August1991

It is unthinkable that the State department officials mentioned would do anything of this magnitude without direct instructions from the White House, meaning Bush. And what I mean is that Bush, or the US government if you will, doesn't give a tinker's cuss about the situation in Haiti. As a previous US president once famously said, "There ain't a vote in it." Your final point however is good. Haiti is an absolute tragedy. The Haitian-Dominican border is visible in satellite photos because of deforestation. Haiti is not the poorest country in the world, but it's the poorest in the western hemisphere. Why? To blame Bush (or the US government) for this tragedy is simply silly. To do so says much more about your opinion of Bush (and the US government) than it does about your opinion of Haiti's tragedy.

Same clowns, same circus? Heck PM PM is older than Mulroney. Gimme a break...

Evil side? Are you a Mel Gibson Christian? What is the 'evil' side of human nature? Not evil. Human. For thousands of years, millions, people wanted this. Is it clear to you how this happens? Free market prices do not appeal to higher angels. This is not right/wrong Christianity. (In fact, I suspect Christianity was the first socialist response to the wonderful human invention of math!)

Final. Bill Gates is careful with (does not waste) his time; the guy on Ste-Catherine street is careful with (does not waste) the coins in his hand. I'm sure both splurge sometimes. But that's not waste. Even Bill Gates will get at most 80 some-odd years. Who is rich really?

A contentious pre-final. Why is 'theft' as we know it bad? Well, why is 'welfare as we know it' bad? Because, if people can steal, they waste! How? Well, rather than do something useful with their time, they waste time devising ways to steal (go on welfare). Victims then waste time devising ways to prevent theft (avoid taxes). Which is "richer"? Iceland or Russia? Why?

To TheloniusFleaBag: By this quote, you believe that hurricanes and earthquakes are good for capitalist economies. All those destroyed buildings mean good business (and profits) for construction firms. Please, use rigorous common sense when discussing these issues. Hurricanes and earthquakes (and wars) do not make societies rich. (What about 'foreign' wars, if you're American? Manufacture bombs and planes, put them on a boat, sail the boat into the ocean, sink the boat. Everyone gets rich!) As my mother would say, for heaven's sake, think. Countries do NOT become rich this way. Capitalism is successful because it tends to abhor waste. Socialism is unsuccessful because it tends to cause waste. The only measure of 'justice' I can imagine is waste - the cardinal sin. My grandmother taught me that. Poor, she wasted nothing. Individuals don't waste on their own, but badly organised collectives can waste a lot.

To TheloniousFleaBag: I can only say that you must have raised them poorly. My reference to "children" was poetic. I meant your children, your children's children, and then their children again. There is no doubt that you have stolen from the past. You are born into a world with so much but you gave up nothing to get this. (Even if you were born in a so-called Third World country, you still benefit by so much compared to anyone born as recently as, say, 500 years ago.) Now then, your children's children's children will benefit from you -by their birth - but you will get absolutely nothing from them. They probably won't even remember you! (Do you know who your ancestor was 500 years ago?) Theft has nothing to do with anything I understand as "justice". We are all thieves.

Given this crazy argument, I'll start with Hugo. Hugo, you are basically wrong. Let's be honest. Capitalism/Free Enterprise/Free Markets encourage people to be greedy and get the most for themselves. True, they sometimes share but that's not the main intention. Yet, as a result, these capitalists co-operate more than even the best intentioned socialist ever would. Why? Because the capitalists compete on price - they compete for a simple number (money if you will). What inventions, prices and money! It didn't exist 6,000 years ago when people could only co-operate as socialists would have us co-operate now. ("You do this and I'll do that and then we'll meet later. OK?") Underneath it, socialists don't understand how capitalism produces this level of co-operation because socialists are usually bad at math. Hugo, I suspect you understand these ideas from the best teacher: experience. What will the future do when such teachers don't exist? We can only teach math now.

You would have me believe that George W. Bush spent time thinking about how to overthrow Aristide because, well, because Aristide was, well, you know... Do you have any idea what life in a place like Haiti means? Do you have any idea what concerns a US president? The idea that Bush, two months ago, spent even 5 nanoseconds thinking about Haiti and Aristide strikes me as absurd. On the other hand, I realize that the question is not Haiti or Aristide at all. It's Bush. The dislike of this man in some circles borders on irrational, wanton, phobic hatred. Borders? No, it's crossed some pathetic line. Whatever happens in the world, Bush must have been nefariously involved. Well, you know what? Bush'll probably get re-elected precisely because his opponents are foaming at the mouth. MOR Americans will see these rabid anti-Bushites and say, Kerry's ok but his supporters are nuts.

The story was that she received a 70K Mercedes and a portion of the cost was picked up by the ad agency. In addition, one month before leaving Via, she received a letter of commendation from Pelletier. I'd say the report is a mild salvo in a war possibly starting among federal Liberals. It's usually the Tories that vindictively wash dirty linen in public. I'd be surprised if the Liberals succumbed to a Beirut approach to politics, but who knows.

