August1991

Interesting thread. Jimmy Carter tried to make "human rights" a centrepiece of US foreign policy but this was a total failure. He had to back the Shah, because of the Soviets, who then invaded Afghanistan anyway leading eventually to the Taliban and so on. Now that the Cold War is over, US foreign policy has floundered. Maybe it needs some other objective. Consider Turkey. It was a member of NATO (and a western friend) because of the Soviets. Who cares now? If Kurdistan can be a democratic state, respectful of neighbours, then why not? The Baltic states gained their independence and are now part of the EU. As is Slovenia. These borders are not etched in stone.

What do you mean by "intrinsic"? If I spend $2000 on material/labour digging a hole in the ground, do you mean the "intrinsic" value of the hole is $2000? ($1 billion of material/labour were spent on a gun registry that has basically no "value" (intrinsic or otherwise) at all.) IOW, if I have an orange (but I'm allergic to oranges), the orange has no value to me. If you have an apple (but are allergic to apples), the apple has no value to you. If we trade apples for oranges, then things previously of no value suddenly are valuable. We created something from nothing. (That's the profit or extra dollar you seem worried about.) OMG, IdealEnd!!!! What are you saying? That we should not allow machines/computers/robots that eliminate jobs? Think of the candlemakers who lost jobs because Edison invented the electric light. Think of the garage mechanics who have lost jobs because cars are more reliable. Think of the horse trainers who lost jobs because of cars! I could go on and on. WTF? The person you forget here is the employer. If I am willing to do the job for a lower wage, why should the employer be forced to pay you a higher wage? That's equivalent to saying that you are forced to buy stuff in an expensive store even though another store offers the same products at a lower price. To me, competition is two guys fighting in a bar over a woman. Or two countries fighting a war. Only one person can win, and frequently, if not always, both sides lose. Unfortunately, competition is probably inevitable in human affairs. So, you can imagine why the invention of math, numbers and prices was a tremendous change in human relations. Price competition is different. When two people compete on price, a third party benefits. (You mistakenly called it a race to the bottom - it's anything but that.) When two hockey teams compete, the only benefit is the excitement fans get watching. Imagine instead that competition benefitted a third party in "intrinsic terms" (to use your words). Moreover, this price competition leads to perfect cooperation too.

Interesting column. This quote I found interesting:

The BQ slogan is "Un parti propre au Québec" and this has driven the Liberals livid.

Despite PM PM spin, this is not over. Ottawa Sun Greg Weston Am I wrong to think that Lapierre's outbursts won't help in Quebec and may well hurt in ROC? G & M Lapierre BQ slogan BTW, the BQ slogan is a good play on words.

Thanks, Willy, for the link. Can one of you Western brightlights explain to this ignorant, dominating Easterner why the Liberals lead in BC?

In a completely rational (i.e. barter or other non monetary) economy this would have to be true, though the valuation of goods going each way could remain contentious. However if it were true under this system then no one would worry about the balance of trade and everyone knows that especially in Canada this is a key economic indicator (usually vis a vie the US). The US itself is desperately trying to decrease it's trade deficit through it's moentary policy (and this may be an election issue for them) in order to help their economy. The farther this balance tips (the more we buy vs. the more we sell) the poorer we get. This is key to my argument against out sourcing. And no I am not arguing against a monetary economy but I believe my point to be valid. You state: "The farther this balance tips (the more we buy vs. the more we sell) the poorer we get." Why? How? Canada in fact has almost no trade deficit/surplus. The US trade deficit simply means that foreigners like US stocks and bonds. IdealEnd, you seem to think that if poor countries produce things and sell them to us, we somehow lose. I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Do you mean that if thousands of poor workers came to Canada and were willing to do our jobs for half the wage, this would be bad for Canadian workers? (IOW, if Canadian firms outsource to low wage countries, this drives Canadian wages down?) So, by your reasoning, labour saving technology drives down wages too. For example, soon, a $3,000 computer will replace a $25,000/year checkout clerk. By your reasoning, those checkout clerks are going to be impoverished because they'll only earn $3,000. [Do I understand properly your reasoning?] Now, imagine it wasn't a $3,000 computer but a $3,000/year worker in Vietnam. What's the difference?

