August1991

Tory newspaper guys (Coyne, Wells) seem to think that Martin is now desperately backtracking. He is now advised to make amends - Coyne suggested (jokingly) that Pelletier will be rehired! But on the French web forums, there is discussion of a very fundamental point. These guys (the Crowns, as Martin says) stole money from taxpayers and are now suing taxpayers for more money. WTF? I disagree with Coyne. There is no plan, Martin is not backtracking, or making amends with Chretienites. Martin is making this up as he goes along. Martin is basically incompetent. He's about to change the election date to the fall. Martin's another ADD Desmarais protege - like Maurice Strong.

Ah yes. Geo-politics. A more sophisticated version of the NHL. Who is going to win the Stanley Cup this year? Who will win it in ten years? That's how you posed your question. Who is (will be) Top Dog! This may surprise you, but the world today is NOT like a sports game. Since mathematics were invented some 6000 years ago or so, the world is different. Now, the world is more like a concert, or a movie. What's better? An evening watching hockey, or an evening watching a movie? Men are confused. Women have now the upper hand (!).

Yes it is. To spend money, you have to earn it. So the income tax and the GST are similar. The same activity is taxed in two ways - almost. The GST doesn't tax what you save.More important, the only way to avoid these taxes is to stop working, stop buying or go underground. Difficult. You have my full attention. But the tax should apply not to SUVs but the use of SUVs. If a SUV sits in the garage, it's no danger to anyone. And there's not just pollution, your SUV takes up space on a road when you drive it. When you rent a hotel room, you pay for the space. The same should apply for a road space - even if it's moving. An individual must pay income tax on dividends received. Dividends are a source of income like any other. The problem is that corporations must pay another tax (corporate tax) on earnings before they pay any dividends. Not surprisingly, corporations don't pay dividends - they re-invest their profits.The equivalent would be the following: You receive by direct deposit your after-tax salary and then also pay a tax every time you use your debit card. Not surprisingly, you stop using your debit card and start using the ATM alot. (Why would the government apply such a tax? Because voters believe only rich people have access to bank accounts and debit cards.)

Is that bad? Is It wrong to create something of greater value than the effort put in to create it? Is it wrong that the measure of value should be what someone else is prepared to give up to enjoy your creation? "Profit" makes these ideas clear by using mathematics.

Either Martin is saying nonsense or the journalists are deaf or, Martin just doesn't know how to get his message out. I'd go for the latter. Martin is not good at politics. The Globe & Mail: G & M Martin in Quebec The Toronto Star: Toronto Star Martin in Quebec Sun chain

Your point has nothing to do with anything, BD. If you want to soak it to the rich, go ahead. But corporate taxes don't accomplish that objective. Corporations pay divdends with after tax income. Then, shareholders pay income tax on dividends. This double taxation can be avoided by simply not paying dividends - instead earnings are retained and corporations get larger. The shareholder is compensated not by dividends but by a capital gain. Why does this matter? The corporate tax induces larger corporations and this leads to other problems in an economy. BD, you have every right to hold left wing opinions. But it would help if you had a better understanding of tax policy and economics when making your arguments. BTW, most Canadians are very active in the stock market through their pensions.

Thanks for the article. Having read it, there is only one word for these bean counters: Naive. (More words? Trees and forests.)

Specious? No, it's smugness to pretend that we Canadians are different. (BD, have an honest chat with a Canadian cab driver - the closest you probably come to the third world.) Precisely. I assume you are Canadian BD so you know that the Liberal King was the grandson of his 1837 radical namesake - and Henri Bourassa was the grandson of Papineau. And I suppose you know that Duplessis told Laporte "to take it", what the phrase meant and then what happened to Pierre Laporte. You are right, domestic politics are complex. Admit it. The CIA, NSA and DIA had absolutely nothing to do with the kidnapping of James Cross in 1970, Mulroney's free-trade victory over Turner in 1988, or or the razor thin result in 1995? How about the sponsorship scandal (CIA organized)? We Canadians are responsible for our own fate. We -thank God- have as neighbours the Americans who let us decide on our own what to do. Estonians, Bulgarians, Tibetans, Kuwaitis, Tutsis - heck, Palestinians - have not had the luck of such good neighbours. Excepting 1775 and 1812, the Americans have left us physically alone. As a non-American, world citizen, I don't fear jazz and Mickey Mouse. I fear 777s into Place-Ville-Marie. By the way, René Lévesque chose the US to go abroad and defend freedom. To protect American "national security", the US Federal Government has had every reason to meddle in Canadian affairs. The world knows that Canada is a divided country. But America has not meddled in our divisions. If you are an American citizen and you read this, as a Canadian citizen, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You Americans have left us free to decide our own fate. As a Canadian, I understand that you Americans go abroad to defend your freedom. You do not go abroad to impose arbitrary rule. You could have made us American but you didn't. Instead, you let our Prime Minister criticise you.

Like J-Lo! Only French Canadians? How about Ukrainian Canadians? Jamaican Canadians? Or how about simple, ordinary Canadians? They respect how Foreigners (the British) decide things but don't want decisions in Canada made solely by birth. (It's too symbolic of how to succeed in life.)

