MSH

I'm not sure you can compare the two situations; politics in the US is actually quite unique in the world. You are right, however, that the "religious right" aren't to blame--in fact Obama had quite a following amongst those we would say were from the "religious right" (such as Southern Baptists). Ironic to make that argument. For nearly the entire existence of the Reform and Alliance parties pundits continually argued that competition on the right was letting the Liberals march into power--comfortable majority status at that--with little more popular vote than Harper got last fall. Now, the left suffers from that problem, but the right has a NEW problem, because lack of competition has made their party exclusionary! Damned if you do, damned if you don't! So what would you suggest is the solution? Electoral reform? We can't even get senators to be routinely elected AT ALL, much less change how the ones we DO vote for are elected! Talk about stating the obvious: - Ignatieff behaves like a moderately conservative leader, with some policies similar to the Tories' last election platform, and gains support - Harper falls back to the position he was elected for to maintain support What is the big insight here? Canadians aren't particularly partisan, and despite the picture the CBC tries to paint, we aren't all that "progressive" either--Since the departure of Trudeau we've consistently wanted a moderately conservative, practical, responsible government. Cretien was kind of left, but put Martin-style liberals in charge of important matters, and Martin himself never made any bold progressive moves in his short tenure...and Mulroney led with a HUGE majority until he wore out his welcome by over-spending and increasing taxes (and notable introducing the hated GST) and all the while being arrogant. But forum posters aren't typical voters--they are very partisan, whether they be rabidly neo-con, or, like yourself, enthusiastically "progressive"/socialist/liberal. ...(ad-nauseum)... Who is being exclusionary here? Seems like an argument between the pot and the kettle over shades to me. Firstly, you are stereotyping. You have a very narrow view on who is conservative (both in the small c and Big C sense). I know business owner who happens to be homosexual. On social issues, of course, he wouldn't be classified as conservative, but aside from his views on the subject of sexual orientation he holds a mix of libertarian and conservative views: he supports cracking down on gangs, tougher punishments for criminals (that happens when your business is targeted by criminals). He complains about how much taxes he has to pay and how carelessly the government spends that money. He does not like to hear how Canadian citizens are laid off as migrant workers from Mexico and elsewhere keep jobs at lower pay. Besides that, I know paid-up, actively-involved members of the Conservatives who support abortion rights, and there are not only Muslim and Hindu conservative members and supporters (like my next-door neighbour), but long-serving MPs as well who are not Christian. Incidentally, Our current CONSERVATIVE PM Harper first became involved in federal politics as a member of the young LIBERALS. So I guess Harper has to put himself on probation! Aside from that, you also mention things like "if you are a union member you cannot be a conservative". Well, some things just aren't compatible--of you are a big union supporter then your beliefs by definition aren't all that conservative. What's next? "If you believe in private ownership and control then you cannot be a true communist?" Well, DUH! It's less a problem of exclusion and more one of perception--with partisans making commentary like yours it is an uphill battle. Ignatieff faces a dilemma there too--he has to construct his own image and he has to LIVE UP to that image. He talks a good talk but does he really have principles? He has backed the effort in Afghanistan--will he dither if it proves too unpopular? Will he cave to socialists and recklessly spend if in government? Voters haven't completely figured out if he is sincere or not, and he'd better address that because rabidly partisan Tories will wipe the floor with his carcass if he doesn't. I disagree with you theory about "exclusionary" politics because I know the reality is far less rigid than you portray. Harper has managed to overcome an image of being "too scary" to become PM, even if he is seen as aloof and partisan, but people still EXPECT him to be right wing, so even if you don't agree with him you'd respect him if he lived up to his image. His government's handling of the economic downturn and the political crisis has cost him some of that respect--even from non-supporters. He campaigned on being more democratic and (most importantly) fiscally conservative, yet he's used parliamentary procedure to his advantage to avoid votes and he has spent like a drunken sailor, planning to overspend by tens of billions a year. The challenge is that Harper looks too SIMILAR to yesterday's politicians, not that he is too different or too exclusionary.

Harper and Elections canada have had a bone to pick with each other for years, and I think there are animosities beyond the commissioner himself (ie. bureaucrats down the chain of command). Remember Harper has been the driving force behind (rightly) fighting draconian gag law regulations, which unduly muzzle groups and individuals during campaigns by putting speech and funding restrictions on them. I think this is payback for Harper being a thorn in their side in the past. BTW, other parties HAVE broken the rules, and have broken them more seriously and obviously. I'm quite sure that the Liberal party has practiced "in-and-out" campaign financing ummm...liberally...in past elections, and lest we forget them trying to "liberally" interpret donation limits by having well-heeled contributors submit contributions in the name of their grandchildren, and what not. And, well, AdScam still looms large as a bad blot on their party fundraising record. For E.C. to have a warrant of this nature executed is without precident--it is usually a "last resort" measure when one of the parties in a lawsuit is being uncooperative, and when Conservative party officials contended there have been no information requests for months, E.C. was silent on the matter--they didn't dispute the party officials or provide any evidence at all of any requests being made. Furthermore, it is completely obvious the media was tipped off, and possibly the Liberal party as well (or a Liberal-friendly journalist tipped off the Liberals), because within minutes of the RCMP's arrival, media crews arrived, with a Liberal-hired cameraman closely in tow. There is some kind of setup here, as if it was orchestrated to get footage for one of those "Harper will eat your pet kitten. It's true. We didn't make this up." style attack ads for the next election. For the record, I am disappointed that the Conservatives are proving to be sliding towards a "Mulroney PC" type of operation rather than a "Manning Reform" operation (regardless of whether you differ on the political views, you cannot argue that the Reform party was a much more honest, open organisation in the way it was run). However, for the Liberals to point and accuse and yell with riteous indignation is very hypocritical...that pot is every bit as soot-stained as the kettle, if not more so, to this day.

