August1991

1. Why no debate? Well, why should there be one now? I have no doubt there will be a debate with four leaders during the election campaign. There is no need for one now. (I suspect that Layton thinks all exposure is good exposure.) 2. Why is Harper going after Layton and not Martin? Is he? I didn't notice. In the House, Harper's questions seemd addressed to Martin and the Liberals. Harper's main criticsm of the NDP, it seems to me, is that a vote for the NDP is tantamount to a vote for the Liberals. I'm not so certain that's true - but I get the argument. Why is the NDP always the little brother who wants to be taken seriously? If the NDP grew up, maybe it wouldn't always be an "also ran".

BTW, MapleSyrup, you'll be happy to know that callers from Chicoutimi and Victoriaville said they'd vote for Layton - even though it may mean "losing their vote". "He grew up in Montreal", one said. "He understands us."

I suppose there is a difference bewteen capital and technology; and capital includes both human and physical. But organization and management would still fall into the category of technology. What is good technology but an easier way to make widget? And what is trade but the same thing? Call the State an institution if you will but it amounts to technology.

I don't care what the polls say; the Liberals are done for. I just listened to a French phone-in show and the depth of anger/frustration goes beyond anything I've ever seen before. (As opposed to people who answer polls, callers follow politics between elections. Once the election is called, the others will either not vote or come around to the same opinion as the callers.) People will vote for anyone other than Liberals, BQ, Tory, NDP, strategic voting to ensure the Liberal loses. Other than the sponsorship scandal (no longer a scandal; now it's a "dossier"), people cited other scandals and then the "frog bashing" that Martin has gotten into. Many people noted that the BQ was responsible for exposing the sponsorship "dossier". In all this, I suspect voters in Quebec are no different from voters elsewhere. When all Canadians agree on something, there's something in the wind.

I believe that one bomb killed about 200,000 people in Hiroshima and another bomb killed about 90,000 people in Nagasaki. Machine guns no doubt killed many more. My point? Humans have developed different technologies, including such organizations as religion and the State. Some of these "technologies" are used to kill people - but they are also used to protect property and much else. Which are the "technologies" that encourage murder most? (Is it really the State?) And what could we do about it? What's the old line? "The State doesn't kill people. People kill people."

His name is Nima Mizhari, a self-taught artist and writer, living in Montreal's Plateau district. He received a GG award (!). Do you know what summer sports people say about winter sports people? (Think of school and guess...)

Jack = John? Eh? Or, has everyone suddenly "taken off"?

Chomsky: Windbag. Moore: Pamphleteer.

Or rather, I found your prediction interesting, MapleSyrup. It's an almost certainty now that the CPC will go up in the polls.

There's another poll due tonight as well - CROP La Presse.

I find astonishing that Ontario and Atlantic Canada have virtually the same opinion. Half of voters will vote Liberal. In the Maritimes, I can understand this. But in Ontario, the only explanations I can think of is that 1) many voters are answering by rote or 2) many voters feel they have no alternative. I simply cannot believe that anyone in Ontario is voting Liberal with genuine enthusiasm.

All good points, Willy. That Public Accounts Committee has turned into farce, or is being portrayed as a Tory witchhunt or something. That's a very common perception in southern Ontario where people are busy getting on with life, paying mortgages. These people will pay attention when the election is called. Harris would argue that these people will vote Tory if the message is presented properly. But I don't if they'll accept Harper.

Those provincial breakdowns are almost meaningless. The margin of error is +/- 10% in the West.

All of the evidence says there will be a spring election, but it doesn't add up. Why would the Liberals call an election now in the middle of a scandal, when half the population doesn't want them and they're at 38% in the polls (ie. minority gov't)? Why not wait until the fall? In the summer, people forget politics and they'll forget this scandal. Chretien? Wasn't he a PM before? Gagliano? How do you pronounce that? [And I don't believe the Liberals are afraid of what new developments will come out. They know they can manage this.] But all the evidence is there that we'll have a vote in early June. Why? I suspect that Martin's ego wants it and that it's impossible to advise him otherwise. Martin thinks he really can do politics differently. The budget must have been conceived that way. Weird.