In my mind, there is no comparison with Vietnam. Vietnam was part of the Cold War. The Soviets supported the North and even the PRC assisted - up to a point. Without this support and assistance, the North could never have succeeded. In fact, the Americans "won" the war in the sense that the ostensible purpose was to ensure that South-East Asia - mainly Thailand and Malaysia - did not fall to the Communists. One can quibble with Johnson's (McNamara's) method. In hindsight, Nixon handled it better. And the Brits in Malaysia handled it best. The Americans lost 55,000 soldiers in Vietnam. To come close to this in Iraq, there would have to be several ambushes/helicopter crashes everyday for the next five years or so. Sorry, the two situations are so, so different. And CNN loves it! So, you can be sure CNN is going to make it sound that way! BD is a shill for corporate America! (At least CNN generates profits. The CBC just generates smugness.)

The guys in the Muslim Brotherhood were what I was thinking when I wrote that. Such ilk are a relatively small percentage of the Middle Eastern population. While I believe rational discourse is almost always possible, I have to admit that this group is an exception. I also more or less gave up trying to figure them out. There is little point. (One theory I had for a while was their sexual frustration.) But like many bullies, they tend to back down when faced with superior strength. Do you know the Syrian city of Hama and what happened there?

WTF? The whole point of the monarchy is that birth alone decides who wins. And (*cough, snicker*) what a wonderful basis for society it is!

There's a big age difference - over 20 years - between the two yet Harper seems the more mature one. As to the free ride, I think the Tories have done as well as they could have under the circumstances. But you're right. If not for the Bloc, this sponsorship deal probably would have gone to sleep. And Harper seems an awfully quiet fellow. On the other hand, maybe the idea is that Martin is his own best opposition.

Corporate taxes should be abolished. Why? Because they amount to double taxation. Shareholders must pay tax on dividends received after corporate taxes have been (in theory) paid. Not surprisingly, most corporations don't pay dividends. Instead, they re-invest earnings, make the corporation more valuable and shareholders receive the benefit through a capital gain. Result? Corporations are larger than they really should be. Organizing all this has created an entire industry of tax lawyers and accountants - smart people who waste their talents in a pointless exercise. If corporate taxes still exist, it's because of the mindset of articles such as the one in the link. Typical left wing, demagogic nonsense. Really dumb.

Galahad, I agree all the way down. Even the NYT comment! (It is funny - in adolescent way. Afghanistan? True. (Compare the alternative -doing nothing through the UN via France/Germany.) Saddam? True. (As a minimum, he can't finance anyone with the Oil-for-Food programme. And, whaddya think about Qaddafi?) Threat of terrorism? Gawd knows. (BD, these guys want you dead. And believe me, they'll go for you first. Have you ever spoken to them, BD?)

A Picture is worth a thousand words. Check out this CTV pic. (The CTV article resumes well Martin's "flip-flop" - sorry, his "precision".) First, the "PMO must have known, I think, but the purpose of the enquiry is to answer such questions". Second, "If Mr. Pelletier says it was an administrative affair, I'll accept his opinion. The purpose of the enquiry was to find such truths." CTV Pelletier Testimony So desperate, now PM PM returns to those he chastized for support. (Pathetic? No, it might work!)

He did. No, Gore lost. (Duh.) The rules of the game. What are they? (In the US, for President, it's a majority in the Electoral College.) The remarkable thing is how Americans argue to decide important rules but accept quickly the obvious rules. (I think this impulse comes from their wise constitution - and English common law.) Too many people in too many societies waste efforts on such questions.

The idea of running around the country, solving every problem, being the main guy with an answer to everything - that strikes me as American. Explaining your point politely in a civil tone, but with honesty and panache(?), because you believe it, and explaining it with patience many times, that strikes me as Canadian. As purely a question of style, hot vs cold, cool vs uncool, on vs off, who represents better Canada: Martin or Harper, (or ok, Layton).

Kanada Dry, I agree. If the PM PM goes for a Spring election - and all indications are that he will - then we may indeed watch a meltdown of tremendous proportions. (Major caveat! My political predictions are usually bad. Example? I was certain Gore would win.) First, when Ontario voters realize that the Liberals no longer represent French Quebec, many will choose something else. The West will not vote Liberal. The Maritimes will accept Harper and vote traditionally. Second, Martin is too emphatic, too "very, very important", too peripatetic for Canadians. Third, ordinary, English-Canadians will not discover that they like Harper in this campaign (they are too edgy about him for that) but they will think that he can represent them. This will be an interesting election. Hard to predict.