Excuse this French language essay. Or, ask a friend to translate. You will understand a genuine Canada. Logique, non?

Curious? The questions are good fun, and the test takes about five minutes. Then, post your results here. (Others have - why not you?) Political Compass test

The French forum I follow is livid about this. The thread is on top, with smart posts on both sides. Quebec Forum This English language forum is silent. Why? (Are you posters PC? All flash no cash? Joe Clark look-a-likes?) There's La Presse And there's Canadian Press in the Toronto Star French, English. Your choice.

I gotta answer this thread. This argument reminds me of the Jewish Cabal in the US that controls the banks, Hollywood and the government. Yeah, right. Minorities are precisely that: a minority. A linguistic minority moreso. English Canadian frustration with Canada invariably lays the blame with Quebec. (Can I say "English Canadian" or am I being politically incorrect? I don't mean "English" English. I mean you guys out there, ROC.) Just like American frustration with America lays the blame with Jews or some other minority. If Quebec ever left Canada, ROC would have to find someone else to pick on. I don't mean to pick on you MS, I have always liked (but usually disagreed with) your posts.French is an official language in Canada because many, many Canadian citizens (about 20% or so) speak only French. Moreover, these citizens happily go about their lives only in French and they have absolutely no reason to learn English. Imagine! In North America! I used to think that learning a new language opened minds but I have met too many polyglot idiots. (What's the Somerset Maugham line? "I knew a man who could speak eight languages. Unfortunately, he couldn't say anything intelligent in any one of them.") The big debate now in Quebec is whether to vote Liberal (and have Cabinet members) or to vote BQ (and be excluded from power). The issue is: what's better for Quebec. I suppose you guys will imagine that Quebecers secretly meet on the Saturday before the election and decide, en bloc, how to screw the other nine provinces. (*Sigh*) Senate reform, Senate reform, Senate reform. Whatever happened to one man, one vote? Is it fair that a voter in PEI gets in effect ten ballots, but a voter in Toronto gets only one? Should PEI have the same number of Senators as BC? Is that fair?

Markets are designed to be price competitive, not competitive. There is a fundamental difference between competition (as in sports) and price competition (as in a price war). Price competition leads to cooperation. Competition leads ultimately to, well, war. Without a doubt, math and prices were the greatest invention of the past 10,000 years or so. For heaven's sake. Will your single vote matter in the upcoming federal election? So what makes you think your "market vote" matters? Well, instead of looking at the question from your perspective, look at it from the perspective of CanWest's advertisers (or the Liberal Party). What do you do to get votes? Do you think the Liberals would like an election every day? But CanWest advertisers face essentially that. Customers (including you) can choose to buy or not every day. Here, you raise a very good point. It's the question of fairness. And this problem is much, much bigger than what you say. By pure chance of genetics, Brad Pitt is an attractive guy. If he walks into a bar, he turns heads. Is that fair? Let's not kid ourselves: your life and my life were influenced by the families we were born into - pure chance. Is that fair? To answer your very good point, I'll state my opinion. Societies that tend to decide collectively through markets (and let rich people have more votes) tend to be societies that are in fact richer and more fair. Societies that tend to decide collectively through elections (one man, one vote) tend to be societies that are in fact poorer and less fair. But IdealEnd, you make a good point. On the fairness issue, I think we should steal "votes" from the rich and give them to the poor. In particular, we should do this for kids. Kids get their family purely by chance, and can do nothing about it.