I would say that Calgary's city council has "large levels of confidence" is really stretching it, considering the abysmal voter turnout. Sure, almost 2 of 3 votes cast were for Bronconnier, but what does it say when only 1 of 5 people even bother to vote? Is it really a vote of confidence when you take 15 eligible voters, and only TWO actually went out and officially declared support for the winner? Don't assume that if the 80 percent of non-voters were to cast ballots that they'd vote with the other 20. Trust me, Bronco's REAL approval rating is very likely UNDER 50 percent factoring in everyone. There are two reasons he is still mayor: He isn't so completely inept that people are motivated to go out and vote him out of office, and the competing candidates are unknown, nutjobs or both. And when it comes to aldermen, there weren't "few" exceptions, there were a sizeable number of exceptions and a couple of close races. For example, Helene Laroque was such an incompetent alderman that even with the backing of socialist and union groups (and the largest campaign budget) she came out in last place, and with some incumbents not running again there was some competition. It's clear to me that there isn't widespread consensus and approval in Calgary when it comes to municipal politics that you suggest there is. Bronconnier has been good at media-facing events, and has a penchant for bluster and indignation. In a way, that has been good because it has helped money and control rightly flow down to the local level where it belongs. However, when he gets his money and power Bronco tends to piss it away in stupid places, and he is ham-fisted and confrontational when he (ab)uses his power. He way overspends on roads to the detriment of public transportation, he needlessly supports a hare-brained scheme to set up a new bureaucracy to handle curbside recycling instead of contracting it out to those existing operations that have the people and infrastructure (costing far more than it should and causing the rollout to be delayed further) and he aggressively pushes to annex surrounding lands instead of making more efficient use of land within existing municipal boundaries. From what I see in the policy decisions he makes they tend to be in the best interests of his large corporate campaign donors and not the city in general. He is also very weak in diplomacy. He has an abrasive personality (some who know him say he is a real jerk), and it comes through in his confrontations with everyone from transit unions to the province, to his dealings with the MD of Rockyview. He is a tax-and-spend Liberal and is loathe to tighten the belt, and when taxes and the cost of business in the city start pushing business development out of the city he doesn't fix the problem, he makes a pest of himself instead (witness his dealings with Ranchers Choice and the developers of the Crossiron Mills shopping centre in Balzac). No, Calgary isn't an exception to the rule. Unfortunately though it has a few bright spots in council right now it is nearly as inept as any other big city gov't.

Well, I say if any municipality, province, or country for that matter, wishes to enact policies designed to attract freeloaders then let them deal with the consequences. Incidentally, you are lying when you say Klein rolled back social assistance for "families and single parents". These reductions in "benefits" were quite heavily weighted towards single adults, and some families with two non-working parents saw reductions as well. The single mothers that socialists like to weep over saw basically no change in their "benefits". Back in the days of the last stock market bubble, when oil was in the $15 to $25/barrel range and we were in the midst of the last stock market bubble bursting it was a wise policy move to encourage those capable of working to leave welfare roles one way or another. When money is tight and your credit card is near its limit you don't do something as foolish as lend money to an addict to feed his addiction. If a welfare case would rather move far away to avoid having to work rather than find a job what good is that for the person or this province? The welfare case gets no incentive to quit his addiction to welfare and the province gets further in debt supporting a welfare addict. So, say Alberta cuts its welfare again and BC gets more welfare cases than it can handle, so then BC changed its own welfare rules, so they move to Saskatchewan, and then it happens there too. Eventually there would be nowhere in Canada that can afford to support the welfare addicts and they'll have to actually face their addiction to welfare (What else are they going to do, move to Sweden? What nation in the world, even comfortable socialist nations, would admit a chronic welfare case as a resident or citizen?), and furthermore it would make provinces take proper responsibility for the problem and find real solutions to the root causes of welfare dependence that best suit the special requirements of each province. I really don't see the point in all this hand-wringing over the plight of welfare addicts. Welfare is (well, was supposed to be) an emergency measure to help people out of times of trouble--something that would provide assistance for a period of weeks to a year or two. Other programmes are, or should be, instituted to assist single parents or those with long term or permanent illness and disability. I think that the creation of a large, centrally-administered socialist bureaucracy at best masks the issue by absolving the provinces of their responsibilities at best, and at worst it creates a growing segment of the population that is needlessly dependent on handouts.

