August1991

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

CanadaRocks, for someone who appears to be a patriot, you have a strange view of your homeland. Seen from a satellite, there is no border between Canada and the US. What is this "thing" you call Canada? How would "you" (or the State) sell it? Do you mean I would be forced to sell my home to a foreigner? Would I be forced to sell myself, and become a slave? You note the price of $2.5 million/Canadian. What if I think that price is too low? Lastly, you mention something about 40% Canadian content. Such regulations have nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with keeping competitors out. If I run the only fast-food joint in town and I manage to keep competitors out by law, who wins and who loses? Canada is NOT the Canadian government. Canada is all the people who live here, their history and beliefs, their hopes and dreams and skills, the land and resources they own. Musicians have a much better sense of what Canada is than politicians.

Plonking, I gather, means filtering out certain posters from your own screen. Feeding fanatical trolls, I guess, means encouraging pointless debate. To each one's own, but "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen..." This after all is an anonymous forum and no harm is done. Keep it all in perspective.

StatCan reports for a family of 2 or more, average after tax income (including government transfers), in constant dollars: 2001 .. 58,016$ 1999 .. 54,512$ 1997 .. 51,490$ 1990 .. 51,540$ 1987 .. 50,607$ 1982 .. 50,180$ Statcan on Family Income Selecting 1990 and 1997 for comparison is misleading. I will note just two points about this survey. First, it is based on telephone surveys in which 80% of people allow StatsCan to access T4 slips for income information. Second, the income figures above don't account for the number of people in the family. Real GDP per capita is usually the best measure. ------------------ The following is a longish but fascinating quote from a fascinating article on the web (link below) about New Zealand's experiance with government. The topic is germane to the direction this thread has taken: New Zealand experience with Government

UN? Speedy?If the UN gets involved, it will inevitably turn into a boondoggle. We in Canada tend to support the ideal of the UN and ignore the reality. (In fact, we Canadians seem increasingly to prefer an imaginary ideal to the obvious reality, but that's another story.) Gaddafi did not get to fly to Europe recently because the UN named Libya to head of the UN Human Rights Commission. Around the world, "temporary" UN refugee camps have a tendency to become permanent. The terms "UN supervision" or "UN administered" are oxymorons. (eg. the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal.) Most Canadians have never had any direct contact with anyone in the UN and so Canadians can maintain a naive idealism . In fact, the UN is the classic illustration of the adage: "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". The UN has gone beyond irrelevancy and is now part of the problem.

Here's what the Toronto Star's editorial board came up with. (Note that they make Mulroney seem 'moderate' to better skewer Harper as an extremist). Toronto Star Editorial This campaign will be ugly in several ways but I think the most ugly may well be the presentation of Harper in Ontario as an "out-of-touch, naive, Western fanatic". "Stockwell Day Part II". Mike Harris overcame being painted an extremist but he at least came from North Bay. Calgary is beyond the pale. (Harper might try noting his place of birth.)

Having two official languages causes enough headaches, and you want to have a third? Are you a masochist? An aboriginal language? Why not esperanto or pig-latin? (ywhay otnay igpay atinlay?) Your post makes a mockery of the whole idea. Or rather, you seem well suited for a senior position in Brussels.

Harper (and Layton) are complete unknowns in Quebec and the Maritimes. Harper is a virtual unknown in Ontario and Layton is unknown outside of Toronto. (French CBC today referred to "Jeff" Layton.) INME, Canadians are cautious about the unknown. Trudeau is now revered or reviled in Canada but there was a time when many people were completely suspicious of him. I think this election is going to be significant and interesting in many ways.

Where did you get that stat?

Onthe contrary, it is the lack of clear title that leads some animals to fight and kill one another. That is a recipe for disaster.The Iceland's fishery is a marvel; Newfoundland's fishery is moribund. Why? Fish off the coast of Newfound;and were "just there to be shared". Fish off the coast of Iceland are owned.