IMV, you rightly ask two important questions. But let me clarify one point first. By automation, I mean all forms of technology including, for example, medical advances and so on. New technology must be in the best interests of humanity if it's adopted voluntarily. Consider cell phones. If people buy them and use them, it must be because people are better off. (True, I am only looking at the consumer whereas you seem to look only at the producer. I would argue you make a grave error in this. We don't live to produce; we live to consume.) But following your practice, what about the producer? In particular, what about the guys who make, install and repair public phone booths? Very soon, when everyone has a cell phone, these guys are going to be out of a job. Which kind of leads to your second question. Does new technology mean more and more poor unemployed people and fewer and fewer really rich capitalists? Certainly not. The phone booth guys are not going to stay unemployed for long. They'll start to do something else with their time and produce something new. This is precisely what economic growth is all about. Think of electric lights and all the candlemakers who lost their jobs and then went on to produce something else. This I disagree with vigorously. If we were talking about trade between equally wealthy countries (as Mr. Smith intended) I would agree. But this is far from the reality. Poor countries can trade with rich countries and both benefit. That's what Smith said. I'm sure Bill Gates is happy to have a cleaning lady and I'm sure the cleaning lady is happy to work for Bill Gates. Technology is simply a way to convert one or several things into something else. Technology, for example, means raising sheep, cutting wool, spinning yarn, then knitting a sweater. A hundred or so years ago, many Canadians did exactly that. Almost no one does that now. Instead, we work at a job (let's say McDonald's), earn money and then buy a sweater. Trade is like a new technology: produce hamburgers for five hours and get a sweater. (Who is producing the sweater? A Canadian? A Scot? Someone in China? Who cares? But I assume the person is voluntarily choosing to produce the sweater.) WTF? When someone in Vietnam produces shoes that are sent to Canada, Canada has to send something to Vietnam. The Vietnamese don't send us shoes for nothing in return. If you say Canada should produce its own shoes (and not buy Vietnamese shoes) then the Vietnamese will stop buying that other stuff from us. Your best protection against a nasty employer is to quit and find a better job. But I think what you mean is that employees are somehow weak, ignorant, naive and afraid. If they quit, they will fall into dire poverty and wind up begging on the street. [is this your honest view of ordinary people?] Martin, unfortunately My point in asking the question was to say that the best democracy is one in which we vote everyday, we have an interest in voting wisely and our vote expresses somehow the degree of our opinion on issues. When you participate in a market, you do precisely that. One ballot with an X once every four years? Buying or selling in a market every day? No comparison.

The link above gives an explanation of how the model works and it seems sensible to me. On the other hand, I tend to agree with you, BG. Ipsos-Reid must be forecasting a near Liberal sweep in Ontario to get national Liberal seat numbers of 171-175.Unless something drastic changes, the Liberals will get 20 or so in Quebec. That's it. That's all.

On the contrary, everyone talks about the weather - but we can't control it. Which do you prefer, a democracy where you vote every four years or where you vote every day? More important. Do you prefer a democracy where you can express your "feeling" and somehow make a difference by your actions? (How much do you want to protect the environment? How to do this?) Markets with prices do all of this much better than elections. In fact, math was invented so that people could co-operate together collectively through markets, not elections. True, math is hard but please think a little. You vote in an election once every four years or so. But you "vote" for something every day when you buy. And if you buy, you can show your "feeling" - depending on the price! According to you, which voting method, markets or elections, is better?

Did I miss the video? The one with an American soldier hacking through an Iraqi head, saying that he did it for Jesus and that there would be many more? BD, don't go conspiracy wobbly on me. If the old, court-marshalled American jaolers didn't feel deterred before, the new jaolers certainly feel deterred now. (Better question: Do the video balaclava guys feel deterred?) Yadda, yadda. But I agree with you KK. An ordinary jerk with power is a big asshole. But what these ordinary jerks did was a really, really stupid, out of control joke.Upside? Nobody died. [My Gawd! The Economist compared the Iraqi guy standing on a box holding wires to the Vietnamese girl running naked from napalm. WTF? The girl was physically scarred for life. The guy was emotionally scarred for life. Is this 21st century morality? Your choice: napalm or box.] Clueless bureaucrats tell white-trash jerks what to do. OK. BD, I like your "god knows who else", "out-sourcing" twist.Looking through this thread, I have a question: do we Westerners occupy the Moral Highground? We all know Galileo suffered the inquisition. We know about the witch hunt at Salem. We know that sometimes what appears to be true is often false. We question authority. We apply the "scientific method" to doubtful assertions. Isn't our approach worth defending? Voltaire defended it. Shouldn't we also? BD, you defended two women kissing in a Red Deer bar. Would you defend two men kissing in a Baghdad bar or Riyadh bar? (Riyadh bar? How about Mecca Bar?) Or, BD, are you a hypocrite?

