August1991

Democracy loses in this good comparison. But first, let me respond to BD: "Informed, vigilant and active"? What's that? A new drug? Magazine? People are what people are. Let's take them as they are - which is pretty complicated already. Democracy requires, in my humble opinion, one thing: a civilized way to throw the buggers out. I don't know if you realize that in most countries in our 2004 world, ordinary people are impressed when this happens. Sadly, we Canadians almost take it for granted. But I don't like democracy. Why? For several reasons, but I'll note the "one person, one vote" idea. That makes everybody the same, which we are obviously not. A few people like pizza alot while others sort of prefer Chinese but not really. When choosing where to eat, should it be one man, one vote? Is that how small groups really decide collective decisions? (BTW, markets don't work that way. If the cigarette market were decided by majority vote, the 75% non-smokers would win the referendum.) Churchill said it best: Democracy is the least bad method when a single collective choice is required.

MapleSyrup, we don't. Almost one-third of our immigrants go to the States. In effect, our complex immigration system is a selection system (or a back door) for US immigration. Statcan Immigration Numbers

What is the "tourist" doing in "some distant land"? Why did they choose to go there? Exactly. And that's the tip-off that anyone who wants to do such crazy things should have to self-insure. OH MY GOD! You could drive a truck through that exception. [That beautiful piece of land happens to be on a side of a cliff, in an earthquake zone where forest fires occur. No private insurance exists, or the premiums are insane. But, the land is cheap! I buy, build, enjoy life until disaster strikes. Then what... Is the land in Canada?] Thinking of Svend, our criminal system does not exist to dispense justice. It exists to create incentives. If someone foolishly gets into trouble, our instinct might be to help the poor guy out. But if we do, think of the signal we'll be sending out to all the other fools. As I noted, this problem is at the heart of so many absurd consequences of the welfare state.

BigGunner, you are saying the sky is green: No one denies the right of people to form an association. But a union is NOT an association. It is a cartel. Unions abridge the freedom to contract. The equivalent would if Wal-Mart forced you to buy ONLY from Wal-Mart. BTW, unions (and agricultural marketing boards) are explicitly excluded from Canada's competition legislation. You are saying that Wal-Mart and Zellers have the right to find what is the best way to force you to shop at one store or the other. IOW, if I open up a corner store, Wal-Mart and Zellers can force me to be part of their cartel, with similar prices, and the same forced customer sharing scheme. Yes and yes. Shareholders are free to sell their shares. And Wal-Mart and Zellers shoppers are free to choose another store. (But hjalmar's impled suggestion is wrong too. Taxpayers "hire" politicians to negotiate on their behalf.) All through this thread, indeed in other threads also, I see one constant error. It seems to me that posters confuse the fundamental differences between a voluntary relationship and an involuntary relationship. Prior to marriage, a man and woman are in a voluntary relationship. After marriage, they have an involuntary relationship. A citizen's relationship with the State is involuntary, and the relationship between an employer and a union is involuntary. Your relationship with a store is voluntary, as is your relationship with your employer - unless you have a peculiar contract more common in sports and Hollywood.

This answer truly surprises me. Are you suggesting that the State take over all insurance schemes? If the government were to do everything possible to save Persons X and Z, no one would bother to have private insurance. Why should I pay insurance premiums if the State will come to my rescue? Worse, I might take risks that I wouldn't normally take because Big Brother, with endless pockets, will always be there to bail me out. This is at the heart of so many problems of the so-called welfare state. Person Y, on the other hand, is a child. If a child, purely by chance, is born to irresponsible, alcoholic parents, then I think the State should intervene somehow. Anyone of us could have been born to such parents. Prior to my birth, I didn't know my parents. To ensure against the risk of irresponsible parents, I would have accepted to share my good fortune of responsible parents.

We in Canada may believe in multiculturalism but the outside world doesn't. The outside world recognizes the difference between "Canadians" and "immigrants". In the Middle East, this guy would be a Syrian with a Canadian passport. Has anyone seen any report of a ransom payment? That strikes me as the main motivation of the kidnapping.

How does that change anything? The motivation of the person is interesting but essentially irrelevant. It's interesting because it will occur more often in the future. Call it "disaster tourism" or people attracted to places like Iraq. I don't know if they're motivated by the excitement, the status it confers when they later say "they were there", or maybe they suffer from "do-gooderism". As far as I'm concerned, any adult who accepts to go to Iraq now is on their own. If anything happens, it is directly a result of their own choice. I feel no obligation to help them.

What evidence do you have of that? That question makes no sense whatsoever. Or, rather I'll answer your question with a simple solution. The Bank of Canada could print up several million $100 bills and mail several to everyone. Paul Martin could take credit for the "productivity rebate". Whaddya think of my idea? Dya think it would solve the problem?

F-Troup?