There are no "politicians bragging about it on TV" most likely because there is no such effort as you describe underway. You are taking public record of various unconnected areas of interdependence between Canada, US and Mexico and stitching them together into some kind of conspiracy theory. NAFTA, the softwood trade dispute resolution and an international security agreement certainly have an impact on globalisation issues but there is no evidence at all that they are linked and part of a comprehensive plan to bring about Manifest Destiny. If Emerson ran off upon encountering you it was probably because you came off as being of questionable sanity, not becasue he had something to hide. The Black Plague killed lawyers you say? Well, I guess there IS a silver lining to every dark cloud! Globalisation, I believe, will eventually be responsible for the ELIMINATION of the gap between rich and poor nations (though there will always bee rich and poor people). Globally we have evolved from a society of tribes, to one of nation states, to one of state-enforced colonialism to one of corporate colonialism. As nasty and "exploitative" as some elements of globalisation have been they are actually bringing down that last form of colonialism. For example, outsourcing to India, east Asia and so on has cause us a bit of hardship (and really, it hasn't been that bad for us) but it has brought a lot of prosperity to developing countries, and eventually economic prosperity amongst a large enough segment of the population will bring political enlightenment in a given country. As the world gets smaller through this process and with the advancement of technology like the internet we expose exploitation of the past (sweatshops, environmental destruction, etc) which leads to its curtailment. Developing nations move to more modern manufacturing methods and facilities and their workforces become more skilled and better paid and the gap starts to CLOSE. Furthermore, we in North America and Europe are too complacent, too spoiled and want too much wealth to the point that professional services and even corporate headquarters will be migrating to developing nations. Look at how many high-techs are located in Taiwan. And now we have Halliburton moving its headquarters out of Texas to the middle east! As crackpot as you come across to be, this "NAU" thing you rail against, if it came to be aling the lines of the EU, would probably be a very GOOD thing and would help poorer nations. NAFTA has actually been quite good for Mexico for the most part, and anything that eliminates protectionism and barriers to trade and commerce and cooperation, such as a standard set of security practices at all our borders, has in general been seen as GOOD. I just think it isn't happing any time soon and you're just a bit of a crackpot lol!

How in the world does calling a specific person a dog (no...INFERRING...Mackay didn't actually SAY "that dog Belinda" or some such thing) get blown up into "generalising women as being weaker and less knowlegable"? When did people in this country lose their hides? It's time people grew back thicker hides and stopped being such whiney little babies. "Rest of us realised this in the 60's"? Realised what exactly? There are people of all political stripes who still haven't smartened up. In the 1970s, Cretien make a very insensitive remark about natives (wasn't he even minister fr Indian Affairs at one point back then too?). In the 1980s Crosbie ( a Mulroney-era cabinet minister) had a "witty remark" almost daily, often aimed at women ("Pass the Tequila, Shiela" and "Four Horsewomen of the Apolcalypse" were noteworthy). Crosbie was notoriously unapologetic too. In the 1990s Deb Gray endured much personal ridicule at the hands of Liberal ministers during question period (including being compared with a "slab of bacon" by the Liberal defence minister of the day). Often apologies were never forthcoming. Guess what...MOST policicians from ALL parties simply need to GROW UP and stop with the childish taunts. And the rest of us (the press gallery in particular) also need to GROW UP and stop making federal cases out of childish taunts..all it does is encourage the clowns.

As someone who has sat in the more "libertarian" camp of the old Alliance crowd and is now currently a Conservative supporter I do believe we have to look at why we criminalise the posession of marijuana...the benefits to society of such government intervention are questionable (yes, there was a number of libertarian-oriented Reformers/Alliance supporters who advocated decriminalisation for a number of years, though it was always a minority opinion). However, I'd have to say that the statements above are baseless and it shows an irresponsible attitude on your part. I don't think there is any evidence at all that toking up would reduce domestic violence, though I'd imagine its calming effects could very well have that effect. In any case irrisponsible use of marijuana would certainly contribute to the decay of a domestic relationship, just as irresponsible use of alcohol does. As to the "less wreckless driving" claim, THAT IS OUTRIGHT FALSE. Speaking from firsthand experience as a passenger in a car driven by someone who was stoned many years ago, as well as knowing what I felt like when stoned I can say you are COMPLETELY WRONG. It is VERY DANGEROUS to drive when stoned and doing so is just as irresponsible and reckless as driving drunk. It puts your own lives and the lives of innocent others in danger. Being stoned is different from being drunk to be sure, but it is NO SAFER to get behind the wheel. "Less wanton destruction"? Sorry, that's pretty flaky too. Less violent? Perhaps...but stoned people act like STUPID people that do stupid, reckless things...anything from urinating in the streets to jumping around on cars...these are the kind of things "fun loving" stoned people liked to do on the Red Mile a couple years ago. Oh yeah, and really stoned people like to try drinking in public too...then you have to deal with soned...and drink...and as a result probably vomiting...party-goers too. These ridiculous statements do more to damage the case for decriminalisation more than they do to suppport it. Marijuana souldn't simply be legal, just like alcohol isn't "simply legal" (it is a regulated substance). Responsible adults can enjoy it responsibly for sure, but irrisponsible/excessive/chronic use of pot will ruin lives and damage health and, well, make you look like an ass...just like alcohol does. And, as in the case of alcohol, unfortunately too many people use it irresponsibly. I do not advocate decriminalisation as a magical solution to societal ills...I advocate it becasue making simple posession and use a crime seems to serve no useful purpose at all. If pot was legal then we wouldn't have to waste law enforcement resources on busting grow ops and it would take the wind out of a major revenue stream for organised crime. However, pot would still ruin the lives of countless people...just like alcohol does. At least we could then re-prioritise and focus on education, addiction prevention and rehabilitation anyways.