I noticed the same thing too, Willy. The key here is how Ontario votes - many Ontario voters, particularly younger ones, don't pay much attention to politics. Many perceive the Liberals as the natural governing party and answer such in a poll. In an election campaign, the situation is different. A lot will turn too on how Ontario voters perceive Harper. I suspect he is still seen by many as a fringe candidate. With that said, the facts are there. I thought the CPC would get a post-convention bounce.

Press release here: Ipsos Reid CTV G&M It was conducted 23 to 25 March, with 1000 sample size.

I got the same impression, MapleSyrup, when I heard Martin today. I suspect the internal polls on the budget reaction were good. Politicians of Martin's generation are envious of Trudeau's natural success in 1968. The lone guy who strides in and wins it. Chosen leader in April, elected in June. In another thread, there was a discussion of whether politicians are "strategic" or "reformers" or some such. IME, they are ambitious - and that's it. And most have extremely narrow interests - politics. No one gets there unless there is an all consuming desire to be the centre of attention. Conclusion? Martin wants a spring election, bad. And I have a sneaking suspicion that as soon as he calls it, he'll realize he's made a very bad decision.

BD, what do you mean when you say that? You may want to see this recent decision: Supreme Court Decision

This forum is a small society of about 10 posters. Maybe a democracy. Your posts raise controversy. We take a vote about whether to torch your house because of the nonsense you write. Torch your house? You obviously vote against, I abstain (your posts seem decent) but there are 8 votes in favour. Your house goes up in flames. You are in shock, I'm appalled. Why? Democracy means one person, one vote. But your house means much, much more to you than it does to the eight yahoos. For the eight, a torched house is a joke. For you, it's life. Shouldn't relative feelings be taken into account? Democratic government is a market where people can only vote "yes or no", there's no relative "maybe". Corporations, even big dominant ones, deal in markets where people can vote maybe by degree. Which is better? MH: This is not an argument. Am I wrong? I genuinely want to know what you think. I'm not trying to "win" this debate.

Balanced budget? Irrelevant. Think. Paul Martin has both a copy of your Visa card and your cheque book. (Afraid of the Internet? Paul Martin is the Canadian Government, and he's got both.) Now, does it matter whether Paul Martin uses your cheque book or your credit card to buy something? If he uses your Visa, you'll wisely pay the bill at the end of the month. (Martin's charges, you can't dispute.) So, what's the difference? None. IOW, when Paul Martin says he paid the national debt, should you be impressed? (He used your cheque book to pay your credit card bill and because of his finesse, he wants you to vote for him?) I'll listen to a PM when he says: "I'm not using your credit card nor your cheque book to buy anything."

What? Bow down to no one. Serious. Laughter, sorry, I'm off my chair...

Large, modern corporations, a law unto themselves because they dominate a market, are completely different from Mom-and-Pop stores, or "enterprise" as Adam Smith imagined it. Hence. Legitimate, democratic government, representative of the population, must intervene to ensure that these large, modern, profit-seeking corporations do not ignore the public interest. Do I understand you well, MH?

Take a break! All in good fun. I don't know you, you don't know me. If you can't laugh at life, yourself, in an anonymous setting -then, what's the point?

Relax? I didn't get you on the "overly". Hey, why not "very overly"? Kinda adds emphasis, no? Much, much better. Very overly awesome better. Is that rad, or what? 7-80? Relax.

Wrote an article? Let me edit - haphazardly - for fun. Tony Clement had a reputation as a know-it-all nerd, lacking in charisma. when used more than, oh, say, once, the phrase sticks out like Tony Clement in a group of cool people Assholish? I'll stop here. WTF? Assholish? Sorry, that's uglier than "the fact of the matter", "at that point in time", "irregardless" folded together in a mixed metaphor of a "spring roll knocked out of the park". Good point though, about Clement. Kennedy banished kitsch from his speeches. Trudeau made fun of drafted speeches. But, well, like, you know. Gotta live with it.