MapleSyrup, you're right. Why didn't Campbell resign? (Sort out his life and then come back when he's ready?) If he doesn't or BC voters accept that he doesn't, then BC is badly represented in Canada. And Westerners have no reason to complain. Should I, as an Easterner, tolerate hearing the nonsense that French-Canadians steal you Westerners blind? It's your own fault! Please, choose better leaders!

OIC, I have found your posts troubling, and thought provoking, but never sarcastic. (But can you be more succinct?)

WAKE UP CALL. Please. If you lower the price of foolishness, don't be surprised if there is a lot more foolishness. If Sven, or PM PM, gets off with this, imagine the consequences.

Canoe - Winnipeg Sun Person X (a Canadian citizen, permanent resident, landed immigrant, refugee claimant, tourist to Canada) decides to ski a difficult mountain in the Andes. Person X falls into a crevice. Person Y (a Canadian citizen, permanent resident, landed immigrant, refugee claimant, tourist to Canada) is nine years old, hungry, and manages to get to school at 9 am. Person Z (a Canadian citizen, permanent resident, landed immigrant, refugee claimant, tourist to Canada) manages to get to war-torn Baghdad to make a name for himself (herself) in the world press and save lives but then gets kidnapped. Should my Canadian tax dollars be used to help Person X, Y, Z?

Previous PM only? No. The Demise of Canada has been forecasted more often than the Death of Separatism. One wanders carefully into this field of Canadian political history. (BTW, advising young Canadians to read Grant's "Lament for a Nation" is much, much better than advising them to read Chomsky.) It seems to me there is something afoot. PM PM has shunted Dion aside and recruited Lapierre. But I think there's more. Given his handling of this scandal, PM PM implicitly agrees with Parizeau. "Federalists bought the vote." PM PM has chosen this "Mulroney, special status" role and not the "Trudeau, hard-line federalist" role. Why? For starters, there's no old-style federalist Trudeau to call Martin's bluff, and call him a "poltroon". But I think there's more. Trudeau could play the hard-line federalist and get all 75 seats in Quebec. Chretien could play the same role and get at best 36 seats of 75 in 2000. Martin, the Federal Liberal PM, was worried. I think Canada is about to undergo a fundamental change. Have no fear! We Canadians will show the world how to change in a civilized manner.

Where is Eugene Forsey when you need him? My understanding is that the GG asks (step one) the leader with most seats to form a gov't. BUT the current (previous) PM could insist first on going to the House to see if he (she?) "still" has support. If this happens, and it fails, the GG goes back to step one before calling a new election. In 1957, 1962, 1963 and 1965, the guy with the most seats got first dibs. In 1972, Trudeau stayed PM. In 1979, Trudeau did not contest Clark.

The first time I travelled to the Middle East, several years ago, it was obvious that, in the region, Israel was the only democracy, and pluralist state - multicultural, or a society of diversity, I guess we'd say now. (But true, at the time, Israeli car license plates were different colours for Jews and Arabs.) The main point? Jordanians and Palestinians in Jordan would start conversations politely and then finish by saying "we will push them into the sea." (Palestinians are not anti-semitic - they are anti-Zionist.) In Israel, about half at the time were willing to trade land for peace but the other half basically said "it's my land and if anybody tries to take it, I'll kill them." In the intervening years, the latter group has clearly become a majority. This feud has the potential to go on for ages. The French and Germans, world powers at the time, got involved in such nonsense. Fortunately, the Israelis and the Palestinians are not world powers. Montreal vs Toronto is closer to the true situation.

Impossible. More chance of Kerry being Bush Jnr's running mate. That's the key question in all scenarios - but it would only be the start of the roller coaster ride for Harper or Martin. Consider: only Harper and Martin will be asked to form a government. And either of these two will have to go to the House and survive a vote of confidence. So, any realistic scenario must include who will support whom in a vote. Bear in mind that voting against may precipitate another election. First, I figure that a Liberal/BQ dealie is almost impossible. The federal Quebec Liberal MPs (there'll be about 20-25) would desert Martin if he sought BQ support. Or, if Martin managed it, the Federal Liberals would be something entirely new. Second, a Tory/BQ agreement would have to be tacit, and surprisingly honest. One has to understand why the BQ members are in a Federal Parliament. It would amount to the Tories taking each vote as it comes at them. Harper would have to negotiate wording and understand what works. In some cases, the NDP or even Liberals might support a Harper government. In minority situations, the fear of an election and the potential loss of a seat usually keeps members in line.

Claude Charron, also gay, stole a coat from Montreal's downtown Eaton's and then was tackled in the snow by a store detective when he tried to run away. He claimed in his autobiography that it was his way of saying that he "wanted to quit politics". (Incidentally, the lawyer who defended him was Serge Menard, ex-PQ minister and now candidate for the BQ. English Canadians will soon get to know Menard very well.) I heard about Robinson on CBC Radio and the journalist gave him a eulogy, with a Christ-like chance for rebirth. Imagine Stockwell Day (!) had done this. How would the CBC journalist report it? (BTW, who is holier, Day or Robinson?) Am I wrong to believe that we should not indulge surgeons and pilots (when their services are required) and never indulge politicians nor judges (for moral confusion or learning experiences)? In this day and age, people who can't get their act together shouldn't be in politics. There are ample other professions, just as fun, which allow for private foolishness. Rock star, and acting come to mind. Robinson? Ryder? WTF?

