August1991

No, he just sounds like a loud Torontonian. The ploy works well with the Toronto Star. But, it doesn't work in Canada. Layton just sounds like, well, someone from Toronto.

I disagree strongly with what you say, FallingLeaf, but I believe fervently in your right to say what you say, including quoting others! I prefer the Dutch solution. If an act is legal, this does not mean the act is moral (morally good). The law is about what is practicable. Abortion may be morally bad, but it is impossible to forbid. Any attempt to make abortion illegal will just lead to back street abortions and more death. The Dutch are right. What is the better good? What is feasible in practice? Marijuana may be bad but it's impossible to forbid it. Be practical. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Galahad: What is "narrowed"? What is "liberal"? What is "majority"? Add it up. IMV, Quebecers have decided. Martin will jump around, get frenetic, raise his voice, but Quebecers have decided. (BTW, Jean Lapierre is smart, and safe. He'll get in in Outremont. Martin too in LaSalle.) The West - more or less decided. The Maritimes - same. So, the toss up is Ontario. And Harper is right. Voters in Ontario prefer Liberals, are suspicious about Harper but will not examine the question until they have to. When they look at the question, what'll happen? Galahad, you big picture guy, got any numbers on the back of the envelope? Wanna share them with us ? (These numbers have to add up to 106.)

Consider the more likely scenario (threat) of a Martin minority relying on Layton votes for a year or two. Liberals get humbled, and NDP gets the Commons vote, and then we go back Liberal.

If Harper wins an election, and becomes PM, he'll have to have at least 60 or so MPs from Ontario. What will his Cabinet look like? He'll have to name social liberals to key positions. I think Stronach would love a government Challenger, and government customs clearance - better than Bill Gates! Does she speak German? External is obvious for her. Clement? He'd be good at Finance. Should Harper announce this in advance? (Trudeau gave all the main posts to non-Quebec MPs in his first cabinet. Benson, Sharp. Turner from Mtl was at Justice.)

Now, MapleSyrup, you're trying to get your marshmallow out of the fire fast! Stronach has nothing to do with it. I suspect Layton is either badly advised, or more likely, as a typical Torontonian, he can't help but be all the white keys on the piano.

I heard something similar from a saxophonist. He said, "Since I started playing, I've never really been lonely." In fact, he was a very lonely man and I knew it. But I understood what he meant too. This I find intriguing. Do people create Art because of a desire to communicate? But that's politics! I once asked a visual artist to whom he was directing his work and he answered me, "That's a good question. I don't really know. It seems to me that some people understand what I'm doing." Huh? The analyst weighs in. Except, admirably, the analyst doesn't analyze! Artists do Art for myriad reasons. Mr. Analyst (Hugo): Are their motivations, uh, random? Pellaken will probably not read this. But the quote is good. There's gotta be some "payback". What exactly? Or, do Artists simply have this "thing" inside themselves that has to come out? [Mozart apparently did it for his Dad. Paul McCartney said he did it for the chicks. Mordecai Richler said he never did it unless there was dough.]

When Jack Layton pulls stunts like that, he just comes across as a fast talking Torontonian. That does not go over in the rest of the country. In rural Ontario, Toronto is hogtown. In the West, Toronto is snob. And in the East, Toronto is big-city cold. In Quebec, Toronto is la Ville-Reine (!!!).

There are some 20 million or so English Canadians. I would be surprised, no stupified, to discover they were all stupid. "And your proposal was?" Federal parties must deal first with the linguistic, national, regional nature of the country. Then, they can consider political ideology. Dennis, judging by your posts, am I wrong in assuming that you sometimes (often?) believe the CBC is silly?

I read the G&M editorial which endorses Harper by default. Kinsella? I'll take it at face value that he didn't like the way his words were being used. (Sorry, I don't know Kinsella well - can someone inform me?) But I think you're right Goldie. Ultimately, Ontario voters are uncomfortable with Harper and I think it's because he's a Westerner. (In Quebec, the question is moot and in the Maritimes voting is traditional.) I saw the "firewall" quote and the "culture of defeat" quote. In both cases, I saw nothing wrong. They were comments along the lines of "Why should I sell your wheat?" (Don't get me wrong: Harper is no Trudeau.) IMV, Harper was right to say what he said. I think Ontario voters are looking for an alternative to the Liberals. They don't know Harper at all but are afraid he's a born-again American. If he gets the leadership, it will be his election to win. He'll have to campaign and present his true colours. What are they, really? Ontario voters may well be ready to accept an honest English speaking voice from the West. But they'll have to feel "sort of" comfortable with the guy. One thing to consider if Harper makes PM, the Tory caucus will come mostly from Ontario. Stronach, Clement may will be in the Cabinet. I think Ontario voters will clue into that fact.

My mother would be upset to learn that I had been accused of "English-bashing". If I recall, Dennis, you suggested that, to form a government, the NDP would have to supplant the Liberal Party - as Labour did in the UK - and then Canada would have a proper left/right split. I answered by saying that was impossible because Canada is NOT divided on ideological but rather linguistic and nationalistic grounds. I then offered the observation that Canadians share many of the same viewpoints as American Catholics. These are features of the Canadian political landscape that English Canadians too often ignore. I think these points are extremely relevant in discussing the NDP. Now, does this constitute English-bashing? If you believe so, then I apologize. No offense was intended.

Underneath it BD, I think you have a simple self-loathing. You don't like the West, Western Civilization, Western Capitalism, Big Corporations, Profit Obsession, Western Economics. According to you, everything wrong in the world is caused by this thing called the "Western Way of Life", and in particular its North American variant. BD, can you name one thing that is good about Western Civilization?

