Visionseeker

I think the anti-Clinton motivation is there. But I also think that the Republicans are completely stymied about how to tackle and coalesce against an Obama (and Edwards?) ticket. The only thing certain is that the outcome is presently uncertain. Nevertheless, the GOP is in a considerable measure of disarray. I’ve lost count how many Republican congressmen have indicated that they will not run in 2008. This lack of incumbency will likely lead to Democrat gains and will also hurt McCain where such district are competitive.

A friend of mine sent me a link to this some time ago. This was my reply (and I ain't no right-winger): "The zodiacal link to religion, and specifically its influence on the formation of Christianity (and other religions) is intriguing. But the monologue presentation isn’t backed-up by “experts” or verifiable facts. I will say that my own familiarity with various religious myth leaves me open-minded to what is presented. But if I were to become convinced based on this alone, well, I would be intellectually susceptible to believing religious myth. That Christianity and all religion is simply an institutional method of control doesn’t quite do them justice. Most certainly religions are the original shrouds of conformity. But understanding how they influence society requires one to understand that they contain legal, cultural, moral, mythological and sociological characteristics and adherents tend to have preferential leanings towards some characteristics over others (e.g. those who prefer the legal and sociological characteristics tend to be fundamentalists). But enough on religion. The 9/11 conspiracy is factually selective. The threads the film ties together don’t amount to compelling evidence of an inside job. As for the science (or lack thereof)… When an aluminum plane slams into the ground at 500 mph with 3,000 gal of jet fuel, it (and everything in it) disintegrates into little bity pieces. Similarly, when another it slams into a concrete reinforced building with 3,000 gal of Jet-A (with a maximum burn temperature of 980 °C), there won’t be much plane left. The 9/11 building implosion myth has been, in my opinion, thoroughly disproved. Pancake theory is fully supported by the science for towers 1 + 2. Besides, watch the mid-range floors (band of floors with a different shade of color). If a controlled demolition took place, that band of floors would descend to the ground, not be overtaken by rubble from above. The international bankers conspiracy is utter nonsense. The handling of facts surrounding WWII are so twisted and, on a few obvious occasions, complete fabrications. I could refute nearly every contention the documentary makes on the WWII era. This segment severely strains the credibility one might afford to the entire work. All the same, the production certainly made me think; which is more than can be said of most anything on TV nowadays."

Obama has completely dominated caucus states. Unless you believe in coincidence, this is clearly a fulfillment of a well executed strategy by his campaign. When the dust settles, it will be interesting to learn how they proved so successful in such states compared to the Clinton camp. Then again, it could speak more to a Giuliani-esque error on the part of the Clinton campaign; neglecting the small states in favour of the bigger prizes. Obama looks like he’ll continue with his winning streak and take the Potomac and will likely take the lead in committed delegates. More importantly, with more of his support coming from pledged delegates as opposed to declared “super delegates”, he will come out of the races as the favoured choice of the party membership. Clinton is clearly taking on water. But the ship ain’t sunk… yet.

That's what's killing her IMO. Young male Dems and a good chunk of young female Dems won't swallow this. This deprives her camp of the young volunteers that can litterally spend 20 hours a day selling her brand. Add to this the indy crowd who've grow to hate the war, it becomes near impossible for her to win. The only hope Clinton has is that right-wing talk radio somehow sells this idea that they'd vote Clinton if McCain is the republican candidate. I see this bluster as nothing more than an attempt to get Clinton in, so that conservatives can then be galvanized to vote for their less-than-perfectly-conservative candidate. If Clinton wins, the White House and other votes are up for grabs. If Obama wins, the game is over for the Republicans.

Someone is actually obliged to pay him minimum wage! Oh the injustice of leftist policies. I'm sure Trudeau is somehow to blame for such coddling.

GWB couldn't even situate Afghanistan on a map before 2000. He was also too busy taking time-off in 2001 to deal with foreign policy issues. Following 9/11, Bush made the most of international sympathy by invading Afghanistan to route not Al-Queda, but the Taliban; Osama and Co. made there way to western Pakistan seeking shelter from the storm. Did Bush press matters and get Mushareff to agree to a Waziristan campaign? No, Bush decided that they best way to defend America from Bin Laden was to invade another country some 1,600 miles west of Osama's suspected location. Bush blew it on security, foreign policy and the economy. He will be regarded as the worst US president for 200 years (assuming the US lasts that long).

