personal approval rating seems to bear this out.

Bushmustgo is right. Marriage was "eroded" when divorce came into law. The only change in society that could possibly come from gay marriage is that some married straights could be offended. Unfortunately for them, the constitution doesn't guarantee the right for individuals to not be offended.

And this from Yahoo! News yesterday: Warren Buffet, one of the most savvy investors ever, says that corporations have TOO favourable a situation, tax-wise. Yahoo! News article

Well, Greenspan pushed for higher payroll taxes for workers a few years so that it *would* be there. Then the social security "surplus" was used as a reason to cut taxes for the richest earners. Now those middle earners who are paying higher payroll taxes are hearing that their benefits will be cut. Can you see the shell game at work ? In order to keep the tax cut juggernaut going, they will have to start cutting social security because there's not enough fat left in the US system to fund more cuts. People don't live significantly longer than they did in 1980 do they ? And with productivity higher than ever, why do we seem to be able to afford less and less as a society ? It may have something to do with the fact that the highest US tax bracket is something like it was in 1931 or so. The highest earners believe that this situation is fair, and have convinced middle workers of the fact.

Perhaps the economy. The average worker has seen millions of high-paying jobs shipped overseas. The replacement jobs, according to economics, are supposed to pay more but they haven't materialized. Tax cuts and wage cuts do help the economy but there's a point at which they don't help anymore. Where is that point ? Who would invest in an economy where the consumers had no money to spend ?

MapleLeafWeb shall lead by example, then. Actually, it may indeed change my mind about him. I don't think I said on this board that I will definitely be voting NDP. My policy is to wait until an election is called. I then review the major party platforms and vote mainly based on those platforms and the party leaders. I've only voted for minor parties once I think - Mel Hurtig's effort ten years ago. I have been saying that I think that the three major Canadian parties are quite close in platform. I know you disagree on this point. It makes sense from a marketing point of view - even the Communist party platform is going mainstream. They're merely advocating a 10$/hr minimum wage, minimal nationalization of industry, and more vacation time. Expensive, yes, but these are the COMMUNISTS. I don't think I'll be voting for them, though. The similarity of the big three is giving me cause to give them all a long look. I would say I'm closer to voting CPC then I ever have been. I'm probably going to go with the party that puts forward the most responsible plan to manage our institutions, our social programs and our crumbling infrastructure. As for the Clement comments, I understand your unwillingness to put much effort into trying to convince me. I have spent hours on other boards putting together reasoned arguments on various topics, only to have my opponent flip me off with an insult and be gone. I wouldn't do that, but I might not change my mind either. Perhaps you could just rhyme your evidence off in point form for my edification. For me, the larger "project" here is to try to deconstruct how these myths are created. I'm not interested in Tony Clement so much, as how a politicans image matches his/her work. It's easy for us to admire the works of the builder politicians (Trudeau, LB Johnson and the space program, FDR etc.) but in this age, we're looking for manager politicans and this type of ability isn't as easy to assess. If we take only the bottom line, we're missing something. I think it would be interesting to find out what makes a politician's "image" and perhaps dissect whether the image fits the man.

Much of your case rests with the mismanagement and neglect that the Liberals showed during this crisis. I agree that the Liberals made Mr. Clement's job harder, saddled him with extra responsibilities, and forced him to step up and fill in for them, and that they tried to force Ontario to raise all of the money they lost during SARS. But this isn't really what I was looking for. This board is about the details. Please provide them when you have time.

