August1991

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.

The last thing I would like to do is get into a discussion about the arcane details of Marxism. ("Is the world flat like a pancake or flat like a floor tile?") But, here goes (briefly). I don't think Karl Marx advocated mass murder. It seems to me there was something about the expropriated expropriating the expropriators. (You can correct me if I'm wrong.) Expropriating and murder are not the same thing. God knows what Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung or Kim Il Sung did later with Marx's theories. My point is this: I disagree with the idea that Marxism is evil because it killed people, or that the State is bad because it has killed so many people. Why do I disagree? Because it somehow absolves the individuals who did the killing. In Rwanda, 10,000 people were killed every day for three months. The State didn't do it, nor Religion, nor Marxism. People did it. The same was true of Nazi Germany. And Stalinist Russia. To say Marxism or the State kills people denies the more important question of how is it that individuals could be led to commit such evil? Are there so many psychopaths among us? Are they only held in check by the fear of prison or worse?

I gather you have absolutely no experience with a society - or a job - where you cannot say out loud to others what you truly think. (Academy Award show is not the point at all.) What do I mean? Well, imagine you discovered that "someone in authority" was observing your posts here. Do you realize the consequences this would have on your mental peace?

How many people will read our posts? 5, 10? How many are watching TV in Canada as we write? Several million? But my main point is different and it seems to have been missed in your reply. My only knowledge of the people who post here is through this forum. I suspect they are ordinary people one might see in a shopping mall. I notice extended debates in which it is rare that people genuinely change their mind except if the argument is truly compelling. In ordinary life, for things that matter, it is extremely hard to make other people do things they don't want to do. So why do people forget this obvious fact about human behaviour when TV, advertising and modern media is discussed? How is electronic mass media different? Does it "hypnotize" us? Sorry, people are not fools about things that truly matter to them.

Evil? I think Marxist theory is just wrong. It's like the theory that the earth is flat. Now, can you blame the theory for murder? Isn't that like blaming the Beatles for the murders committed by Charles Manson?

You make a good point. There is MacLuhan and then the interpretation of MacLuhan. I generally found MacLuhan to be flakey. Too imprecise: one interpret his words in many ways. But I agree he was an intellectually curious person. The State as we know it started under Bismarck at the end of the 19th century. It really grew under the impetus of Keynes. It may well have miles to go yet - the collapse of the Soviet Union was an extreme case, but a harbinger in my view.

I think Internet Forum Posts increasingly use emotionally manipulative playlets to make a point, rather than rational arguments. Also, a Forum Post provides inadequate opportunity for retort, and is only available to groups with access to the Internet. Hardner, many participants here are upset that Greg exercises ANY censuring. A forum is one thing; the real world another. Who should decide what is acceptable? The US Constitution's First Amendment is one of the most beautiful and important sentences ever written in any language at any time. It is a direct result of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. We non-Americans should appreciate so much that the world's only superpower has such an Amendment - and the means to ensure that it's not mere verbiage. At the Academy Awards, when Michael Moore told George Bush Jnr to take a hike, he was doing what all Americans consider to be perfectly normal. Thank God that we have such people as neighbours. Russian society never really went through the Enlightenment. Many Russians, like many others around the world, are struggling to discover all this now. Their meanderings may be interesting to watch but are hardly a model for anything.

All the credit goes to Paul Martin as finance minister in my view. Not too difficult with about 8 years of solid US GDP growth under Clinton (and the computer productivity boost) meant growing tax revenues. Low interest rates meant low interest charges. This was not difficult compared to the 1980s. The problem is that government spending is still far too high. And Hjalmer, you should know that it makes absolutely no difference whether the government borrows or taxes. What matters is what portion of GDP the government takes. In Canada, this is still too high.

I have been wondering the same thing for some time now. Do you think he's going maybe, uh, senile? Like some sort of third-world nutcase, his advisors are afraid to tell him that he's nuts, and anyway, they have too much invested in him. I barely know Dosanji - but what little I know is not good.

If you want to see these spots (in English & French), here's the link: Liberal Spots and click on Windows Media.

Thanks MapleSyrup for the link below. Chantal Hebert has always struck me as a Judy Lamarche type "Quebec" journalist; that is, she has an English Canada following. I prefer Outremont Lysiane Gagnon - or better, Pierre Foglia. (He drives me nuts, in fact, but that's the point of a good columnist, no?) Chantal Hebert's article describes so well what I think has happened to the Liberal Party: Toronto Star Hebert The CBC made a made-for-TV movie about Trudeau which I saw on DVD. Included was a documentary about Trudeau's leadership victory in 1968 with "live" close-ups of PM PM's Dad realizing that he was LOSING to Trudeau. (Paul Martin Senior was Minister of External Affairs at the time.) Paul Martin Junior is doing the same thing as his Dad - but in slow motion. To assuage Paul Martin Junior's ego, someone should explain to him that this is Greek theatre at its best. Canadian scandals? The first was the "Pacific Scandal". The next was the "Customs Scandal". Now, it's the "Sponsorship Scandal". Gawd, even our scandals are boring - no sex, no bathos and no intricacies.

Black Dog, I am really irritated by that quote of yours. It has been bothering me for some time now. First, who says the West has won? Only a smug, presumptious Westerner who has short-term memory - someone like Huntington or you - would believe the West has won. Let's wait and see who truly wins. Second, organized violence versus ideas. Non-Western people have no fear of American violence (remember Vietnam?). Their fear is different. They want to protect what they have. But you BD, you are a typical westerner, missionary variant, who seems to want to open people's minds, show them the truth. Well, BD, non-Westerners want to maintain their own truth, their own culture, their own traditions. They do not want people such as you, BD, presenting arguments. To non-Westerners, the threat of the West is not violence - it is satellite dishes, free arguments, new ideas, easy travel, advertising, free thought, the Internet - all the things you use and enjoy. BD, you have a good argument to make. But please change your signature quote. It simply advertises you as another foolish western missionary.