Thanks for the reference. The article is good. It lays out the Liberal strategy and makes it plain they're going for a Spring election. I may be wrong but 1) I'm not certain that Martin will be as popular as they believe (he's too frenetic, even ditzy, for a PM) and 2) they are really pushing it when they pretend it's a "new" team. Sorry, I think it's the same clowns in the same circus. It's almost insulting to pretend otherwise.

NDP Newbie: French people in Quebec think of you, the same way you think of Americans. Who is right?

Greed is inevitable. At this moment in history, our "best solution" is ownership and terms of trade - prices. With these, greed is turned into co-operation. Let's admire this wonderful human invention of prices, and mathematics. Now, can anyone imagine a way to extend the solution?

You guys are all living in FANTASYLAND! (Who is prepared to dispute my precise calculation that 47,326 angels can dance on the head of a pin?) Canada CANNOT amend its Constitution because Canadians are involved in an extremely messy argument about the existence of Canada. Everytime I hear westerners go on about PR and TripleE, I think I'm a divorce lawyer and the mother-in-law comes to say: "It would be much better if I took the kids on Sundays instead of Wednesdays." My answer? "You're right! But that's not the problem right now and given the way things are, your suggestion will just add to the litigation." (And my bill!!!)

Broadview-Greenwood is tony, gentrified Layton territory. If Layton went Tony "Third Way/New Wave", he'd be a shoe-in (shoe in?) and B-G would be Islington in a World Class Toronto! Well, sorry to break this to you: The NDP ain't Labour, Jack ain't Tony and the worst thing to do when discussing politics is to let wishful thinking replace basic facts. (It's probably true that Bill and Hillary thought McGovern was a shoein even with Eagleton - they learned though.) Layton has a very good chance of winning in B-G; it will add to the 20 odd seats the NDP might get nation-wide.

I think Collenette was on about that. It's a good line. The French reaction has been generally positive about what PM PM has done - but I suspect that any dig to Pelletier/Chretien is appreciated by separatists. There's almost a smell of bloodlust - who will be next? Ouellet? Chretien himself? Can Trudeau be connected to this somehow? In my view, the English press makes a bigger deal about how this is perceived as a "Quebec scandal" than the French press do. The perception in Quebec is that "the English are dumb and don't get it. It's not Quebec that is scandalous but federalist Quebecers that are scandalous. They'd sell their honour, their grandmother, their language etc. etc." BTW, all CoS have many enemies. Think of Haldeman, Haig, Sununu. Lalonde was Trudeau's from 68-72. Never met a CoS that wasn't a "bastard/bitch". Goes with the job. Nevertheless, Pelletier has long, winding roots into Quebec politics.

The NDP will NOT sweep Quebec. There is a chance that the NDP will get some votes in traditionally federalist/anglo/Liberal ridings. (That would be something!) I don't know if this will turn into seats. The NDP would be wise to go shopping. (Layton was recently on local radio saying all the right things for an English audience - he registers nowhere with French.) The hard-core federalist vote is in a holding pattern, waiting to see what happens with PM PM.

EYELIDS FALL... SHUT... FIRMLY... AND THEN ZZZZZ... BNA Act? The most boring headline: Canada Proposes Policy.

The latest rumour? Pelletier will be named Ambassador to Denmark...

1) Would the Liberals necessarily turn to the NDP for support? 2) Layton has said he wants electoral reform. Push then shove, would he really? Would the PLC do it? Is it constitutional? 3) We've had minority government before without such major change. 4) Change the rules as you want but ultimately, the question is whether ordinary people can throw the buggers out. 5) The reason we have such a divided House (five parties until a few weeks ago) is because people in Quebec can't decide whether they want to be Canadian, and Canadians can't decide whether they've had enough of this indecision. No amount of electoral rule changing is going to change this fundamental "Canadian" fact.

Galahad? Still in re-runs several hundred years later? Are we talking horse or sword?

TheloniusFleabag: Capitalism thrives on clear definition of ownership and on prices (contract law, terms of trade, mathematics if you will). Without ownership, we are all flung into a world of "rent-seeking". Know what this is? Is "ownership" theft? How about this idea: Born into this world, we are all thieves of the past. We benefit from fire, penicillin, calculus, written language, electricity - yet, we did nothing to receive these. We are all thieves! But victims too. We will provide to our children yet receive nothing from them. Theft (and justice) matter much less than waste. Arguably, 'justice' is a subjective word for objective waste.

My question is honest, and admittedly naive. I don't quite understand why Harper is considered unelectable. He seems to me a kind of Walter Mondale. Is it because he's from the West? (As an Easterner, I suspect this is the reason many can't bring themselves to choose him in a poll.) Am I missing something? I thought I'd ask the "experts" to explain to me why he's not considered a good leader.

This idea has always made me laugh since it makes plain the confusion of the words "country, state, government, society, culture, economy". Citizens of two countries can trade and benefit. By living in a single country, will the two people be able to trade more easily? Consider: If Revenue Canada auditors can examine more easily accounting books stored on a Caribbean island, will the two people trade more?

Would you believe the month/year I was born? Well then, would you believe the month/year Get Smart went into re-reruns? How about... the month/year Gorbachev went into reruns?