Michael Hardner

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.

Krusty: This makes me wonder what you meant when you criticized the Libs for going against the will of the people.

Your argument would make perfect sense if it not were the fact that modern capitalism has included elements of socialism in practice. So we're not dealing with a purely capitalist system, as we were in the 18th century. Socialism realizes that people aren't perfect, and forces them to take care of the most needy members of society through social programs etc. The west has realized that the healthiest capitalist societies require the well off to fund infrastructure, health care, education, defense etc. North America had some of its best economies in the 1950s and 1960s, when taxes were relatively high. During this period, America built the interstate highway system, state universities, the largest defense force in the world, the space program and so on. Today, we can hardly afford to maintain these institutions let alone build for the future.

The Liberals followed the polls on Iraq. You could tell they were doing it right up until the moment that they had to commit. The problem of faith in our democratic institutions was the first thing mentioned by Martin in his first speech, so this is something he's obviously planning to address. The gun registry was another mistake, but the voters who are most upset about it are gun owners, IMO. I don't see how a government that managed 50% support until recently can be said to be going against the wishes of the people. A criticism I had of the Chretien government is that they governed by polls, often choosing the safe path over the one that might be right. But even then, the answer can't be that the people of Canada are idiots. You have to have faith in democracy. The people of Ontario elected two solid conservative majorities in the 1990s. The Liberals rode a healthy economy and general unease with upsetting the status quo to three majorities. Now, we have three new faces leading the major parties. Martin may have to pay for the sins of the father.

Turner was a relative unknown as well. We may be looking at a replay of 1984 right now. Westerners often parrot this accusation but I don't see any evidence of this at all. I've never heard anyone say that they're voting for/against a party because the leader is from a particular region. How many Prime Ministers have been from Ontario in the last thirty years and how many from the west ? By my count we've had 0 PMs sitting as members from Ontario, 2 from BC, 1 from Alberta, and 3 from Quebec. This is all happening inside your own head. Ontario has elected 3 more westerners than Ontarians even. And how many westerners has Ontario rejected ? Perhaps 3: Kim Campbell, Stockwell Day and Preston Manning. I contend that if Manning was leader today, he'd be ahead of Martin in the polls. As for the other two - Campbell and Day - can you blame Ontario (and/or Canada) for rejecting them ?

$100 million out of a $180 billion dollar budget is about .055 %. I suppose that, previously, Canadians view a theft rate of .055 % as being preferable to handing the country to the unproven leadership of the Alliance or NDP. I don't even think he'd cut out the CBC. But he has had some yahoos in his party, even in his caucus. Ontario voted in the Conservative's dream Mike Harris TWICE, so that can't be it. If Harper could keep the bumpkins in line for, let's say, one year then perhaps he could garner some trust. Ontario has fresh memories of what happens when you elect complete greenhorns to run the show (NDP in '90) and are less willing to experiment today. It's Ontario's role to punish transgressors ? Not at all - it's the CPC's role to convince people to vote for them. Ontario has shown its willingness to vote for conservatives - providing they are convinced of the leader's ability. Is Ontario the Prime Minsiter now ? These roles you describe are in your mind only. If Harper wins the leadership, and can't convince people that he can do better then the CPC needs a new leader. I know of no Ontarian who praises the Liberals. Rather, Ontarians see the Liberals as the least worst choice. See my comments above. I think the Alliance was too rash in dumping Preston Manning. Eastern voters were just starting to get used to him when they switched off for Stockwell Day. And the resulting internecine battles probably put the party out of contention for the next election too. As I pointed out, Ontario might be thinking pragmatically. .055 % isn't a lot of theft. If you had a choice of hiring two people for a $ 50,000 a year job and you knew that the first person could do the job competently but would steal $27 in office supplies throughout the year, but the second person was an unknown - you might go with the first person anyway. That said, the Liberals have taken a huge hit and are flying in minority government airspace now.