Hum... So you've studied Sharia Law eh? Maybe we ought to look into your background a little. We might also ask him to answer yes or no to the following question: "Are you still beating your wife?" Which could suggest that you suffer from an affliction that impairs your judgment. Even if this were true, who cares? I suspect that you, a student of Sharia Law, would have a hard time making the case that Obama is a Kenyan government plant standing as the vanguard for a Kenyan takeover of the US. OMG!!! Katy bar the door! Compelling evidence that Obama is part of a wider Kenyan power play! [/sarcasm]

I'm not all that aware of US rules regarding voting overseas (does one merely needs to be a US citizen to be eligible, or are there restrictions?). Canadians residing outside of Canada for less than five consecutive years, and who also intend to resume residence in Canada, are eligible to vote in Canadian federal elections (note: the 5 years limit does not apply to those in the service of the government or military abroad). So I would say that a dualist residing in the US could indeed vote in the US and Canadian elections within the 5 year time frame (that is, unless US laws somehow prohibit them from voting in the US). As for Canadian law, a citizen residing in Canada has every right to vote regardless of any additional voting rights they possess in other countries. I do not have such privileges. But if I did, my vote would’ve been committed to Obama the day he announced his candidacy. Following his keynote address in 2004, I came across his book and was left with a sense of prophecy (which is a tall order for an atheist). Of course there is always the possibility that he could win the office and turn-out to be a disappointment, but the movement and hope he inspires almost makes such a let-down worth it.

Wow! A provincial premier who has the audacity to allow the municipality that is our nation's capital adopt a bilingualism policy! What next, an edict that allows doctors and nurses to work in hospitals? That would be the one you seem to be oblivious of. Um yes, 350-400 million speakers worldwide certainly points to the language being obsolete.[/sarcasm]

Thanks for the response and the invitation to clarify. There are actually many, more compelling cases involving some pretty heavy mathematical arguments. These demonstrate how tax policy can be used to entice taxpayers into economic behaviours that produce wider benefits for the economy. But my post simply offers two lines of thought to justify progressive taxation from the perceptual angle of the payers. The intent was to point-out that flat-taxing is not necessarily "fair". Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Hong Kong case to play the comparison. In order for me to properly discuss their tax policies, I would require a much stronger understanding of HK’s socio-economic and political make-up. But I can address your wealth redistribution versus law enforcement dichotomy. First, wealth redistribution can be seen as a preventative strategy. By alleviating some of the difficulties society's poor encounters in meeting basic needs like food and shelter, progressive tax policies reduce economic desperation and thereby prevent individuals from having to resort to crime in order to feed themselves or their families. The redistributed wealth provides the less advantaged with a greater opportunity of living legitimately. Alternatively, investing in law enforcement as an alternative to wealth redistribution is a reactive enterprise. The economically desperate are more apt to resort to crimes of subsistence and, with a greater resources invested in law enforcement it follows that many of these “subsistence criminals” are caught and detained. Such detainment carries increased court and incarceration costs, as well as additional costs (economic and social) when the detainee has dependents (i.e. foster care placements). Law enforcement expenditures at the expense of wealth redistribution fuels criminality and growth in institutional populations (prisons and orphanages). So, if increasing criminality increases cost, does it not follow that decreasing criminality would reduce it? I say yes: which is why I am a proponent for the decriminalization and institution of control for both narcotics and prostitution. The economic rationale for doing so is self-evident. But I digress… As for my other justification, I invite you to show me an example of income generation that is entirely free from any reliance on state expenditures or outputs. I may be wrong, but I don’t think you’ll succeed. Lastly, I will say that I agree in principle with your assertion that user fees are a “more sensible way” for beneficiaries to pony-up for the advantages they receive from state assets and expenditures, but I suspect that you’ll admit that it is not always realistic to adopt a user-fee approach. Consider this: does a senior whose kids are grown or someone who has no kids have a legitimate argument against paying school taxes?

Uhm, yes. Brilliant and pointed reply... NOT! Can you not see the irony in your own "rich" farmer tax revolt? The rich simply say "we'll take our money elsewhere". The poor say "we'll take our country". As for... That sounds a lot like "Are there no prisons? No work houses?" I'm guessing you're a AWMS suffer.

The Conservatives have generally found themselves unable to sustain polling numbers beyond what they earned at the polls in January 2006. When one analyzes the demographic data behind opinion polls since the election, we see that the only group that offers solid support for the Conservative brand is the over 50 male group. While some gains in other demographics do appear in various polls, these gains largely evaporate or even reverse in subsequent polling. The results of these polls have some observers beginning to see the party as firmly entrenched in a “Angry White Male” philosophy that has no appeal beyond its immediate niche. There are certainly a number of examples in both policies and pronouncements from the Conservative ranks that would support this perception, so one might ask how the party can ever secure a majority (or even win) in the next election with such narrow support? Are the Conservatives simply the voice of angry white males, or can they successfully build a tent that broadens there appeal? If they can build such a tent, how might they do it?