This debate is highly speculative but for political junkies, there's nothing more fun than a minority government. And all indications are that that's what we'll have. We have only had coalition governments in wartime. But we have had anything from "workable arrangements" through to "win each vote as we go". What arrangements might work? 1) Liberal/NDP (this would stand up for a year or two assuming their combined seat totals form a majority). Layton has said he wants a PR system as a pre-requisite but there are all kinds of solutions to that problem. The discussion in this thread of "NDP types" working with "Martin Liberals" ignores the point that power solves alot of problems. Consider scenario: Tories get a plurality of seats but PM stays PM because he works a deal with Layton. 2) Tory/NDP? Won't work for governing. Grassroots on neither side would accept. 3) Liberal/BQ? Might have legs if they kept discussions secret. But the same could be had by getting NDP support. 4) Tory/BQ? This is by far the most interesting one of the lot. It is possible that these two combined will get a majority of seats making a Liberal/NDP deal impossible. Harper would be called to form a government. This is tantamount to the Tories going vote by vote. If the Tory whip is good, and their poll numbers hold, this is doable. But Harper will be eating and drinking politics 24 hours a day.

Chomsky quote: I don't happen to like Chomsky. I read him first as a linguist and although I'm hardly knowledgeable about linguistics, I found him tedious and arbitrary. When Chomsky branched into political argument, I felt more comfortable ignoring him. Take the quote above, and specifically "deflect people's attention from things that matter". Who decides what matters? If I choose to watch a football match on TV instead of a presidential press conference, who is to say what is more important? The same is true for "people in power can do what matters". When someone says to me "this matters", I invariably stop listening. It probably matters to the person speaking, I reason, but they are foolishly presumptuous if they think I too will think it matters. And, I reason further, anyone so foolish does not deserve much of my attention. The whole notion of representative democracy is to elect some people to worry about things that matter. Every so often we check in to make sure things in general are fine because things that matter were dealt with. If not, we randomly choose a new crew and see if they manage better. Chomsky speaks down to people - and implies they are stupid because of the choices they make. I find this tiresome.

Bush failed to make his case to you, BD. (And frankly, I would have been extremely surprised if Bush managed to convince you of anything.) On the other hand, I think he managed to convince a majority of his fellow voting citizens. We will find out in November.

This Sponsorship Scandal appears to reflect a divide, a Civil War, within the Federal Liberal Party. Jeffrey Simpson has wondered why Martin continues to fight when he's already won. The obvious answer is that Canada has had too many plasters, Band-Aids, duct-tape solutions over the past 30 years or so. We are watching the safety pins snapping open. This is no Federal Liberal Civil War. This is an inevitable collapse of the deals done to make Canada exist. Ouellette and Pelletier are the ugly, last remnants of the old, urbane,snobbish Lalonde and Hébert school of federalism. Les Collèges classiques d'antan n'existent plus. The last few buttons are about to pop. Quebec reaction to this scandal and Quebec provincial polls reflect something much more serious. Maybe a Charest or a Facal or a Serge Menard can at this late date put this one back on track. I doubt it. Canadians are desperately in denial (despite being so close to the precipice before). In August 1991, Gorbachev returned to Moscow from the Crimea and thought the Soviet Union was still intact. Instead, it had only a few months of life.

oic, I read your analysis, and I realized that you don't like Bush. Fine. Whatever he would have said, you still wouldn't have liked him. Fine too. No doubt there are many Americans who think like you do. Fine again. BUT HE WAS NOT SPEAKING TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU. He was speaking to Republicans and MOR Americans. What Nixon called the Silent Majority. There are not many such people in San Francisco or Boston. Bush Jnr is barely more articulate than his father and miles below Kennedy. Voters in Quebec put great importance on the fluency of their political leaders. That is not the case in the US, nor even in English Canada. So what? I'm not an American but I got his point. And more important, I got too that he was serious about what he was saying. Did you get that oic?

I heard part of the Q & A on the radio and thought Bush did well - I mean I thought he answered questions the way a majority of Americans want their president to speak and answer questions. He clearly wants to get back to the middle of the American road. I think the press conference placed him well. I also thought that the stakes are so much higher in US politics. It is very hard to dance around as Ouellete did. The US journalists wouldn't accept the nonsense our MPs accepted.

Precisely. So, BD, you think the masses in western society are stupid and easily manipulated. And you call yourself left thinking? Such thinking strikes me as closer to Goebbels or Stalin. Has it ever occurred to you, BD, that ordinary Americans are very smart about things that matter to them? And furthermore, they choose what matters to them? In effect, you are looking at critical thinking about actual alternatives except you don't like the choices ordinary Americans make. Now, who's the democrat?