Geeez, what triggered this big hate-on for your fellow Canadians? Not all Canadians are fat cats, nor all that hypocritical. Indeed, the vast majority of Canadians live quiet, sensible, non-hypocritical lives. I live in the "land of the lumbering Lincoln Navigators" (AKA Calgary) and have a decent enough professional career and yet live in a modest home and drive a Chrysler Neon. When weather permits I prefer to walk if the destination is 15 minutes or less by foot. I compost and recycle and put out half as many garbage bags as my neighbours. I am not alone in this city either--witness the last election where the Green Party had amongst the stongest support out of almost every other area of the country. Have any other baseless, offensive generalisations to share with us? Do you think "Jews are cheap" or "Natives are lazy" too? Well, it takes water to live, period. Out of curiosity you should look into how many litres of water it takes to, say, produce a tonne of grain, and compare that to your tarsands statistic. Also, keep in mind that Canada and other 1st world nations consume far less water in agricultural operations per unit of produced goods because of mechanisation--without petroleum-powered tractors and other machinery the world wouldn't be able to feed itself--hence petroleum indirectly helps feed the world. Because we DO have tractors (and petroleum to fuel them) not only can the world feed itself, there is actually a GLUT of food production globally. We have famines almost chiefly due to political corruption and artificial barriers to trade and distribution. Can we do anything about warmer weather and disappearing glaciers? Personally, I think it is too late...about the best personal contribution you could make to minimise the environmental impact you have on this earth would be to die. Feel free to do so if you wish...that is not on my list of things to do--not voluntarily nor in the immediate future at least. I intent to live as sustainably and efficiently as possible within a modern and relativley comfortable suburban lifestyle. Well, a fool and his money are soon parted I suppose. I purchase drinking water on a larger scale (19 litre bottles for the cooler). I do this not because it is "cool", but becasue I do not like the taste of the chlorine, fluoride and mineral solution the city calls "water" and puts through my taps. To say the least, I think this chemical soup is not the most healthy water for consumption. I do not by "expensive little bottles" becasue they are, well, expensive, bulkier to store and are more wasteful packaging--and I hate waiting in line at the bottle depot so the less bottles I empty the less often I have to go to the depot. As it stands though, water is quite plentiful and will remain so for the next several human lifetimes. As is the case with food, the issue is with the potability and distribution of that water. The ability to make potable water out of undrinkable stuff doesn't require the resources of "rich supper companies" (whatever those are...bigger than "breakfast companies" I'd guess). The biggest challenge we face is making sure everyone has access to enough potable water to live healthy lives. So, we should hoarde our water then? Forget about "fancy lawns in California". What about if our friends to the south are suffering a drought? What about developing nations in South America or elsewhere? Canada has more water than we could ever hope to use, and some countries are seriously short of water (distribution problem...remember?). We have enough to address this and still water a few fancy Californian lawns to boot. All that matters to me is that THEY foot the bill to keep their lawn green, and that we make sure to keep OUR OWN supply sufficiently large and safe for consumption. Water is like any other resource and should be FAIRLY traded and shared with our global partners. That said, agriculture hasn't historically been a haven for FAIR, OPEN and FREE global trade, so we should approach international water agreements with extreme caution. Well, when you go to a cheap junky store to buy clothes then what do you expect? Anyways, Walmart isn't THAT cheap and junky--the clothes I've bought there tend to last a couple years. Perhaps that is because I use a washing machine and liquid soap. Perhaps you use a big bar of lye soap, a tin washtub and an old washboard then wring them out in an old crank wringer. It is great that you make your own clothes, but that sort of skill is pretty rare nowadays, and most people choose to spend their time at other pursuits. We have factories that do a better job, more efficiently I might add, than pretty much everyone could to themselves anyways. Even rarer is the person who doesn't need to buy patterns. I had to go to the fabric store when I was reupholstering seats and saw the price of some of those patterns. Gadzooks! what is evident is that people don't sew to save money anymore--they do it for the enjoyment and extra creativity it affords in the ability to alter, chose fabrics and so on. And your self-loathing rant is soooo effective in improving our world isn't it? I find it interesting that you complain about hypocrites and conspicuous consumption brough about by modern conveniences on an INTERNET FORUM. What, do you have a hand-crank-powered computer? Do you send and receive internet packets via carrier pidgeon? You probably used a good amount of fossil fuel and the water required to process it just to power cour computer long enough to rant on about this crap! I find it a rare thing when people actually WALK THE TALK instead of just going on b!tchfests. If even half of those "concerned about the environment" did that the world would be a MUCH better place.