The SuperBowl show was planned and executed by business people working for corporations designed to make a profit. If you didn't like the show, blame them not the audience.

Do you mean socially ? If so, I think it's Canada that's moving left. Trudeau was ahead of the curve - he obviously made sure that the constitution had enough wiggle room for gay rights. I think that he anticipated a future time when it homosexuality be more acceptable to the public. As for the Liberals, a friend of mine who knows some "insiders" says that it's civil war with the Libs right now. Martin will crucify Chretien if he has to. You can't blame him for being angry. He waited for years to be PM, only to be stuck with the sins of his predecessor. Who would have thought that this scandal would blow so high ? This just goes to show that you can't predict things 100%.

Perhaps, assuming they want it for themselves. But even if they want it for themselves, it's not necessarily envy. Unless you're starving and others are getting rich by exploiting you. That kind of injustice can make a Marxist out of almost anybody. I agree with you on that. I think scripture crosses political lines.

Why is it based upon envy ? I suspect you're saying this because you think that Marxists and socialists are envious. I don't think this is necessarily true. But we aren't capitalists. Capitalism, according to Marxist theories, makes the workers tools for producing wealth for the upper classes. But I don't ascribe to the 'capitalism=greed' theory any more than I ascribe to the 'socialism=envy' theory above. The difference between the NDP policies and the CPC policies are relatively slight IMO. Neither party would nationalize industries (as socialists would have done, even thirty years ago) nor would either party drop universal health care coverage. As is the case with many debates on this board, people are arguing capitalism vs socialism as they existed a long time ago. Today, we have a left-centre hybrid versus a right-centre hybrid.

I can't say that I agree with you completely on this one, but I will agree that I have butted heads (not on this board) with some pretty hard-hearted folks who call themselves Christians. Quoting scripture doesn't seem to help educate such people, in fact it can sometimes enrage them. There was a virulent anti-Muslim, and ostensibly pro-Christian poster on one board who tried to debate that "turning the other cheek" was not Christian behavior.

This is a depressing thought, and probably too cynical. I think that government sanctioned divorce was the nail in the coffin to what marriage was supposed to be about.

Don't be so glum. A drop of 9 points from 48 is actually an 18.75% drop. This means that nearly 1 in 5 voters have changed their vote from Liberal in the space of the last week or so. I would bet that many people haven't even heard of the scandal yet. But the drop might cause an "echo" that causes others to pay attention. And 25% for the CPC in Ontario ?!? That is a solid number. This may even cause the election to be delayed.

I follow what you say, but is also an important element of community in religion. If it weren't for communities, than Judaism and Christianity wouldn't have survived as long as they have. The communities took care of each other, and did their best to follow the laws. Every religious community has a set of standards, followed by the group. Those who do not follow the standards are shunned from the group. Now, looking back at 2000+ years of biblical history we generally agree that the laws that were laid down by Moses et al were solid foundations for making a community work. And those laws have been the basis for many of our laws. Thou shalt not kill is a good one. A community that follows that law is probably a more secure and prosperous one than a community that does not. So we can see that these laws, though divine in origin, are also practical. And so it goes with charity. A society that takes care of its own is a stronger and more closely knit society. No one can mandate true "charity" - that can only come from the heart. But it is possible for us to ensure that the most needy of our society is taken care of. And that, to me, is indistinguishable from the philosophy of Christianity.

It's horrifying but what are we to do ? We've already realized that human curiousity outreaches our desire for security. It's been forty years since we've had the capability to destroy the earth. It seems to me that this kind of research should be governed by a world body. Otherwise, different jurisdictions may choose to allow genetic experimentation against the human species.

The Liberals might lose, say, 6 points which will be split evenly between the NDP and CPC.

I know many people who vote Liberal for similar reasons to yours. In fact, I know of no one who enthusiastically votes Liberal. You would think this means that the CPC has a good shot at winning the election, but a number of obvious obstacles are in their way.