If it were just my opinion, then you would have reason to dismiss it. But I am quoting the President of Pakistan, the UN (in fact a board of reputable scholars) and a respectable Lebanese English-language paper quoting 'Reporters Without Borders'. I don't know if the problem is Arab or Muslim. (eg. Indonesia and Malaysia are not, it seems to me, stable societies like Thailand or even, Argentina - but they both seem different from Syria. On the other hand, Christian Lebanese or Christian Palestinians seem as much caught up in this as their Muslim compatriots. So, let me switch to 'Arab World' instead of 'Muslim World'.) You are right that the Arab world is no monolith. There is tremendous diversity, and more important individual families trying as best they can to have a decent life. Let me consider one idea. If you walk in any Arab city, you will see few women on sidewalks. (The ratio is perhaps 10 men to 1 woman, and she is likely to be non-Muslim.) It is execptionally rare to see a woman driver. (Non-Arab Teheran is an exception. In Saudi, it is illegal for women to drive.) Most young Arab men complain about how difficult it is to marry; they must have a good job, an income, money. (It is the Indian dowry in reverse. In Saudi Arabia, having several wives is in fact a sign of wealth; many Arabs work in Saudi precisely with this goal in mind.) I won't go in to the subterfuges, often using modern technology, that young people use to communicate. It is not wrong to say that the family honour lies between the legs of its female members. JMCC Report If you want to know who the JMCC is (I've never heard of them but they seem legit), check here: About JMCC Around the world, for the past hundred years or so, there has been an ongoing revolution in relations between ordinary people. Ordinary people can increasingly decide for themselves. Women are increasingly free to choose. The Muslim/Arab world seems unable to face this revolution. Individuals want to face it in their daily life but they can't. Why is this? What is the problem? This is only one point. There are others.

Would you accept to compete with a robot? (I assume the robot is more "productive" than you. In other words, the robot is able to produce more widgets at a lower "wage" than you're prepared to accept.)If you answer "no" to that question, then you are denying society a cheaper way to produce widgets and you shouldn't be using a computer. You should be typing on a typewriter right now. Trade is no different than a new technology. It allows us to do something better, or do it in an easier way. IdealEnd, I agree with the way you think. A union is like a government. We have no choice; we must belong. IdelaEnd, do you like coercion?(In the case of a government, people can vote in an election - assuming they live in a democracy. Canada's a democracy. Who do you think will be the next Prime Minister of Canada?)

I expect the televised debate of the four leaders will be fascinating. Each is eloquent in their own way; the stakes are high; three are new faces. A point that is too often ignored: PM PM is old and he will appear old beside the others. The subtext of this election will be "If the Liberals win, then it means they can do anything and they know it." Most voters have yet to decide whom to vote for. This basic point will soon become apparent.

I don't see any US president risking the lives of US soldiers solely to bring democracy to some failed basket case of a country. The intervention in Iraq was based on a perceived threat of Saddam to the West - through terrorists or otherwise. (Blair has made this argument many times. WMD are not the only way to be a threat to the West. Installing democracy is a nice idea but is not the motivation.) Korea is also a very real threat, but the US has chosen to go about this differently. Dealing with Iran is a difficult proposition. The Iranians show every indication of solving this problem themselves. I agree Hugo.When the US invaded Iraq, I recall thinking that that was the end of the UN. Good riddance, too. If you think the Ottawa bureaucracy is a strange never-never land, then the UN bureaucracy is a strange never-never land on LSD. I found absurd the debate about whether the war was "legal" or "illegal". The closest thing we have to a legitimate criminal code are the deliberations of democratic institutions in the West; the US Congress is now the UN.

