Wild Bill

How can you compensate people who were afraid for their lives? How can you compensate victims of violence? How was Sam Gualtieri compensated? He now lives with permanent, disabling brain injuries. Yeah, just slip them a few bucks and it'll be fine! Once again, the CONSEQUENCES of your suggestions show a streak of cruelty. Frankly, I'm not sure if that was your intent or if you simply never think things through past the obvious. Me, I care about people REGARDLESS of their race! Fortunately, there are no accounts of natives receiving such injuries.

Yes, they ALL do it! That's no excuse. NOBODY is as good at it as the NDP! Just spend 5 minutes listening to them at any public meeting, especially if the meeting includes Sid Ryan or better yet, Buzz Hargrove and it becomes obvious. The days of "rebble"-rousing are over. Jack knew this. Mulcair sounds much more reasonable when he talks. Still, there is a large contingent of the "old guard" within the NDP. They have matured a lot but they still have a ways to go.

Like always, we jumped in too quickly without understanding the whole picture. We placed a total ban on DDT and now are responsible for a horrible consequence: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/wrongful-ban-on-ddt-costs-lives/ "According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children." Those million dead children are on the conscience of everyone who supported a total DDT ban. Nobody talked about using DDT only in controlled areas, or of finding ways to reduce any harmful effects. They simply banned it outright and a million children die each year. Boneheads!

Well, they are working very hard. If they take it, they deserved it! Next time the other parties should work at least as hard!

You know, it's a miracle hundreds of thousands of people aren't dying before the age of 30 from all this so-called tainted food! Organic food might taste better simply because it is likely fresher! It also is more likely to be locally grown, which is another plus in my book. Still, these ideas that organic food is somehow more nutritious and safer is just National Enquirer type "science". It is as scientific as astrology or the I Ching! Perhaps that's why the ideas are so popular. Anybody with hair in their ears can hear them and believe them. No need to actually read and study a textbook. Everyone knows that is SOO unnecessary and besides, it's hard!

Excuse me? Did you ever read a history book in your life? Once again, you have pulled something out of your butt that happened before your time and you never bothered to learn. Sometimes I wonder if you grew up on Melmac, without acquiring the humour! What the hell have you got against learning history, anyway? You KEEP doing this! Why bother...

You make a good point, Max. What is uncontrolled is always more erratic, if not chaotic. So being a Utilitarian the idea of a "more closed and regulated economy" is tempting. The problem I have is I can't think of anything more likely to screw it up than a government, particularly a Canadian government! I would have more faith in the proverbial million monkeys plying a million typewriters. In fact, sometimes I strongly suspect they have actually been in control not just of our economy but everything else run by the government for a long time.

Actually westguy, they did! Several times, in fact! They just got caught every time by change. They were THE port of entry for people and goods into Canada for nearly a century. Then they build and opened the St. Laurence Seaway. That switched things to Quebec. Halifax has made a modest recovery by investing in the most modern container shipping facilities but things are nowhere near what they used to be. They also were very strong with coal mining but of course, the eco-movement killed that off. No need to talk about fishing! They were and still are great spots for naval bases but our governments scaled those back too. New Brunswick has had some success with telecommunications, setting up call centres. Not a lot left for them to try, westguy! Have YOU any suggestions? They have not been sitting on their collective asses. There are just so many things appropriate to their situation. If the oil ran out in Alberta tomorrow, I'm sure Albertans would work hard to develop new revenue strains too but is it guaranteed there would be lots of them? If there were not, would it be fair to blame Albertans? We have to be realistic here!

Well. that's your opinion, Pete! Not necessarily fact. It's just your opinion. That being said, I find the situation rather amusing. Both sides are railing against each other but from what I'm hearing, both sides are right! It does sound as if the NDP did nothing wrong, or if they did do wrong it was an honest mistake and rather trivial anyway. So their defense rings true! However, past history shows that if it were a Tory sin under discussion the NDP would be trumpeting that it was a crime against the Universe, on the level of the Watergate breakins! The NDP have always been totally partisan in their criticisms and have shown no limits on their hyperbole. As far as the NDP are concerned, the shoe is now on the other foot. How do you like the fit now? You are innocent but you have made yourselves an easy target and motivated your enemies to use your tactics against you. You ALWAYS attack your rival's character! You ALWAYS make the issue personal, with your attacks more ad hominem than focused specifically on the facts of the issue! Times have changed for politicians. We live in an age where perhaps the memories of voters have not improved but they have easy access with google and other search engines to instantly retrieve what has been said and done before. Old style lambasting now will only come back to bite you! This is true of course for all parties but the NDP is especially vulnerable. They have always been in the forefront of bombastic rhetoric. Their baseline has always been the union rally - appealing to emotion more than their rivals usually do. Time to modernize, M Mulcair! This is what Jack was working so hard to do before he was so suddenly and tragically lost. The sooner you change the tone the sooner you will no longer look like hypocrites.