That's how the French press looks at it. Chretien=Duplessis and Martin=Sauve. That is, after Duplessis died, Sauve became the UN leader (and PM of Quebec) and said he was going to clean up this atrocious mess, and "from now on" things would be different. Martin is trying to present himself the same way. (BTW, Sauve died before he faced an election. The Liberals and Lesage tossed out the UN in 1960.)

Me? Smart? Listen, I meant that American Catholics (20% of Americans, Michael Moore et al) vote Democrat. In Canada, we are about 50% Catholic and we tend to take the same view as American Catholics. But more, Canada is fundamentally divided by language (and nationality). Until this "schism" gets sorted out, we won't have ideological parties. For this reason, Canadian politics are not like American politics. Maybe I'm wrong but these facts seem obvious to me. Few in English Canada seem willing to admit to them.

Outdated to you maybe, but a consequence of presidential, one-guy wins democracy. To win, a party (candidate) needs 50% plus one more vote. Both candidates search the middle voter but from different directions. Both candidates wind up sounding pretty similar in the end. Compare this to Russia and Canada. Or how about Israel? The US looks "democratic" to me. Why? Well, in the US, if they don't like the bugger, he (she) is easy to toss out. That's true democracy. (Compare this to Canada, Israel, Russia. Coalitions, ridings, blah-blah.) What about Nader? US third parties? Well, they'll be left in the dust. A protest vote, maybe, to send a message, but they ain't gonna win and change things for four years. They'll influence nothing. (Think of Gore.) Bottom line? Democracy is all about - it's only about - getting rid of the sucker in a civilized way. (Think Nixon, Brezhnev, Bush Snr/Jnr, Saddam, or the Liberals.) Who said, "For God's Sake Go!"? Why?

Pope like Canada? Have you ever met an American Catholic? They love us! (BTW, Michael Moore is an American Catholic.)

Clark, yes for sure. Layton, I suspect yes. Probably lapsed. (Anyone know?) Harper, I'd bet no. Lapsed? David Peterson claimed to be a "lapsed Protestant". That one drove my neighbour into paroxysms. "You can be a lapsed Catholic, he said, but never a lapsed Protestant!" I was in stitches.

These kinds of comments always make me laugh. Canada is not divided on ideological grounds like the US, France, the UK (to pick examples most Canadians know). Canada will never have a left wing party and a right wing party fighting over the middle. Canada is fundamentally divided on linguistic and nationalistic grounds. Religion plays a part that only a Newfoundlander can surmise. IMO, English Canadians have always missed these points. Don't believe me? Here's an idea to ponder: about half of Canadians are Catholic. About 20% of Americans are Catholic. Kennedy was the only Catholic President. How many of ours were, (even the English-speaking ones). Now, how do American Catholics vote? Sometimes I think English-Canadians have such a silly view of their own country. (Should I blame the CBC?)

Listen KK, you and I know Chretien and Pappy are useless and I have no reason to be jealous. Even Willy is an obvious loser. But if you look at that fire hydrant again, you're going to be sleeping on the couch for the next week. Divorce? I'll take it so fast you won't know what happened to you...

Here's an interesting idea, Hugo. Wedding rings. No law requires them, and no regulatory body verifies them. And yet I suspect many people look at fingers. And I suspect too that many people would say that a ring says more about a person's true situation than any government document. This intervention of the State in personal affairs is in fact new. Since Bismarck primarily. As Chou En-Lai said, "History has yet to decide whether the French Revolution was successful."

BD, you got arguments going on everywhere - like a chess master taking on 20 players. I'll get to the main point (using a previous post). You're right, BD, Haiti's a basket case. The economic conditions are such that there are no jobs, no future. Imagine you're a Haitian and some foreign expert just told you that. How would you feel? Or, do you mean that the US (government, people) has conspired to make such economic conditions in Haiti? According to your logic, wouldn't it be better to have pliant, prosperous Haitians who can buy all that American produce? Listen BD. Take some time. We really gotta sit down and talk. I consider myself "take from the rich give to the poor left wing". In this, there's a really good argument that will drive the right wing completely bananas because they'll lose the argument. Steyn on down. And the argument has nothing to do with "commodity dumping". (That argument just plays into the hands of the neo-cons who are against US farm subsidies and are using the third-worlders to advance their cause.) Are you against Food Banks? Soup kitchens? What is subsidized rice to Haiti? For heaven's sake, be consistent.

Sooner than any of us think. The Nightmare Scenario: A Bloc Québécois/NDP Coalition Government. Putting People First by giving All Things to All the People

I agree. It's an absolute scandal that those guys on the assembly line in Oshawa are pulling in 30 or 40 bucks an hour. And have you seen their pension? And don't get me on to those unionized plumber and electrician types. Plus, we all know they work under the table. Manual labour? Min. wage max, I say. Anything else and they're thieves. And they get uppity. I bet Henry VIII would have happily given up Hampton Court for an Olds 88 and a plasma-screen home theatre. I won't get into the triple by-pass, penicillin or, more likely for HM, in-vitro fertilization

The question is why do most most union members in Canada work in the public service? Indeed, all government employees are unionized and they probably account for 80% to 90% of unionized employees. It's hard not to imagine that the government is a monopoly and public sector unions capture the monopoly profits. (Good example? The Post Office.) The evidence is that in much of Canada, there are queues to become public sector employees. With that said, unions are strong in Quebec (like in France) and they play a role in what amounts to a corporatist society. Unions are a parallel power, not unlike the Catholic Church, and it would take a large social change to replace them with a different institution.

As Margaret Thatcher said, socialist schemes eventually die because they run out of other people's money.