Yeah, Adscam and Peppergate to name just two incidents were of no consquence internationally. Neither was his admonition to G-8 leaders to do it his way and follow Canada in running an economy. Chretien, by the way, could speak in very articulate and clear English when he chose to do so he often did at dinner speaking engagements. The personna he projected when in front of national audiences was quite different. Chretien was only articulate when speaking from a prepared speech. This is why he was more impressive at dinner speaking engagements. When he had to improvise Chretien was noticeably less articulate. This is NOT becase he is uncomfortable in the English language--he is equally fluent in both languages, thick French accent notwithstanding. That isn't saying much because he was equally prone to gaffes in both languages. I am not just talking syntatically (his assistants and even the press have been known to silently correct his grammatical errors though). Chretien just plain says silly things. There is a book called "Quotations from Chairman Jean"--a list of verifiable silly quotes attributed to Jean Chretien. It rivals the list of silly quotes generated by the likes of Dan Quayle. Incidents like Adscam and Peppergate do not influence international affairs--that is for certain. He was passable on the international stage but far from stellar--basically he was good at reading speeches. Once he diverted from script he became mildly embarrassing. Essentially, he speaks what I'd call "lumberjack French" - minus cursing. Hard to explain, but what you heard in English during press scrums is what he'd sound like in French too. Some have suggested it was an act to come across as "the little guy from Shawinigan" and ad to his common-man appeal. I think that is really more deceptive than what even Chretien would consider. He simply isn't good at unscripted speech. Nothing to be embarassed about--it is actually a rare talent. That Chretien did that WAS embarrassing from an internatinal standpoint stemmed more from his foreign policy actions (and perhaps more so, his INactions). In bilateral or multilateral talks, Chretien was known to be somewhat confrontational, impatient, etc. when things were not going his way. Despite this he was not very effective at being assertive so in the end Canada's position would not be well represented. Under his regime, however, it was what he DIDN'T do that was embarassing. He antagonised the US because he couldn't respect the ideological differences with the Bush regime and did nothing to heal such rifts. He made drastic cutbacks in our armed forces which severely reduced our global influence. He did little to nothing at all to defend a distinctly Canadian stance internationally. After 9/11 he couldn't even be bothered to make an immediate and sincere show of condolence and suport for the US and the victims of the tragedy. Was there ANYTHING he could've done without reading the latest research poll or consulting his inner circle to see if it would get him more votes first? He wasn't embarrassing because of his physical impediment, his language skills or even domestic scandals. He was embarrassing mostly becasue he was invisible internationally and drastically reduced our global presence during his tenure. The international community can brush off eccentricities if someone has substence and presence behind them. Chretien had no substance or presence to speak of--his motto seemed to be "go with the flow" and his goal seemed to be to fool enough people to vote him back into office. As a result he commanded little respect on the international stage. Contrast this to Harper: I was concerned initially on this area becasue Harper was relatively inexperienced in political office and not as well travelled compared to most other past PMs. On this front, however he has been very impressive. Almost immediately after being sworn in he stepped right into the role of statesman, meeting personally with US and Mexican presidents, making sure the softwood dispute resolution moved forward (whether or not everyone was completely satisfied with the reults), visiting troops in Afghanistan, and not only making a good first impression at La Francophonie but also asserting a distinctly Canadian viewpoint and holding his ground without being intimidated and without looking belligerent. Whether or not you agree with Harper's policies or his methods, it's hard to make an argument that he is not a good statesman. It's about time we had a PM with an international presence and respect in the leagues of Trudeau and Mulroney (note: presence and respect doesn't mean being popular or well liked, because neither were popular nor well liked at various points by various people...but they WERE respected and WERE internationally recognised statesmen).