Many a true word spoken in jest, Dr. Dre! :P

Maybe a false hope kimmy but I wouldn't say totally unrealistic. I watched the trend to move production offshore happening all around me through the 80's and 90's and one thing was obvious - a lot of production was moved that DIDN'T result in competitive savings! In fact, many times the actual total costs went up! What you have to understand is that many North American managers are simply...boneheads! They moved production not because they understood and evaluated all the factors to do with their costing and competitiveness but just because they saw so many other companies doing it! Total cost is a concept that many managers don't understand. They might see the production line cost of a product but fail to include the shipping cost if the production was moved offshore. The new worker might get a lower hourly wage but his scrap rate might be far higher. I myself worked as a buyer where my only yardstick was my purchased component cost. I could buy for the lowest cost from an unreliable source who consistently let us down on deliveries, stopping our production line and costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars. For having the lowest cost, I looked like a good buyer. If I paid a little bit more for reliable delivery, keeping the production line from stopping, I would (and did!) face a reprimand! It is simply not true that EVERYTHING is cheaper to make offshore! It's just that many managers don't have the wit to tell one thing from another! That is why we are finally seeing at least a few products coming back to be produced domestically.

As usual westguy, it's not that simple! Those fisherman don't refuse to take jobs. There ARE no jobs! I believe the maritime economy has been deliberately set up to keep workers on the dole for generations now! It's the old "company store" scam! Very little of the government money poured into the Maritimes has resulted in sustainable, long term business. Rather, what happens is that grant money will fund a startup that lasts for a couple of years, goes under when the grant money ends and another startup is funded. The market does not determine the nature of new businesses - the government does! We all know how great a record government has for picking winners. Often, a successful business will find that the government has suddenly decided to give grant money to create a competitor! You are forced out of business and then afterwards that competitor follows, when its grant money runs out. So the average Maritime worker is forced into a succession of part-time and short term jobs. If he plays the game he can get by but there's one caveat - he has to keep voting for parties that will continue the grant money! That sticks in the craw of many down East but they don't have a lot of choice. It's hard to act on pride when you have to feed your kids. It's easy to say just move out west but that's a hard thing for a Maritimer. Many do and have done so, of course. Still, they could be in Alberta for 30 years and yet will still refer to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick as "Down Home". Alberta is where they found they HAD to live, not where they WANTED to live! To them, it was like emigrating to another country. If you know any "downhomers" in Alberta you know I am right! If you stop and think about it, someone born and raised in sight of the Rockies would have a hard time leaving to work in the Maritimes, if the shoe was on the other foot. It's easy for a westerner to say "Just move out here!" Doesn't bother you none! Alberta is YOUR home! To you it's the best place to be! Would it be so strange to find that people in other parts of Canada feel the same way about where they live?

Once again I'm a bit confused, Dr. Dre! Is it a corollary of your argument that the way to improve our standard of living is to kite all our prices and wages as high as possible?

One thing sadly missing today are after school extra-curricular activities like high school dances. They seem to have died out in the late 70's, just about the time teachers stopped being professionals and instead became just union members. The idea of volunteerism and giving extra to the students was replaced with the notion of it being unpaid overtime. Such dances were great social events - useful parts of adolescent development. My school held such dances regularly, featuring many groups that were major headliners later on, such as Rush and Max Webster/Kim Mitchell. Often bands made up of our fellow students got a moment of glory by being allowed to play a short set to introduce the main band. Some such kids were inspired themselves to become successful musicians later in their lives. Our student council made so much money one year that at year's end we paid all expenses including buses to take the entire school for an all day picnic at a provincial park about an hour's drive away. All gone with the horse and buggy, I guess. A victim of work to rule. Maybe it better fits a union perspective but to me, it seems a little bit drearier...

Quite right, Smallc, there is no federation without some kind of Upper House. However, there is no other federation with an Upper House like Canada's! No doubt there is a reason for that as well. I agree that there is a necessary and useful role for our Senate. I just think it has never been structured that way. I favour the Reform idea of a Triple E Senate. I happen to believe that smaller provinces need an offset power based on region against the population-based power of the Commons. I just don't see how our Senate has ever properly performed such functions.

Oh don't get me wrong, Patrik! I happen to agree with a great deal of what you posted about CAP's beliefs! I just am so much of a Utilitarian that I tend to think in terms of making things happen, rather than just having a bunch of academics chew it over amongst themselves. If you hang out here long enough you will soon see that is the common practice on this board! I am reminded of the early days of the Reform Party, which recognized how so much was flawed in the approach our governments traditionally take with managing the country - utility so often sacrificed for political expediency. Still, Preston Manning and the other Founding Fathers of the movement managed successfully to keep fiscal responsibility at least wedded to all their other party planks. Today, so many of those planks are SOP with other parties, at least to some extent or other. Still, I meant what I said about CAP needing to identify with the common man. The last thing a party needs is a reputation of being run by academics. Look what happened to Stephane Dion!