Sorry please explain further. Threat of seperatism, or the ever-popular terrorism? Not sure what threat you are refering to. Are you arguing our democratic process is flawed in Canada because of a "wierd threat"? I haven't come across Chomsky's argument for that yet. What is it? Oh my. I meant this all as a little joke, but your last query "I haven't come across Chomsky's argument for that yet. What is it?" shows that my joke was too frighteningly close to the truth. I don't want to change the subject but please bear with me. Like families, countries sometimes become dysfunctional. Lebanon was like this, Sri Lanka is like this. Israelis and Palestinians are the Hatfields and the McCoys. We in Canada are also a dysfunctional country. (If you don't believe me, why have all our recent federal leaders come from Quebec?) Our saving grace is that, excepting events in the 1960s or so, there has been no violence. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Canadian history understands that it would be absurd to blame our predicament on the US. The same story applies for other dysfunctional situations in the world. Chomsky, because he's anti-American, finds ways to do precisely that - blame the US for the "dysfunctional" behaviour of others. Now, imagine a French journalist writes sophisticated articles - against his own government - explaining how Chirac and the French governmment were meddling in Canada and this explains really why those Quebecers always complain. Would that French journalist be popular in English-Canada? As an English-Canadian, how would you feel? Innocent! Now you understand Chomsky's schtick.

Your description makes about as much sense as saying George W. Bush is against the monarchy because he's a Republican. I'll ignore Ducasse and talk of Dumont and Lapierre. Dumont was head of the youth wing of the provincial Liberals when Meech Lake hit. Meech Lake was the result of Trudeau's 1982 patriation of the Constitution which itself was the result of the 1980 referendum in which Trudeau said a No vote is a Yes vote for change. (Note that the federal Liberals have not won a majority in Quebec since Trudeau in 1980.) A young Dumont teamed up with Jean Allaire and prepared an insane report, an advisory to Bourassa, then premier, that would have amounted to Quebec "independance" - while keeping equalization payments, passports, money and so on. When Bourassa tossed this out, Dumont left and created the ADQ. Then Dumont, still young and impressionable, got the "right-wing religion" and the ADQ has generally been unsuccessful in general elections since. He avoids questions about independance by saying that's "so old style". Lapierre is Quebec's Brian Tobin. Political up to his eyeballs. He quit the Liberals because of 1) Meech Lake and 2) Chretien. He founded the BQ but God knows if he has a position on anything really. The BQ? It's basically the Quebec remnants of Brian Mulroney's coalition and anyone else dissatisfied by the failure of Meech Lake. In elections, it benefits from the separatist vote - they can now vote federally with a clear conscience. The choices of coherent individuals does not necessarily add up to coherent actions of a society. Too many posters to this forum ignore this obvious fact of social science. Quebec, the US and Canada provide good evidence of this maxim.

I've got an idea. Let the government pay farmers completely through subsidies and then we can give away the food for free! Canada is a country of subsidies. We love 'em! That's why the Liberals will get re-elected. Everybody claims to be important. Everybody has a reason to put their head in the trough first. Tell me though: Why am I forced to buy expensive Canadian food and I cannot buy cheaper imported food?

In the Canadian political calendar, 21 June is in Spring. Trudeau enjoyed Spring Trudeaumania and then won a Spring majority on 25 June. Our PM PM wants the same. He can taste it. Late Spring election, scandal nonsense over, meeting with Bush. Voters in Ontario and Quebec will realize Martin and the Liberals are the right choice. No problem. Hey, the overall poll numbers are there. Stay with the plan. Look confident. Our guy has it. This is no time to hesitate. WTF?

BD: You're right, BD. We shouldn't turn away from these actions. Instead, we should turn away from more atrocious actions in Yugoslavia or Nigeria or on Canadian native reserves (about which we could do something) because, the Middle East, well you know, "It's the Holy Land!" And some young guy sniffing gasoline is just not the same as some young chick with C4 moulded to her body. BD, it's sad to say, but we can't do everything. We have to choose. What do you advise? PlayFullGuy: Hitler and Stalin were genuine threats. Maybe Saddam and Ossama were threats (thank God one is accounted for). According to BD, "Arafat and the PA control squat." IOW, Arafat is no threat. All hell break loose? Hell, it already has. Palestinian: "We will push them into the sea." Israeli: "If someone tries to take my land, I will kill him." These guys have a very serious contested divorce, labour relations dispute, hostile takeover to negotiate. Furthermore, they are all Semites! Do you know how long these palavers can go on for? (Do you know how much fun they'd be to watch if they renounced murder? These Semites - Lebanese, Jews, Palestinians - these original Mediterraneans - they understand Life itself! I think it has to do with the mild winter and the long spring.) Well, frankly, thank God the Buddhists, Hindus and Confucians of the world form a wise majority who know better than to get involved. (They also see Jerusalem as another point on the map - no more relevant than Quito.)

Obvious, in any market, the key info is to know what your competitors are doing. Don't go looking here, OIC, for some nefarious US government conspiracy. The US federal government provides more data through the internet than any other government I know of. (Even you referred to NSC minutes available.) Why? I see no conspiracy at all. Rather 1) I suspect because Americans at present are more comfortable with the Internet than anyone else and 2) A server with data is a fixed cost spread out across millions of rich taxpayers. Conclusion? The Americans benefit because they know more about their world. BTW, the Canadian government sells data - unless you belong to an instititution with an agreement.