August1991

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.

No, you are seeing a Liberal Party that is so desperate to keep POWER, a leader that so desperately wants to protect EGO, that both leader and party are willing to destroy their country. "Breaking the rules?"

What spin! The Ibbitson column is here: G & M Ibbitson Guite Mulroney connection This young Mr. Harper should tread carefully. Trudeau and Mulroney cannot write polemical articles to counter this spin. Is there an ex-Federal Quebec Tory Cabinet member willing to lend a hand and explain that Quebec politics are more honest, heart-felt, transparent and examined than politics anywhere else in North America? In Quebec, politics matter. René Lévesque raised the benchmark. IME, Quebecers respect elections and referenda. (Gore talked of chads, and then Bush won in the Supreme Court. But separatists in Quebec accepted without quibble their much more devastating loss by some 20,000 votes out of several million cast.) No people care more about how their State should be involved in determining what their society is than people in Quebec. Bottom-line? To use a name like Guité, connect it to a name like Mulroney, and somehow imply these names come from Quebec, sorry, this is not nation-building. It is pure nonsense. There is only one place to put such connections, and assertions.

I meant Paul, not Don. Who the hell is Don Martin? Didn't he draw cartoons for Mad magazine?

Whaddya predict? I predict Spring. And 21 June to be precise. Why? Well, PM PM wants to meet Dubya in April. Photo Op, our guy, their guy, mouse, elephant. PM PM knows that he can turn this one right - that's why he's doing it. He wants it, bad. BTW, the election occurs 36 days after the Governor-in-Council decides to hold an election - "drops the writ" - as we Canadians alone say. (Governor-in-Council? That's the Cabinet ordering the Governor-General what to do. Huh? That's PM PM deciding - after a walk in the snow, or after a walk under The Big-Sky-Country, Albertan Sun - as Martin will probably say in the press conference.) PS. I assume the writ must drop before Broadbent's by-election at the end of November 2004 - but the Constitution allows to 2005. PPS. "Riding" is another solely Canadian, parliamentary term.

I haven't followed this thread at all but the news in Quebec concerns a union vote at a Wal-Mart in Jonquière. The results will be known in a few days. If successful, it would be the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. (The World?) Management threatened that it would shut the store if the vote is pro-union. Here`s my question: Should employees of a Wal-Mart have the right to unionize and enforce all employees to belong to the union?

I'll quote you wholly, Hugo - because I in part thought as you after my post. 1) Religion and the State (and Markets, and the Family, corporations and business, friendship, gangs, neighbours, unions...) all involve different ways to organize our relations as individuals. Their differences are interesting. As organizations go, the State strikes me on occasion as something like the Mafia. Religion strikes me as the State - with the ability to establish relationships for eternity. If people believe that this is for all time, they might do terrible deeds. That's why I was inclined to believe Religion is worse than Politics. But my main point was that whatever the "institution", one should never ignore how individuals create, use and alter the "institution". 2) Cells, entity, human body, conciousness, Gaia. The only conciousness that I am aware of is me. I understand that my body uses many independent cells that live symbiotically to support a brain that gives me conciousness. Without some of those cells, I would cease to have conciousness - or would I? Now, does the earth have conciousness? I dunno. Is the State an entity with a special life of its own? Listen, the Nazi regime, and the Soviet Union, were not an entity or any kind of special life. A bunch of mafia thugs frightened other people and ran an extortion racket. Politburo? Imagine the Hell's got control of a country.

Modern Centrist: So you are smart and everyone else is (of course) stupid because they "blatantly accept what they see." You seem to have just given yourself a compliment, compared to others. I tend not to accept such PR.

Of course you don't but that's not the point of the advertising either.A TV advertising campaign requires alot of money. To have the money, the advertiser must be a successful business with lots of profits. That must mean their product is good because many people buy it. IOW, only successful firms with good products have the money to advertise. And you know what? It's true! People are wise to choose products or services according to which is advertised the most. (Incidentally, are you American? In Canada, we say "pop".)

And that explains perfectly why the fund was used for Toronto's TTC and Montreal's Metro. Rather, PM PM knows how to receive a "gift" from Paul Desmarais.Desmarais, like Robert Campeau, made his first million, the hardest, through government contacts. Neither were ever interested in "public power". PM PM, on the other hand, was only ever interested in the "big ideas" of public governance; that is, politics. PM PM at CSL is like Nixon at Mudge, Stern et al. (BTW, anyone know Maurice Strong? Another Desmarais protege and Martin's alter ego...)

I think Martin's lost it. (His mind, not his belief in victory.) He'll delay and then go for 21 June, the latest Spring date. (The 68 election was 25 June.) Two factors: 1) Polls and 2) Guite's testimony. I think Liberal insiders can convince themselves (as you did MapleSyrup) that the polls are in fact good. Tories way down, Liberals almost at 2000 polls and results. Do you think this Public Accounts Committee matters?

Who grants legitimacy? Have you never thought that these famous confessions might have been self-serving? WTF? Then how does it seem to them? Is this discussion about perception only? In reality, who gives out the orders?The State is a contrivance of individuals - any discussion must make explicit the motivations of the individuals. It seems strange (anthropomorphic?) to view the State as an "entity" - and then view this entity as behaving in some predictable way, removed from individuals. Churchill described India as a geographic term, like the equator. I would do the same for the State.

That's wrong. But you have to understand in what way you are swayed. When you see someone driving a BMW, or wearing a Rolex watch, or using a platinum American Express - or when you see a framed Harvard diploma on the wall, what do you think? IMV, that's advertising. I'm in complete agreement with you.

You don't know English Canada. Bland works. When was the last time Canada had a charismatic leader? Trudeau? Diefenbaker? What happened? Now, think Davis, King, Romanow. Now think stats: Ipsos-Reid 26 March 2004 38 Lib 27 CPC 15 NDP 10 Bloc 5 Green 4 Other 2000 Election Results 41 Lib 38 (CA 26/PC 12) 11 Bloc 9 NDP 2 Other Ipsos-Reid 3 Nov 2000 42 Lib 37 (CA 29/PC 8) 9 NDP 10 Bloc 2 Other Interesting? I certainly get your point, MapleSyrup. But Canadian Federal elections are all in the regional breakdown.