Well, one could argue that rebalancing wealth is necessary to mitigate the social upheaval that unchecked poverty produces. Or one could posit that those who benefit the greatest in an economy do so, in part, because of the nature of state expenditures and investments; thus the beneficiaries are obliged to return some of their gains to their benefactor. These are but two arguments one can employ to justify progressive taxation. While there are other rationales, the two I’ve offered should suffice to consider the other side flat taxing. For instance, if one holds that everyone should pay an equal share of income towards taxation, then it stands to reason that each should share equally in the “spoils” of the state. Each payer should then be able to claim equivalent benefit for how their taxes are spent. Inevitably, this opens the door to claims of injustice. After all, why should someone who lives in the city and doesn’t own a car see a sizeable amount of government expenditures going towards roads and highways? Wouldn’t it be fairer to have the user pay through tolls? Or maybe the single middle-ager with no kids starts to chirp about paying so much towards education; then there are the healthy DINKs who resent seeing 40% of their province’s budget largely going towards hip replacements, cancer and cardiac care for elderly “waste-cases”. Or perhaps we might consider how the 30 odd percent of the population who have flown once or less in their lifetime, do you think they’ll be happy subsidizing the air travel of their countrymen. Then there’s the whole idea of sending our military abroad to alleviate and address poverty and insurrection in foreign lands. Altruism is hard to support when your own nation imposes a “me first” mentality through regressive taxation. If you are in the lesser half of society’s benefactors, a flat tax formula will soon provide you with all you need to reinforce your impressions that the government belongs to the other half. It will then only be a matter of time before your anger – or that of your successors – peaks to a point where the active and violent opposition to the state becomes a palatable option. As maddening as it is, progressive taxation clouds what the individual can see as their cost-benefit outcome from a taxation and expenditure standpoint. And while some might think this is a bad thing, they do so without care or recognition for the immense benefits it offers in terms of societal pacification. Progressive taxation isn't socialism, it is a buffer against revolution.

Indeed. But it can still be blunted. Humour can go a long way towards countering attack ads. I'm just surprised that the mega-million electoral machines in the US haven't realized this. Hell, a recent poll showed that a substantial number of people in the US trust Jon Stewart more than any other "newscaster". The beer industry has long understood that if you make'em laugh, you make'em buy. That a credible political machine has never tried to tap this is really astounding.

McCain against Clinton is the best chance for a Republican win. SC shows that the Clintons have fractured the party on racial lines. Black and young white voters are increasingly unlikely to support a Clinton ticket come November. That loss of turn-out could be devastating to Dem fortunes. Obama needs to make to most of his coalition and brazenly ask "if Edwards were to leave the race, which of us would you support?"

What we Canadians tend not to understand is how such tactics prove so effective on your side of the border. Over here, you can ask John Tory and Allen Greg about a particular anti-Chrétien ad and how badly it backfired. More recently, the Liberals' military, guns in our cities is another example. A healthy majority of Canadians recoil at such attacks. That majority has a hard time understanding why our American cousins don't do the same.

The Conservatives used those ads prematurely. Now the weak leadership shtick has grown old and tired and won't help them come election time. The same will occur with any Dem on Dem or Rep on Pep attack now. Recycling character assassinations rarely ends well for the second shooter. The media (Craig Oliver excepted) tends to be a little vicious when politicos try to fool them a second time.

Seems I got my mords wixed. The R was meant to go before D. I blame the 20 hour day I had. I simply cannot share your optimism. There are a number of indicators that suggest to me that equities will drive downward well into 2009. My concerns have largely held true since last spring and today's 3/4 point cut by the Fed is quite telling IMO.

I sold months ago, so you won't buy anything from me. I await bottom (or near to it) before buying. But bottom is a ways off I'm afraid because most haven't realized (or are denying that) a recession is already here. That's why a big D will spill into a big R.

One trillion dollars went up in smoke today ($90 BILLION in Canada alone) while the DOW was closed. While some moves have inevitably been made to prevent a collapse in New York tomorrow, these will only temporarily staunch the flow. We are headed for a global financial catastrophe of unprecedented proportions! China is in a full panic. Orders are down by 40% over last year, almost overnight. Devaluing their currency to keep a competitive edge brought them high inflation. Now that nobody is buying, they have serious stag - and eventually hyper-inflation looming. In the US, it is fast becoming apparent that there no longer is a “middle class”, but rather some “haves” and many “have-nots”. If you’re over 50 and hoping to retire on your pension and investments in the next 5 – 10 years, think again. Your portfolio is going to shave a minimum of 15-20% by the end of the quarter. This is not simply a recession. We are in the earliest stages of a HUGE depression. I saw it coming and let a good chunk go fallow last spring. And I won’t be buying into the market for the foreseeable future.