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13280 Canadians are catching on. I don't quite see the significance of this poll in terms of electoral success. First of all, the approval rating may have dropped but is still over 50%, which is better than the situation past gov'ts have had to contend with (I think Mulroney was in the tank at one point in his first term but came back to win a sizeable majority later on). Second, there is no mention of the approval ratings for any other parties. What about the Liberal approval rating? The CPC could have dropped twice as many points and they'd still be in a winning position if the Liberals were to have an approval rating of say, 30 percent. What matters most is VOTER PREFERENCE...which can be who is "the least bad". An Ekos poll from the same period has shown that the Conservatives have started to regain some strength--they command a 10 percent lead--same as the last Ekos poll just before the election. Furthermore the absoute percentage has increased by 2 percent for the Conservatives--barely statistically significant but something to watch. I'd say that although the Conservatives suffer a frustrating lack of positive momentum that there has been absolutely no sign that the Liberals have made headway at all either. If the election was today they'd still lose to the Conservatives (and it'd still be a minority). What little momentum there is, though , seems to be with the gov't. Then there are current events to consider. Since the poll was completed Afghanistan has been pushed off the front page, the finance minister has announced surprisingly strong news on the budget surplus, the softwood debate has gone dormant since its ratification in parliament is a forgone conclusion now and so on. Meanwhile, the Liberal leadership campaign has turned negative, with some candidates dropping out, accusations of membership recruitment fraud and funding irregularities. The CPC is looking comparitively better with each passing day. Contrast this to the Liberal's situation: there is no longer one clear frontrunner in the race, with Rae matching Ignatief's lead. Not only that, but neither candidate has an established record with the Liberal party nor much experience in federal politics in any capacity. The Liberal party's finances are a complete mess. They have no established policies or even general agreement on the most basic and important issues of the day--for example, the only cohesive opposition to the gov'ts foreign policy and Afghanistan mission came from the NDP and BQ, and the Liberals have never been able to convey a clear position on the issue. It's almost like Liberal MPs don't know what to stand for until there is a leader to tell them what to stand for. The voters might not like all of the CPCs policies but they really can't stomach indeciciveness and uncertainty. If anyone should know this it should be the Liberals as they built whole election campaigns on instilling uncertainty about the CPC/CA/Ref and capitalising on the opponent's indecicive response. Things look pretty dire for the Liberals right now, despite any news you can spin to show otherwise. For some reason pundits seem to ignore a fairly consistent pattern in political polls--there is not much meaningful movement mid-election and nothing meaningful truly happens until the writ is dropped. In the last election it was the LIBERALS with a commanding lead, and pundits weren't debating who would win--it was whether the Liberals could improve their support enough to regain a majority. During the campaign voter preference turned exactly upside-down, and it all happened after the writ was dropped. Prior to that momentum was not really there for any party. And this reversal happened when the Liberals were in a much better position--they had an established leader, they were unified (or gave that appearance anyways), they had experience and voters were very familiar and comfortable with them (albeit rather tired of the same old thing). Quote all the polls you want, but don't be disappointed when your delusions don't prove to be true. The Liberals have no experienced leader, no proper platform, no money and have lost their organisation. Pulling off a reversal like the Conservatives did last time would be a miracle and even most Liberal insiders think it'll take another term in opposition before they can finish regrouping and be ready to govern again.

That last election? What "particularly sleazy" affair? Their ads....... Ads? The CONSERVATIVE ads? "Soldiers. On our streets. With guns. We aren't making this up." Uh, wasn't that kind of crap from LIBERAL ads? How could any reasonable individual say that ANY other ads, from ANY other party, could top the "sleaze quotient" of the last Liberal campaign. It made American political attack ads look polite. National Enquirer headlines were less absurd. The Liberal ad campaign fell right through the floor of bad taste established by the Kim Cambell-era PC's "Cretien's Face" ad right into the slimy pit below. The Conservatives didn't have to resort to slease...all they had to do was play back actual quotes from Martin and his cronies. "Entitled to my entitlements" indeed. The Liberals certainly got what they were entitled to last election....a good spanking.

After examining these "drastic cuts" it seems to me that there is absolutely nothing at all "critical" about ANY of the services affected. Harper and his team are proving to be quite good strategists and can make a lot of political hay over what in reality is virtually zero impact on the day to day lives of Canadians. This seems to have the usual suspects in an uproar, and also has a few pundits a bit puzzled as the announcement was very public but there was little explanation behind the cuts. However, if you are very familiar with the history of the Conservatives (particularly the part of it with Reform/Alliance roots) then this strategy is quite brilliant. Here is my theory on what is going on: The Conservatives loudly proclaim that they have chopped a whole billion from the budget, and have done so as part of their promise to be fiscally responsible. It is a simple, straightforward message carefully crafted to appeal to mostly jaded (and thus uninformed, apathetic) voters. They release broad details of these cuts--enough to flesh out a news story or newspaper article, or to fuel water-cooler discussion, but they do not get into finer details or how they justified cutting where they did. This way, voter's eyes won't glaze over yet it keeps the public's attention. The "Chicken Little" opposition is doing exactly what it has done since the inception of the Reform Party: it is decrying the cuts as cruel, heartless, "un-Canadian" and reckless in an attempt to paint the Conservatives in an unflattering image and scare voters back into their fold. In the past, the Reform and Alliance parties basically kept beating its head against the wall--whenever it was branded evil or extreme or whatever it would shift into defensive mode and answer every wild accusation with the truth according to the official party policy. This let the opposition control the message and the defensive strategy never yielded much success--someone on the defensive never looks very trustworthy after all, and it is hard to hold the attention of voters with the minutae of party policy documents. It seems the opposition are even slower learners than the Reform/Alliance were though. With the formation of the new Conservative party came a new strategy and the opposition has not changed its own strategy in response. The Conservatives have learned that defensiveness and details never translate into votes. Voters want (more than ever) a decisive government that keeps its promises (at a token level at the very least). They've learned (for better or worse) not to "open the kimono" too widely, and to basically ignore all but the most serious criticisms. This makes the traditional Liberal offensive strategy completely ineffective. Despite the indignant outcry of lobbyists, Liberals and leftist activists these cuts were far from reckless, cruel or mean spirited and are right in line with the Conservative's philosophy. In fact if anything they are more measured, more modest and far less radical than expected. This is a whole billion dollars in spending cuts that will go completely unnoticed by the general public and will have next to no short-term economic impact at all, except to make a bit bigger payment on the debt than expected. Since the opposition have predicted much damage as a result of such haphazard, heartless cuts they will look quite uncredible and foolish when nobody at all notices. You (and the opposition) contend that "critical programs" were cut. I challenge you to give me CONCRETE EXAMPLES of where these cutbacks will be visibly and painfully felt. JUST ONE. "Help get people into the workplace"? In most of the country (even in some parts where unenployment has been traditionally high) the problem is that workplaces outnumber people in need of them. Furthermore, from firsthand knowledge, I can tell you that federal programmes for things like "adult literacy" and "workplace training for the disabled" are not only quite ineffective, they are invisible to the public. Not only was none of that money spent on marketing/informing the public, it seems that these departments actually made an effort to HIDE them. I've actually heard the argument that "we don't really publicise the existence of this programme becasue we probably couldn't handle the demand" (translation: it would be too much hard work to actually do our jobs). Furthermore, the vast majority of reduced and eliminated programmes were FEDERAL efforts being made in PROVINCIAL juristictions (workplace training is education--a PROVINCIAL domain...medical marijuana is healthcare, another provincial responsibility, and so on). At least in my home province I can say for sure that the provincial government has its own (more effective and more visible) programmes already that address a substantial amount of what was eliminated or reduced by the feds. So, considering that a full third of these "cuts" were simply cancellations of previously budgeted but unspent funds and that most of the remainder basically removed duplication of provincial functions I think the argument can be made that this truly was useless spending.