You're right, MapleSyrup. Clark has touched a nerve amongst all the people who listen to the CBC in English Canada and believe its reports are the truth. We will find out soon whether these "demographics" are Canada. IOW, I think there is a good Canada, but it's not the CBC Canada. Let's see.

You "dumb" westerners, in my experience, buy good things almost always. Having lived amongst you, I have a tremendous respect for your common sense. (Do I sound patronizing? Sorry, I don't mean to. I really don't. I had the chance to see big skies, and mountains. I miss them - and I won't speak of Cape Freels.) But how does it matter how something "good" is paid for? Credit card, debit card? What's the dif? Imagine you are shopping, using your sister's cards to buy something for her neighbour? What's the dif what card you use? You just tell your sister: I did it debit, or credit. She'll figure it out after. (You are like the government! Can't people get this?) How you did the damage to the cards is irrelevant. What damage you did matters. Last point: Does it matter whether your sister's credit card is Bank of Montreal or Citibank or Banque de Paris?

People are as they are. In my experience, they are quite smart in managing what matters to them.But I have never failed to be surprised in watching the ways some criticize others in a way to benefit. The benefit usually turns on the idea "I'm better."

None? Absolutely true. If I'm a hospital patient in BC and I need a nurse, the answer is, well, you tell me BigGunner! A patient's only choice, BC or Nfld, is to fly to the great US of A. (More realistic? Money under the table...You don't think it happens?) We Canadians cannot hire medical care except through a union. The union has 100% of the supply. Walmart and Shell are vilified in documentaries, when I can go to Zeller's or Irving. But can you ask for a different nurse?

Good fun, and I don't want to be a "sophisticated" easterner, so excuse my terms. But if your partner/spouse/husband/wife/significant other uses your debit card, or your credit card, to buy something, is there any difference? You just pay the bill. The government is the same. A partner/spouse who claims to be good because she/he uses a specific card? Think twice. It's not which card he/she uses but how much they use the cards! Sorry for sounding like a sophisticated Easterner.

In his career, Clark has shown a tremendous lack of political judgment. I suspect many incompetent PoliSci students have decided to get into politics because of Joe Clark. (Hint: Go Liberal. Sergio Marchi is now in Switzerland with his wife and adopted kids. Check it out.) Canada. It was dead easy in the 1980-90s. It's still easy.

I answered a thread in Religion/Politics and considered abortion. If you want, start a thread about gays. I'll answer. I live in Montréal and I believe civilization means understanding. I am not "parti pris".

OPEC takes "democratic" votes. What's your point?Do ALL Newfoundlanders (and those in Goose Bay, Labrador etc.) get to vote? Or only union members? What's Democratic? How about including "stakeholders" (ugh) in the democratic vote?

Why does Canada's competition (anti-cartel, anti-monopoly) legislation specifically exempt "collective bargaining"?

Watch this debate in the future. "Martin reduced the deficit. He's competent." On the contrary, he's only showing that he's an old time politician. Layton has a better handle on the issue. And Harper too, I suspect. "Government" is unlike any institution ever created. It has both your cheque book and your credit card. It can use either at any time to buy what it needs. And surprisingly, for you and me, as Canadians, it makes no difference whether the government uses your credit card (borrowing) or your cheque book (taxes) to buy what it needs. Why surprising? If the government uses your credit card, you can simply pay off the bill. If you don't, that's your choice. (Would you leave a Visa bill to your kids? Well, don't! It's your choice... but don't blame the government for a situation you can undo, by paying your bills.) If a politician (Martin) uses your cheque book to pay your credit card bill (taxed you to reduce the deficit), or another politician (Layton) uses your credit card to buy you services (borrowed to pay for road construction), they are both being paternalistic - and their claims of fiscal responsibility are irrelevant. (But maybe the road was a good idea!) Much, much more pertinent: it matters greatly whether the government uses the card or cheques at all (not which one it uses). There is a film about called "The Corporation". No corporation has your credit card number, nor bank account number unless you give it to them. (My sister has advised me against this kind of pre-payment.) But the Canadian Government has both your chequing account number and your Visa card, and you have no choice. Canadians should better understand this entity called "government". It can do enormous good. But claims of "paying debts", or "reducing deficits", or "buying now instead of paying the mortgage" should be ignored. Government is a strange beast - we need to understand it.