I invite everyone to look at the comments attached to this story. Note how those supportive of Keen have the best understanding of the facts: Critics blast Lunn for firing head of nuclear watchdog Firing people for doing their job is..., well..., dumb. Between Lunn and Harper, I'm struggling to figure out which one is Dumb, and which is Dumber. Lunn's days are numbered and, I ardently hope, so are Harper's.

Who won, seperatists or federalists? Which camp was Chrétien in? I love a good laugh as much as the next guy, but I fear your own sense of humour blinds you from your senses. Chrétien and the federalists won. That's no joke.

Tooting my on horn… I said: “The Tories would be well advised to back-down on this before it gets worse for them.” Well, they didn’t back down and now it will get much worse. Lunn will be sacrificed eventually. But the whole idea of the Conservatives occupying the high ground on accountability is now dead. Image consultants for Lunn!? Is this not the kind of thing that had Reformers in fits? Note to Harper: Firing people for doing their jobs doesn’t win votes, it loses them. The difference between Linda Keen and Chuck Guité is that Linda Keen worked for the public interest as mandated by Parliament. January 29 will be an interesting day in the HOC. Sheila Fraser will say her part, then Keen hers. And soon after the nation will ask: “What law shirking bullies have we put in power? Who will protect us from King Harper and his “signing statement” edicts?” No Conservative majority will ever be possible with Harper at the controls.

Mulroney deserves credit on foreign policy (specifically the FTA, acid rain and general trade relations with the US) and the GST. While the FTA was as transformative as its detractors argued, the results of the transformation were ultimately a boon to the nation’s economic development. The FTA (and later NAFTA) facilitated a mass expansion of secondary and tertiary sectors of our economy for the purposes of exports. On this score, Mulroney made us a richer country. The closer ties Mulroney forged with the US also enabled solutions to the nasty issue of acid rain and quite possibly helped to fuel environmentalism in general (though I doubt the latter was ever one of his true objectives). The GST is another positive that came from his tenure. Though poorly sold to the public, the replacement of a hidden and convoluted sales tax with a simple fixed rate that included the ever growing service industries - and that placed most of the administrative and collection burden on businesses instead of a naturally inefficient bureaucracy – was brilliant. But Mulroney’s tenure was ultimately a failure. His arrogance, amateurish constitutional meddling and willingness to pander to Quebec nationalists precipitated the emergence of two regionalist parties that ultimately eroded the brokerage traditions that governed national politics (and unity) in our country. Both Reform and the Bloc were born directly from Mulroney’s failure to understand that a constitution is like a fine wine: it takes a lot of time and effort before you can put it into bottle and, if you pull the cork too soon, you’re left with vinegar. Chrétien balanced the books and won (though barely) the referendum that Mulroney caused. So history will show that he kept the country solvent, together and thereafter capable of prospering. The GST is not what enabled Chrétien to balance the books. Rather, the dumb luck of public opinion suddenly placing debt at the top of their concerns made it possible for him to gut federal contributions to cost shared programs. Mulroney feared cutting transfers to the provinces as they could undermine buy-in for his constitutional hobbies. But Chrétien inherited a public mostly tired of constitutional issues and increasingly concerned by questions of public debt. Chrétien was able to slew the cost-shared beast and bring federal and (indirectly) provincial spending under control. Whereas Mulroney cut federal spending marginally through decentralization and gutting the military, Chrétien simply cut hyper-spending provinces off. In cutting transfers for health, education and welfare, he put an end to the 50/50 cost shared format that saw Ottawa matching every dollar spent in such fields. That one act precipitated the end of federal deficits and forced the provinces to put their own fiscal houses in order. Chrétien also deserves credit for winning the 1995 referendum. A referendum that was born from the unrealistic expectations Quebeckers were given by his predecessor. Granted he won by a hair. But this too is to his credit because he won against Lucien Bouchard, a Mulroney constructed charismatic, opportunistic populist who almost charmed Quebeckers into killing our county. That the little, hated (ugly) guy from Shawiningan beat the most popular and charismatic guy in the schoolyard is no small feat. Chrétien righted the ship; and that is quite the accomplishment. We can most certainly bicker about the success of individual policies or initiatives under Chrétien, but we cannot ignore that he left the country better than he found it. Mr. Mulroney cannot claim the same.

Yep, Just angry. How's that working for ya?