The Taliban WERE small-time peasants. They are now a primary instrument of terror, still heavily influenced and supported by Al Quaeda, so this has very much to do with the Taliban. They are cut from the same cloth as organisations in other nations. If we were to let them to their own devices it would allow Al Quaeda to continue furthering is agenda with them (which is far more ambitious than to "rule over their own patch of dirt"). We have to show the Taliban in no uncertain terms that there is no good in accepting "money and muscle" and following in the footsteps of an insane Islamic cult. If we left, there would be more than enough nutjobs out there to fill the void and re-establish a totalitarian regime bent on western destruction. As desolate and backward as Afghanistan is, it still provided enough of a base for such people to orchestrate the hijacking of three planes for use as giant suicide bombs. You have no evidence whatsoever backing your view. NOBODY can say that "they'll be corrupt". When Hitler was finally deposed all of Germany didn't just become corrupt. When the UN action in Korea ended the South Korean gov't wasn't merely "different by a matter of degrees" from the Communist aggressors--it became a stable, free democracy by global standards. They'll only be corrupt thugs if in fact we don't care--and I'd like to think that at least sometimes we DO care. If we withdraw now it certainly measn we DONT care and your prophecy will fulfill itself with absolute certainty.

This is where it gets quite ambiguous, because in 1965 our constitution was the BNA Act--a British law--and to amend it in any manner was like amending any law in British parliament. There was no need to consult provinces or broker deals or any other such things. In fact, from what I can tell the only thing that kept Britain from aminding it on a whim was parliamentary convention. The only limitation on British control over our constitution in 1965 was perhaps provided by the Westminster Act or even amendments made after WW2 that added provisions allowing the Canadian gov't to initiate its own amendments (and thus allow Canada to un-do a British amendment it didn't like. In any case, in 1965 all we had to do to amend the BNA act was to pass a law just like any other law, and by parliamentary convention Britain would rubber-stamp it (to do otherwise would be like the Queen or GG refusing a PM-Elect's request to form a new gov't after an election, or refusing to allow the existing PM to drop the writ, which would cause a bit of a scandal as it did when Lord Byng wouldn't allow an election and insisted the Conservatives form a cabinet out of an opposition coalition). So to say that the age-limit modification set any kind of precedent is a rather shaky argument since the BNA act and the 1982 Constitution Act are separate acts and open to different interpretations. In any case, where do you draw the line? We don't require a constitutional amendment to change the number of seats in the commons (except that PEI must have at least 4 and maybe Quebec has to have 25%), and Mulroney just added extra seats to the senate when he didn't get his way with the GST (he went right to the Queen to get assent too, who out of parliamentary convention to defer to elected institutions automatically said yes). Also, don't forget that there are no rules specifying HOW a senator is selected. In fact technically speaking our constitution says that the Queen delegates the authority to do that to the GG, who must choose from a list of recommendations provided by the PM. It is only that crazy "parliamentary convention" that allows the PM to personally select a senator, becasue by that convention the PM presents a single recommendation and the GG can refuse, but wouldn't so as not to unduly stir the pot. Furthermore, the GG can only appoint a senator based on the PM's list, so the GG cannot decide for herself (only veto). In any case, since the whole procedure is largely "parliamentary convention", Mulroney allowed an elected senator to sneak in simply by promising to the Alta. gov't to honour its selection. We needed to pass NO law or do ANY amendment--Mulroney simply modified the conventional practise. If the Liberals would've allowed the convention to evolve we would have a handful of elected senators today, however Cretien and Martin were not exactly champions of democracy. If you look at all of the Senate's recent history then there is probably just as much argument that a term limit can be imposed without constitutional amendment as with. Harper may go as far as make a jaunt to Buckingham Palace one day and say "Hey Liz, can I tweak the senate just a little?" and she'd say "uh sure whatever, I see no harm in it". I also think that he could pass a law regarding senator term limits that is carefully worded enough to make it parliamentary convention for a senator to "voluntarily resign" after a fixed term. Given his unprecedented appearance before the Senate and his provocative comments such a strategy just might work--even if the courts were to rule that term limits weren't directly enforceable without changing the constitution to refuse to give up a senate seat would become a willful violation of parliamentary convention to observe the democratic will of the people. This is how it might work: Parliament passes a law that basically states the "PM shall ASK A SENATOR TO RESIGN after 'x' years of service". Nothing there says "a senator MUST RESIGN" however it compels the PM to do the asking, and puts the senator in a position where he or she would have to follow convention or face setting off a firestorm. Might sound silly, but that is exactly how it works with elections: Right up to the maximum 5 year term, if the PM decides to dissolve early, or gov't falls on a confidence motion as it did last year, the established procedure is for the PM to meet with the GG and ASK her to dissolve parliament and drop the electoral writ. Strictly speaking, she can refuse and order the sitting MPs to re-establish a cabinet and select a new PM (ore reconfirm the selection of the existing one), right up to the end of the 5 year term. Technically she could've refused to let Cretien call an early election and could've refused Martin an election and ordered Harper to try to establish a coalition govt (which would've been a crazy decision sgiven the makeup of parliament in that day). Sounds like "cheating" or "bypassing the process"? Well, I think it's about time that a politician had the political will to finally address institutional reform in some way. If the Liberals TRULY believed in addressing the "democratic defecit" and TRULY believed senate reform would be an involved constitutional amendment process they'd have had the guts to actually DO it. The last time there was any real political will was when Mulroney was PM, which is sad given how arrogant he was. Whatever your opinion on his politics at least he had the guts to try to exercise the amendment process--TWICE--to do what he believed had to be done. It's pretty sad picture for the Liberals when they look bad against MULRONEY ain't it?