In another thread, another poster repeated the oft-repeated common wisdom that Tony Clement handled the SARS wisdom well. Such is one of the planks of his current run for the CPC leadership. Having had only a few glimpses of how people at the very top of the latter do their jobs, it seems to me difficult if not impossible for the public to assess such a thing. A Minister of Health is the captain of a very large ship that takes a long time to turn. In times of crisis, of course, it's important the captain to be there. But what do we say of a captain who appears on the bridge just in time to steer the ship past icebergs ? "Thanks for saving us" or "Why did we end up near those icebergs in the first place ?" I'm interested firstly in what Clement did to distinguish himself during the crisis. From a rough search of newspaper articles (incomplete, I admit - add your own if you wish) I came up with the following general points that others said about him, and that Mr. Clement himself said about his performance during the crisis. 1. He had to 'perform under pressure'. Globe and Mail - Feb 16, 2004 2. He had to 'shoulder the responsibility' (Vancouver Province - Jan 30, 2004) 3. He worked long hours during the crisis. Globe And Mail - April 30, 2003 4. He exhibited excellent coordination skills in bringing groups together. Globe And Mail - April 30, 2003 5. He insisted on daily briefings. Toronto Star - Feb 12, 2004 6. He realized that the system had a shortage of labour. CTV - May 6, 2003 Of these qualities, I would say that points 1-3 are expected of a minister. That isn't to say that one shouldn't be thankful to our public officials for serving us, but working long hours, performing under pressure, and especially shouldering the responsibility are all requirements of the job and don't qualify one for high praise IMO. Point 4 - coordination. This is certainly an important skill for a minister to have, and a high official who does it well shows a degree of intelligence and a worthiness for higher office. Point 5 - daily briefings. This was the right thing to do. This initiative went a long way to preventing panic in Ontario, I think. But, it also seems to be to bit somewhat of a 'no brainer' as they say. I'm not a minister, but it doesn't seem to me like a brilliant decision. Still, I suppose it's praiseworthy. Point 6 - labour shortage. This speaks more to the job that Tony Clement was charged with performing in the long term. I found it shocking that he was surprised as to the extent of the cuts. After reading the articles, it seems to me that praising Tony's "performance" is something akin to praising the performance of an actor in Hamlet. It moves us, it binds us together emotionally, it reaffirms our humanity. And these things are all important especially in times of public crisis. But to me, being a minister is much more than that. I'd like to think that a minister would be judged by the whole job not just how he reacts and performs during the high drama of crisis. Certainly it seems to be counter-productive for voters to change their minds about a leader based on how he/she performs during a crisis. If Tony Clement had mismanaged his position up until the crisis then impressed people with his performance, that sends a bad message to politicians. I'm not saying he necessarily did mismanage the Ministry of Health, only that for him to base a run for the leadership on his performance is unsettling. If we as a society had a better idea of exacty what happens behind the scenes of these crises and what exactly leaders do, then this praise might make more sense. Additionally, if we could take a more balanced view of the whole job of being a minister - being a leader and a manger - then perhaps crisis management could take its proper place in the public's assessment.

I've done a little substandard Google research in the 1/2 hour since I posted the questions above. I'll start a new thread on Clement and SARS.

On Layton: I don't know if the public sector union would trust him if they learned any lessons from Bob Rae. Also, there are examples of socially progressive programmes that are also more cost effective in the end. Public health care is one of these. I would much rather have a right-of-centre government implement a new programme as I would rather have a left-of-centre government cut a new programme. On Clement... I'm curious about your assertion that Clement was a 'good leader' during the SARS crisis. It reminded me of similar assertions that Mr. Giuliani exhibited great leadership on September 11, 2001. If the statement refers to either leader's courage, commitment, their presence in front of the cameras during the crisis, the calming effect that they had on the public then I understand the statement completely and agree with it. But... Sometimes these statements seem to me to imply more - that either leader made excellent tactical decisions, managed the situation well, provided solutions etc. I can't understand such implications, unless more evidence of such actions is also given. As the man at the top of the organizational pyramid, I can think of only a few ways that a leader can help with things. By getting funds, for example, or by lighting a fire under people to get things done. Granted, these are major ways that a leader can help a solution, but with both crises can anyone say exactly what either leader did beyond their public statements ? I'm all for giving credit where it's due, but sometimes our desire for heroes can lead to mythmaking. I'm honestly curious as to what Clement can be credited for. Please provide me with any references if you can, or just explain your point of view in your usual well-reasoned manner.