These were the results in the 2003 Provincial General Election in Hamilton East: Lib 51.7% PC 13% NDP 29.1% The NDP and Liberals switched places in this riding. The Tory result in Hamilton East is hardly representative of Ontario as a whole. However, I think this by-election result does suggest that Ontario voters may well surprise the Liberals come 8 pm EDT on 28 June.

In situation #2, if the boss is truly a jerk, you'd probably quit and move on. In situation #1, you can ignore the jerk. So you stay, and do what? There is a disconnect between you and your boss. The CBC is like situation #1. So are many jobs in the civil service. Getting back to your quote. I can't imagine anything more relevant.To get you to give me money voluntarily, I have to offer you something that you consider better. That makes me feel good and useful. (Between the products you buy, the store, the producer, the advertiser and the TV, there are a chain of voluntary relations.) If I just take your money, well, what have I done? Anything? It's the difference between a politician who comes to power by a free vote and a leader who comes to power by a coup.

President Pervez Musharraf, PakistanMusharraf on BBC Lebanese Daily StarOr get the bureaucratic story here: United Nations Report Is the Islamic world going through a Reformation that Christians went through 500 years ago? Should peaceable Asians/Westerners suffer while other "clueless" non-Confucian, non-Buddhist, non-Western, people (ie. Muslims) learn to "get it"? "Get it?" Are Muslims sexually frustrated? Is that the "root cause"?

Let me make my point absolutely clear. Apparently, most people post to this forum because there are threads whether the Liberals are honest, Harper is a religious fanatic or lesbians can kiss in a bar. Canadians (judging by the number of posts to this thread) don't give a tinker's cuss about US/Canada relations. Yet it's arguably the most important international relation Canadians have. Honest, no posts! (Minor detail to attract attention: Bureaucrats in Ottawa troll these forums for a cheap focus group...) But there are more posts to the International Folder than to the US/Canada folder (but admittedly these International posts are akin to those to the Religion posts. Interesting but "philosophical" debate.) So, my point? The CBC has WHOLE newscasts devoted to arcane issues about foreign countries that, judging by posts to the various threads of this MapleLeaf Forum, are completely irrelevant to most Canadians. CBC News is your Grade 11 English teacher telling you about some foreign poet who married some foreign chick and then they died... (Can I make comments about Canada's bureaucrats?)

Paul Wells in Macleans provided the following link and described it by saying: So I went: NY Observor by Durkin (All of this is completely confusing to me. NY Observor and Macleans I know. Wells is new and Durkin, never heard of.) Reading the article I was reminded of all the conversations I have ever had with Americans abroad. Left Americans, right Americans, confused Americans, informed, ignorant, liberal, whatever Americans. The article is an American in Iraq. What's that? Well in my travels, I have learned there is only one way to deal with an American abroad: If the American says they come from New York, you answer: "New York, that's somewhere on the Pacific Coast, right?" [For Eastern Canadians, answer: "New York, that's south of Boston somewhere, eh?"] If they say they come from Texas, you answer: "Oh, I've heard of Texas. It's in the north, isn't it?" Try this. For real. While on vacation in the States. Or (better) with a tourist here. [Try this with Americans of any racial origin.] And when you do, look for the expression on the American's face. (In an instant, you will understand all of the problems of Americans in the world.) This has nothing to do with geography class, your ignorance, or what Americans think of Canadians. [Frankly, I admire Americans their naivety. The world is a better place for it. When the left speaks about empowerment and giving individuals self-confidence, what is meant?] Americans, like most majorities (English Canada comes to mind), know everything about themselves - and that's all they know. They are astonished, absolutely astonished, when a minority is ignorant of them. I have sat through too many meetings/situations where English Canadians blithely, smugly, spoke English and didn't realize that the silence around the table was not acquiesence but confusion and sheer panic. "Répondre? Mais si on me demandait ce que je pensais?"