Sully, you say that with hindsight. At the time, they could only hope, or follow instructions. There was no clear way to cross the finish line, nor even any certainty they would cross it. The outcome, at the time, was far from certain.Their success has given us our current confidence.

Question 1: Will Bush do something to get rid of Martin? No, nothing. In the Bushies' mind, Martin will either make it across the road or he's road kill. It's Martin's problem. If Bush has any consideration, it'll be we're good "neighbors to these Canadians". (Watch for the smart Cdn jourtnalist question: "Mr. President, did the PM talk with you about an election date?" My bet? He will.) Question 2: Will PM PM get a vote bounce? PM PM is counting on it. Watch him 1) appear to be the international-statesman, idea-guy type, 2) mend US fences because he's a seriously rich business-type guy that Republicans understands and 3) attempt lamely not to kowtow to the Americans in some symbolic way. (You know, line about all the hockey players in Tampa Bay being Canadian...) Harper has to. Now or later, he'll have to deal with Martin-Bush meeting (or Canada US). Here's a take. Mulroney won that 1988 election despite all. Standing up for Canada does not mean standing up to the US. (Quelle langue l'Anglais avec ses verbes composés!) Canadians are loyal to certain fundamental values. (For example, we have never had military draft. And we Canadians sent people abroad to fight for freedom in 1939, two years before the Americans did. In every small town in Canada, there's a monument about this. Did the Liberals give money to explain this to young Canadians? And what this was all about?) IOW, take a Canadian stand, and defend it. For a brief time, Canada did not kowtow to the UN nor the US, certainly not France nor even the UK. Our position was a Canadian position, not a knee-jerk anti-American position.

The State cannot legislate morality. Because an action is legal, this does not mean the action is moral, or that the State encourages the action. It simply means the action is legal. That's all. Many adults may not be able to solve simple math problems but most can solve wisely in their own way complex moral problems. We each have our own moral compass that rarely changes direction. So, when deciding to enact a law forbidding an action, the first question (and main criteria) should be whether the State can in fact enforce the law. The world is filled with laws and regulations that mean absolutely nothing beyond the egotism of the politicians who created them. It is easier to pass a law than it is to enforce it. IOW, what we call "criminal" activity should be a question of what is enforceable. Consider abortion. Quite apart from one's personal view, consider a law forbidding abortion. It is simply unenforceable. The consequences of such a law would bring more pain and death than the current tacit freedom. (I say tacit because in fact there are no abortions in PEI; only two doctors in NB perform them.) When it comes to a third party judging human relations, pragmatism is often the civilized way.

You can read the pdf file here: SES Research Lib 40 CPC 27 NDP 17 BQ 12 Green 4 Undecid 17 20 Apr - 25 Apr, 1000 sample size, by phone. I'd say a Spring election just became more certain. And I'd keep an eye on the undecided in these polls. How about an "intend to vote" question?

Current polls (Environics) put: Lib 39 CPC 29 NDP 19 BQ 11 Compare the last pre-writ polls and (Election Results) below: Nov 2000 Lib 50 (41) PC 8 (12) CA 22 (26) NDP 8 (9) BQ 10 (11) Jun 1997 Lib 44 (39) PC 20 (19) Ref 15 (19) NDP 8 (11) BQ 10 (11) Oct 1993 Lib 33 (41) PC 36 (16) Ref 11 (19) NDP 8 (7) BQ 10 (14) It's clear that the Liberals (as incumbents) have got hit between the poll and the vote. In addition, the polls systematically undersestimate the Reform/CA vote. If the Liberals drop 5 to 34 and the CPC rises to 35, we have a hung parliament. The NDP is clearly on a roll (in relative terms). They're back to their pre-Rae levels. But will these numbers turn into seats? Pre-Election Poll & Election Data