August1991

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

The ACLU defends your right to say nonsense, AlliEx. So do I. But be polite please, we're Canadian.

Possible Spring Dates Sun 2 May writ drop for Mon 7 Jun Sun 9 May for 14 Jun Sun 16 May for 21 Jun Sun 23 May for 28 Jun (???) The writ must be dropped at least 36 days before the election and elections must fall on a Monday (unless it's a holiday and then the election is Tues.) An election on 21 Jun coincides with Sun 20 Jun Quebec municipal referenda. Nix 21 June. Mon 28 Jun? (St. Jean-Baptiste is Thu 24 Jun and Canada Day is Thu 1 Jul. In June 1968, Trudeau got his first majority on 25 June.) Interpreting the results of the referenda risks to be messy. Nix 28 Jun. I go for 14 Jun, which means PM PM has to make some kind of announcement before 9 May if we are to have a spring election.

Dictionary - Monopoly By law, a union is the sole supplier of labour services to an employer. In the following note the term "collective bargaining" and note how the bureaucracts sandwich the exemption between "amateur sport" and "securities underwriting". (Oh, Canada!) Canada's Competition Act

These comment are so subjective as to be laughable. Read any text of Charles Dickens and you will be struck by its wordiness. Why was Dickens wordy? He was paid by the word and his readers thought more words implied more meaning. Mozart and Hemingway are arguably great because of their apparent simplicity. But even taking your argument at face value - modern US culture panders to the masses - what's wrong with that? I thought democracy was a good thing, and the House of Commons an important institution.

That comment is personal, BD, and has no place in civilized debate.In any case, I thought you believed we should help and believe in our fellow man. Your comment is rather typical of the "screw the jerks" attitude you supposedly deplore.

Wasn't Ujjal Dosanjh the last NDP Premier in BC? And now he's supporting PM PM (and not Jack Layton)? Quod Deus vult perdere dementat prius.

Joe Clark thinks that Martin is better suited to be PM than Harper. CTV Clip Clark never had much judgment.

The sad part is that CanadaRocks doesn't know who Ayn Rand is, doesn't know where she was born, doesn't know what she wrote. But I bet CanadaRocks knows about Michael Moore.Agree or disagree, people should have the chance to form an opinion by seeing the WHOLE picture. Our schools don't do that, and CanadaRocks is evidence. Sad.

Coalition? Minority government? The Canadian experience in such situations has been 'Tax and Spend'. Is that good for "Canada"?

Sully, my answers are next door.

European Catholics and native Indian elders. What? French Indian War? True, we North Americans are generally peaceful (perhaps because of the Native Indians - and so too the Middle Eastern types). The truly violent are the Europeans. (Sorry, got me there.) Natives/Arabs disorganized? Europeans/Jews organized? Are you T. E . Lawrence? The basis of many divorces. Europeans in America were Christians spreading the faith. I suspect the native Americans wanted to keep their "lifestyle" too. You know anything about India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka? So, so true. True too. I too have always been confused by the terms 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' and 'soldier' and 'policeman'. Why don't Native Americans do suicide bombings? (Maybe they're civilized.) The Americans killed about a hundred thousand in Hiroshima in 1945 - to avoid killing millions later. Perhaps they should have killed hundreds in Rwanda to prevent the killing of a million or so. There are hundreds dying in Iraq - but not millions elsewhere in the future.What is this nonsense? Is there any logic to killing several now so that more are not killed in the future? Uncivilized. We Canadians don't like such nonsense. (The civilized Europeans apparently do. We Canadians have sometimes got involved.) Muslims do NOT have a distaste for Jews. They have a distate for Zionists. Two reasons: Some people, mostly men, frustrated in life, like to see bloody violence. The film gives them a legitimate reason to watch what they want. Second. Some people, mostly women, angry about life, want to believe their misfortune is for a good cause.My view? We, as a species, have no future if we believe torture is good. You are describing imperialism from the intellectual colonial perspective. That is, you are describing the position of an intelligent woman in a traditional marriage. Get with the times, please. Me too.

You've got it dead on Willy. Good thread, in my view. What's better, a leased car or an education? The scam is that university/college teachers have a guaranteed clientele and students get a free ride. End result? You can eat all you want at McDo but, well, you have to eat at McDo. IMV, elementary and secondary education should be government paid. After that, everyone should be on their own. I suspect Canada would have many more smaller, interesting colleges/universities than the government-financed, Soviet, bureaucratic behemoths it has now. Behemoths? Even the small ones are Soviet.

G&M Taber PM PM could have easily said that we won't have a spring election. The fact that he has not said that makes it clear that we will. He knows that his credibility is on the line. He can't play games anymore. We will have a spring election.

Cool! You don't think existing members have a say? You've been conned, I think. The foreigners may be better than we Canadians, no? (Canada is a SMUG country.) Years ago, Canada was a 'good' country. Canadian passports meant the holder was an honest person who paid debts. If you had a Canadian passport, it was better than a platinum American Express credit card because it meant you were a CANADIAN.Those days are gone. A Canadian passport is now suspect, like an ordinary Visa credit card. The term abroad now is "plastic Canadian". Ever heard that one Sully?

There is a "morality", I believe. Fighting endlessly about hectares/acres is silly. There are no 'principles' to die for except "I have no principles other than my children". What is best for them? What will be best for my grandchildren? And why do I exist anyway if my grandchildren won't live? Do I really believe "I" will "exist" in 5000 years? The morality is having my life now; and the ensurance that others in the future will enjoy what I have.

Are you whacko? Governing bodies have nothing to do with this? True, I am me. But how to prove that? Do you have a Gold Visa? How did you get it?We old Canadians are innocent. Around the world, we have a reputation of paying debts, being honest, telling the truth. In a case of dispute, we politiely accepted perfidy, turned a cheek, and believed, "Life is More Important than this Minor Loss." Not now. The Canadian Passport abroad has no longer the same weight. We are all suspect.

Sully, does your morality require more thought? No? The bombers over Berlin? Dresden? Hiroshima?

For Geezus sake, as my Newfie uncle would say, who decided that? NOT the Canadian government. There is ample info on the Internet forewarning Immigrants about this.Two points: 1) Canadians take rules, regulations, crazy laws for granted. (eg. booze can't be sold in certain stores or at certain times. To move a light fixture legally, you need a "qualified" electrician) 2) Most of the rules are designed to ensure Tom has a good salary because Dick, the immigrant, has to jump through hoops to become an electrician. Harry, the homeowner, is upset to pay Tom's wage so he hires Dick (under the table) and gets better service. The end result is that Canada (or rather North America) is a good place to live. The government has crazy laws, and left-wing intellectual union types invent crazy rules, but ordinary, smart people can manage well a way around all this nonsense.

They will have to. How to get there. Why not compare Israelis/Palestinians to Mohawk/Quebecois? What's the dif? Radical, extreme. But young American pilots died in WW II for something they believed in. Islam? "Thou shalt not steal" comes from the Old Testament. Hamas does not use antiquated terminology. The "civilized, peaceful, Venusian" Europeans "did" the Holocaust. Not Muslims, (and not Bush Americans, need I add.) True.So, how can Israelis show Palestinians that they will NEVER succeed (and Palestinians shouldn't waste time trying)? Or, how can Israelis make it possible for everyone to win?

Sully, I'll answer your post in another thread. This is not because I dislike this thread but because its name "Rantisi Killed" is misleading. The issue is much more serious.