August1991

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.

It's a bail out, a vote buy. Martin is bribing a few voters with many other voters' money.Everyone is up in arms because $100 million was given to Quebec ad firms. But it's OK to give 10x that to Western ranchers. (I'm sorry, I forgot. Those Quebecers always have their heads in the trough while Western ranchers have had to make do on their own. Fair is fair - we should let everyone get a chance to pig out at the trough.) I think barbers, video rental store clerks, bus drivers and BC winemakers play a very big part in our economy. Do they get handouts? What's your point?

Listen Galahad, I gotta defend myself. There are no summer or winter elections in Canada - unless a minority government falls and "precipitates" an election. Spring and fall. That's it. The conventional, Keith Davey, Rainmaker wisdom is that spring is better for incumbents in Canada. Flowers, sunshine, no slush, no black flies... (BTW, I heard Harper talking about fixed election dates and I thought, this guy doesn't get how parliament works. There are several centuries of experience -plus minority government issues- arguing against fixed dates.) Now out of respect for you Sir Galahad, I'll quote here your cut-to the-chase post from elsewhere:

Sorry, I don't get the connection to the thread.But to answer your question, the two slept together almost 35 years ago. Then, almost 30 years ago, a Toronto Star reporter tracked Gerda down and the Liberals dredged it up. The ladies man Sevigny (or is that lady's man? - what a quaint expression anyway) just died (I couldn't get a parking spot that morning because of the funeral.) CBC did a Munich apartment interview with Munsinger before she died several years ago. I wonder if the two had good sex at least? Or if they ever spoke afterwards? Sic tempus fugit. BTW, the funeral was impressive - or at least the attendees needed a lot of parking spaces.

The prof is right but Martin has layed a minefield. What politician is going to say this Liberal vote-buy is wrong? The Western ranchers will say "Hey, everyone else gets a turn at the trough. Now, it's our turn." Will Harper say that it's alright to take Torontonian taxpayer money and give it to Western ranchers but not Maritime fishermen? It's wrong to encourage a culture of defeat but alright to help people survive disaster? The rancher pay-off is a political minefield. As to housing, our tax system includes an indirect (and large) bias in favour of homeowners. It amounts to a subsidy to homeowners not available to renters. The only way to correct the bias and make the subsidy equal would be to allow renters to deduct all rental payments from their taxable income. (That's what homeowners implicitly get now. Renters pay with after tax dollars.) Although it would be very good for the economy, I doubt Martin or Harper would ever propose such a tax policy Why? I suspect most Canadian voters think homeowners are "better people" than renters. Most voters, even leftish ones, would see this as a tax break for, in American speak, trailer trash. Even Layton wouldn't propose it.

Sorry for the long quote, OIC, but it seems to me that you view the State as some sort of referee of a hockey game - and laws as the necessary rules of the game. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truly relevant portions of our lives exist quite outside the State, and the rules we use have nothing to do with the rules of a game. It is gravely mistaken to imagine laws as sports rules necessary because people tend to cheat. When two people marry, or someone signs an employment contract, heck when someone buys a chocolate bar, a whole series of rules are voluntarily accepted because without these rules, there would be no marriages nor jobs nor chocolate bars. The basic rule is that you arrive at the table with something to offer and you have a reasonable degree of confidence that you'll get something in return. It is in the interest of everyone to respect this basic rule.

My point was the following: the US does not need nor care for the outside world. I gave the trade stats to show this in an economic sense. The US is a democracy and its governments reflect the will of Americans who, for the most part, know little and care less about the outside world. There is a strong thread of isolationism in the US and in general, the US government can only get domestic support if there is a clearly perceived threat. Domestic issues decide American elections, not foreign issues. Moreover, non-Americans see the US president and believe he decides. The US political system doesn't work that way. IOW, the US government does not meddle abroad for fun and profit. Frankly, I tend to think the US government is generally inconsistent abroad because it matters so little. There was consensus - more or less - to stand up to the Communists. (This was a good fight and the US was successful.) Look, we in Canada have suffered for the past several decades because of the so-called "National Question". Some Canadians think this is all a bluff but Canada nevertheless exists under a weird threat. As a result, our federal leaders tend to come from Quebec and our federal governments are skewed in strange ways. This situation is entirely our own doing. It would be absurd to blame the US for the situation in which we Canadians find ourselves. Yet people like Chomsky invent a dastardly link and then blame the US for separatism in Quebec. Underneath it, Chomsky's view says much more about his opinion of the US (government and country) than anything else.

Has anyone heard Harper refer to himself as a "Tory"?

After their successful takeover of the British Labour Party and the Australian Conservatives, the Republicans are now aiming for much bigger Canadian game. Those American Republicans want a beaver head on the wall, and they're going to get it.

Sorry, I don't get your point. I can't speak for KK but I have nothing against Russia or Russians. I have alot against Sovietism, communism and what have you.Let me be specific. I can understand perfectly why the US government conducted a Cold War against this regime and eventually won - we should all breathe a deep sigh of relief that communism has would up on the dust heap of history. I have absolutely no disagreement with Chomsky's right to publish nonsense using big words and to give ponderous interviews that imply a deep analytical truth. Indeed, he seems to have a successful franchise going here, and I'm sure he's made a deep analysis of that too.I just disagree with him. Why? Well, I came to the conclusion that the sky is blue (not green) and water is wet (not dry). You know the old line: A conservative is a liberal who was a victim of a mugging. To say the victim is guilty because he made the criminal do it is akin to saying the sky is green. Some Statistics In 2001, combined US and Canadian GDP was about 9.7 trillion US $. Our exports outside of North America were about 0.6 trillion US $ and our imports from outside North America about 1 trillion US $. In other words, our standard of living relies primarily on what we do here - not foreign trade. The outside world could disappear and the US (and Canada) would still be well off. So, why does the US meddle in foreign affairs? For the fun of it?

What an individual will do in public facing a hypothetical dilemma has virtually no bearing on what the same individual will do in private when faced with a real choice directly concerning their welfare. In the hypothetical classroom setting, I suspect a person will do whatever the teacher would like the person to do - or whatever would look cool to the other students. Nevertheless, I get your point Willy. You imply people seem to decide on behalf of the organization. Well, first I suppose you mean that people decide according to their personal interpretation of the organization's interests. But second, we are a social species - that is, we instinctively understand the benefit of cooperation. Organizations help us to cooperate by providing us with a "reputation". Now, what reputation furthers best one's interests? These are just some of my thoughts. A great fallacy of all system designers is to pretend there is something called "organization" that has a life of its own - independent of the individuals who comprise the system. Most measures designed to fix Canada's health system are examples of this fallacy.

I don't think KK meant that he hated Russians as such, but rather the he thought the Soviets were "totalitarian bastards" and to be kept as far away as possible.We in the "West" have created societies where individuals are free to question authority. This is not the case elsewhere. IMV, Chomsky uses his Western freedoms to criticise the West and to defend the kinds of societies where someone like Chomsky would probably be put in a concentration camp. Moreover, I find he does this in long-winded vebiage with big words. But I must admit he's found a profitable niche market. Lastly, I suspect many copies of his books are bought but never read.

Call the State an "entity" or an "institution" if you want, but never forget that individuals decide. Canada does not trade with the United States. Individual Canadians trade with individual Americans using sophisticated entites and relations.