Well, since the war ended I don't think we've seen a clear and focussed plan from Bush. The state of the union address got bad reviews. IMO Bush was all over the map - Mars, criticizing the use of steroids in professional sports. And there's this amnesty plan of his, which has been criticized by conservatives on this board and off. I suspect he's trying to paint himself as more of a moderate by making statements on poll-tested issues. But of course, this is impossible to prove. That being said, his team didn't seem plan well enough for the rebuilding of Iraq. All true. He seems ineffectual in the eyes of the religious right, and I can see why. If there was enough of an outcry, I'm sure there's something he would do. He's not as passionate a 'states rights' advocate as he is an evangelical Christian, I'm sure. There's no evidence either way on this. These are just my suspicions. I don't necessarily believe the hard-left or the religious right but their perceptions are interesting. It's the economy and the war. The presidential candidates will high step over this issue, I think.

A Stronach win would play into the Liberals' hands. Clement was part of Harris' well-oiled political machine but certainly isn't cute, cuddly or fatherly enough to give him a boost at the start. Jack Layton - start talking like a conservative NOW and you will reap rewards.

Washington Times Article If I may speculate... I suspect GWB is doing what Chretien did when he was in office - governing by polls. Where else are the religious right voters going to go ?

I heard a radio lecture once, where a professor talked about the advantage of having a homosexual in the tribe. The idea was that a member of the tribe who was not able to mate would be independent and therefore be free to help the tribe with other tasks because he wouldn't have family obligations.

This isn't a done deal. The election could easily happen in the fall and a lot could happen between now and then. Opinions do change, as evidenced by PM's big drop.

I think that's why they stopped classifying homosexuality as a disease - ie. some people who were homosexual didn't "suffer" at all. In fact, some are quite happy with it.

As an aside, the west invented the NDP. I don't know about that. I think he may well have been screwed by Chretien. It would be kind of strange to punish Paul Martin - Chretien's adversary - for the previous regime's errors. Paul Martin isn't an Ontarian, is he ? I believe he's from Quebec. Maybe the pro-Ontario bias will give Layton a landslide. 30 seats, huh. Ok. We'll see how it goes. I think Harper can reach that goal.

I agree. I just had an issue with the 'will of the people' aspect. I think the Liberals governed by polls. This mismanagement wasn't something that they were able to overcome or poll-manage, just cover up. But even that has come to an end...

Well, if you're including those elements I listed in your definition of capitalist democracy then I do agree with you. Open capitalist democracy with a balance of power and a guarantee of human rights has proven itself (so far) to be the best way to guarantee a productive and happy society.

Goldie: Further to this, Stockwell Day did the same thing as I remember. It didn't help him much as I recall. Mr. Harper is doing all the right things to garner respect in Ontario. He's taking the high road, trying to keep social conservatives from making extreme comments, and focussing on the shortcomings of the sitting government as he's supposed to do (or was) as opposition leader. As a result, he's made great strides. As the leader of a party that only distinguished itself in the public mind as having a penchant for gaffes, Harper managed things well enough that they are now surging in the polls. None of this would have been possible without his hard work. How many seats will he have to win in Ontario before you drop this paranoid belief that Ontarians are anti-west ?

These two were rejected by Canadians in general and the west as well. Still, he was a new face. Mulroney was a skilled orator who convinced Canadians of his vision of Canada. If Turner had been more familliar, we might have seen a different result. Again, Mulroney was the incumbant. Campbell was a new face and the PC party ran an awful campaign. You don't have any evidence of this at all. There's more anti-Quebec sentiment in Ontario by far, from my experience. You have made Ontario into a bogeyman of sorts, I think. There is no evidence of any significant anti-western sentiment in Ontario because there is no significant anti-western sentiment. Every example you gave was of a western politican who was either 1) an unproven entity as leader or 2) made significant errors. Or both. And you didn't even respond to my point that no PM has come from Ontario in that time. I'm starting to think that this myth has been formented by western politicians to garner votes. This is cheap and divisive campaigning, and it won't work. If you really think Ontario is anti-west, I suspect nothing will change your mind. You should probably join the western separatist fold as that is the mindset that you seem to be comfortable with.