If you wish to make a convincing argument then you should not use hyperbole. There are not "100,000 times more cars on the road" in five days. You are overstating by about 1500 percent. Also, I made the comparison for casulties over FOUR YEARS in afghanistan vs FIVE DAYS on Canadian roads to at least partially compensate for the fact that there are far more drivers in Canada than soldiers in Afghanistan, however the point was the absolute magnitude of fatalities. Perhaps I should use a more convincing statistic that is more comparable: the annual fatality rate of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan thus far has been about 0.4 percent, and even with the more intense fighting in the past year it is still around 1 percent or maybe a bit less. Considering the nature of the task at hand this is fairly impressive. We suffered casulties of a drastically higher rate in past military involvements. Also consider that the data is skewed becasue in recent months we have been engaged in unusually intense combat. At the time parliament voted to extend our mission the opposition was using the same argument it is today--that we are suffering too great a loss of troops in a mission that was too combative--and at that time the annual fatality rate for our soldiers was less than 0.2 percent--almost identical to the fatality rate of commercial fishermen. Yes, that's right, when engaged in their typical roles, a COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN is at about an equal risk of dying as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. And an even more direct comparison: 516 Canadians died in the Korean conflict in three years. Even considering that 10 times more Canadians fought in Korea than are in Afghanistan today that is STILL about 60 percent higher fatality rate than today. There are many parallels--what happened in Korea had no direct effect on our daily lives, it was a mission spearheaded by the UN to "make peace" instead of enforce it and we were trying to contain and ultimately eliminate an evil, oppresive and threatening force (the northern Communist regime that is still a threat today). The fact that we can only make 10 percent of the commitment to such a mission today as we did then, even with more than double the population, I think is shameful. And just like Korea, there is a good chance we will not be able to completely destroy the Taliban, however we can do a great deal to improve life in the long-suffering region by containing them. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we took a non-commital attitude to the Communists in Korea? Millions of Koreans in the south would've led opressed and impovrished lives. Kim Jong Il would be even more scary than he is now. Would the Communists have stopped at the whole peninsula? What would've stoped them from "enacting revenge" on Japan, still-vulnerable and re-building after WW2? Japan certainly wouldn't be the thriving nation it is today under the opressive Communist regime of Korea. Those are the stakes now. It doesn't matter if you can never eliminate the taliban, and it doesn't matter if the commitment will take decades..we simple HAVE to contend with them--it is our international responsibility. We cannot abandon Afghanistan and let the Taliban spin it as a "victory"--they'd re-establish themselves in Afghanistan and their influence would grow in places like Iraq and Pakistan. Also, other Islamist cults are already asserting themselves in Iran, Syria and Lebanon and would only be emboldened by a Taliban "victory" over "western/Zionist infidels". Do you really want to let Islamist cults establish a large, opressive pan-Islamist state bent on the destruction of Judeo-Christian culture and western democracies? Are we doing the millions of innocent, faithful Islamic people inthe region a favour by letting these cults exert control over them and pervert true and good Islamic values? Just more of my thoughts...