You're right, the NDP IS a contender! Maybe its hard to find reasons for this but it does appear to be true. Mind you, after the vote it will be a lot easier to pick apart the entrails! I think that ordinarily this riding is Tory country but they have decided to run a lightweight candidate. The Liberals have the albatross or McGuinty around their neck. What I respect about the NDP is that they are working the hardest! In a by-election, especially just after Labour Day when nobody gives much of a damn about politics anyway, hard work can often spell the difference. I think this one is gonna be a nail biter until the last minute!

I think we have a misunderstanding here about context. Yes, I would agree that consumers create a demand. Factories respond to this by hiring workers to produce products. However, who specifically gives ME a job? Not some faceless group of statistics but jobs for INDIVIDUALS? Does a poor person have the hiring authority to give me or you or any other individual a job? To me, that is all that is important. I don't care about the statistics. I don't live in an academic ivory tower where I can survive on a diet of group stats. My next door neighbour and many like him might create demand for Ford products but still, if I knock on his door and ask him for a job I am just being an idiot!

Mixing owners and their customers together is not fair to the argument, Kimmy. It could be said that most rich people own companies that produce goods bought by consumers. That doesn't mean that consumer directly gave the workers in those companies jobs. The owner did. My next door neighbour drives a Ford. Can he hire me to work at Ford? As for the bar scene, when I was there things were much different. Club owners made money! Patrons had enough disposable income to go drinking and dancing 7 nights a week. Those days are long gone. You have reminded me of a example based on playing music that does fit your argument though, Kimmy. Busking! Playing on street corners! People stroll by and drop money in your hat, or more commonly your guitar case. Often that would be a case of the poor hiring the poor, although perhaps this is really just common charity and not hiring and paying for a service.

We can debate this premise all we want but as a Utilitarian I think it can be resolved very simply. If you think the statement untrue then name 3 poor people you know that gave you a job. Even more simply, name 3 poor people you even heard about that gave ANYONE a job! It's as simple as that.

Good point about running more than once, Max. I have always thought the NDP were smart to do this. Incumbents tend to keep their seats simply by accumulated name recognition, especially at the municipal level where few voters know much about the candidates at all! To have a new candidate every time always seemed to be shooting yourself if not in the foot at least in the big toe!

Sounds to me like code for "What's wrong with the masses? They don't agree with us! WE know what's good for them! They must either be ignorant or someone is messing with their minds. We'll just step in and run things, for their own good!" This is why socialism so often turns to stalinism or some other form of totalitarianism. Socialists just can't accept that many folks just don't like what the socialists are offering! It's not just socialism itself. Most average folks don't understand it anyway, It's just that socialism invariably comes with nitpicking, anal retentive bureaucracies that start to control every aspect of a citizen's life, "for his own good", of course! The two factors seem to be genetically linked in those who expouse one or the other.

It's not a question of what we want. It's a question of the way it is! You might disagree with how the masses think but to favour a system where the masses do not get their way is to stray from democracy. In effect, you are calling for an elite run by those that think the same as YOU! To me, that outcome would be worse than what we have now. I am a great believer in populism. Someone once said that "Democracy is a system where the 'little guy' knows what he wants and deserves to get it, good and hard!" I would not be that mean but still, I believe in a populist democracy. True, mistakes will be made but that is how people learn. Take away their ability to make mistakes and you are taking away their free will.

Well, not for myself, smallc but if I want to debate how something political works I have to abide by the pertinent parameters. Elections are won by realists, not by academics. You don't change how large groups of people will vote by hitting them with nitpicking, anal retentive arguments. Most people form their political beliefs in their gut and not their head. If you want to appeal to them you have to adjust your aim. Or you will lose! Period and end of story.

I think many in this thread seem to misunderstand the feelings of Westerners towards the East and particularly towards Quebec. You are not going to change their feelings with nitpicking math about the West receiving transfer payments back in the 30's. That's the sort of thing that makes the average guy's eyes glaze over. The problem is much more visceral. Westerners, particularly Albertans, are of a very hardworking culture. They have had some very hard economic knocks within recent memory. The NEP was not that long ago. People lost their jobs and their homes in droves. At one point over a third of Calgary's commercial real estate was empty. Make no mistake, their setback was deep and it HURT! Despite that, they rolled up their sleeves, pulled together and rebuilt their economy. It wasn't Ottawa who made the oil boom out west. Ottawa just followed along and taxed the hell out of it as fast as it could. When these western folks look to Quebec, they see a province who seems to have a sense of entitlement. To them, Quebec built her economy by blackmailing Ottawa with talk of separation. Quebec appears to be much more in debt than the west yet has incredibly cheap day care and the lowest tuition rates for university students, by far! Quebec may not have oil but it has vast amounts of hydro electricity that most homes are heated with it. As an Ontarioan, the first time I saw that I was shocked to the core! So Westerners lack respect for the East and Quebec not for audits and accounting but for an impression of their work ethic, or lack of one. In a word, westerners think Quebecers are lazy! They live a better life than other Canadians yet tend to be whiny about not getting enough from Ottawa. This is a perception and may not be very accurate but once again, in politics perception is everything.