August1991

In fairness to your viewpoint Kimmy, I am still trying to imagine what it would be like if someone with the stature of Glenda Jackson sat on, as they say, the government benches in Canada. Is the difference the member or systemic?

Parrish is free to speak her mind, in or out of the Hoiuse of Commons, but she is not free to associate the name Liberal Party of Canada with her spoken words.How, in any way, shape or form, has PM PM infringed on freedom of speech? Parrish still represents the constituents who voted for her since she still sits in the House. I always considered this to be demagogic on the part of the Reform Party. It was an attempt to curry favour among western voters who felt disenfranchised.As we saw in the last election, Canadian voters seem to interpret "loose cannons" as an indication of "party incompetence". Or, as you note, the Liberals may have trained seals but the seals always seem to win.

First, we have a parliamentary system not an executive administration. (Your comparison would make more sense if you referred to the PM's PCO advisor). Second, the Liberal Party has thoroughly infiltrated our civil service. (So if you mean that our bureaucracy is apolitical, you're wrong.) Third, it makes more sense to compare Ottawa with Sacramento rather than Washington. Fourth, I heard PMO staffers campaigning on CBC in the past election.But forget all that. Are you in any doubt whatsoever who Rice voted for in the election? There is a whiff of sexism in those words. "She has yet to learn her lessons from international sophistices." WTF?It is one thing to disagree with someone's opinions, it is quite another to imply the person is ignorant/incompetent. You have every right to disagree with Rice. But you're the fool if you think she's a fool.

Sorry KK, the NDP and the CBC offer ample opportunity for Parrish-type views. PM PM apparently decided it was worse having her inside the tent pissing than on the outside pissing.---- What country attacked the United States first on US soil? WTF? The British? Native Indians? Japan? Canada? (How is the relevant to anything?)You got me truly flummoxed this time MS.

I don't mean to change the subject but the following site has a rebuttal of the 100,000 Lancet stat. Iraq Body Count They put the civilian death toll at about 15,000 of which about 4,000 occurred since May 2003.

So, you are not against the US invading countries or imposing its will on other countries, you simply object to its choice of countries.

From Link above: This ignores the fact that sealing the border would be devastating to some Americans too.Canadians would be better to see themselves as a minority in North America. I have posted this image before. Not only does it show what Canada really is but it also shows what society is. Many points with relationships with other points. Such is the true nature of Canada-US trade. Individual Canadians trade with individual Americans.

It appears you're rather childish in your way of dealing with contrary posters. Huh? What is it with the Left/CBC? You goes always find some way to blame the US/Bush for the world's problems. Now it's Afghan opium.A coalition of countries (including Canada) invaded Afghanistan to remove a government that permitted al-Qaeda to operate on its territory. Should America have stood by and watched?

IOW, I can either pay $100 in taxes now or save/have the money for other uses now and then pay $110 in taxes next year.For example, if I currently owe $100 on my credit card at 20%, I would rather have the money now and then have to pay $110 next year in taxes. Hugo, I am surprised that you of all people would not see this feature of government. Its coericive taxing powers extend to the future. Or, if you prefer, the government has the power to use either your credit card or your debit card to make its purchases. If you are solvent, and you can lend/borrow at as good an interest rate as the government, it makes absolutely no difference to you which card it uses. The US government does not solely finance itself from inflating the currency. Furthermore, the Fed now decides independently how much new money to print and this has been arguably the case since 1979.In the case of modern Europe, which specific country would you be referring to? The ECB decides monetary policy. IOW, both the US and Europe are well on their way to privatizing money. In any case, private financial paper is used in the vast majority of transactions.

That's like saying "consider astronomy (I will ignore the issue of heliocentrism)." Silly. Governments can pay for their expenses by issuing new money, taxes or borrowing. To simplify, I chose to ignore teh issuance of new money to focus on taxing and borrowing. What's silly about that? Hugo, of course interest is taken into account. It still makes no difference (at least in the sense you imply) whether the government taxes now or taxes later.Why? Well, you forget about government's coercive power to tax. In fact, borrowing through the government gives us the lowest interest rate possible.

On the contrary, the following web site compares the cod fishery in Canada and Iceland. About Iceland, it notes: Iceland has determined ownership of the resource and this drives management. We have nothing of the sort in Canada.

Caesar: IOW, you're clueless. Maple Syrup: Ipso facto.

Sorry, Iceland and New Zealand both have a good fishery, and an attentive owner.Newfoundland's fishery has no good owner since Ottawa, several thousand miles ways, got involved. Newfoundland's fishery has no attentive owner. Instead, its owner is DFO-Canada. (MS, Caesar, get it?) Imagine if Alberta's oil were managed from Ottawa.

I see your point. Ms, you're a good example of this confusion of message and reality. MS, you believe that if you post often, you'll make a difference. Spread the message, so you think. Eventually, the message will stick and change reality. MS, you're mistaken. You confuse message for reality. You confuse money for wealth. You confuse signal for noise. You believe that a wedding ring really means a person is in love. ----- MS, I think the Left has a good argument but first it must understand symbols and reality. The Left must understand markets.

Americans (USians) have always taken the huddled masses. We Canadians have historically been more particular.

I have a book in my library written by "Dennis Meadows", titled "The Limits to Growth", published in 1972. The research referred to the "Club of Rome". I think the prediction then (1972) was 1989, given the scenario.You may want to check "Thomas Malthus" too. Crying wolf will not protect the environment. The Left confuses message/medium for reality.

How wrong, Hugo.Consider the issue of paying for government expenses. (I will ignore the issue of new money.) In fact, it makes no difference, as you imply Hugo, whether the government taxes now, or borrows and taxes later. Except in this way: If the government borrows now, it guarantees that it will repay any debt by coercive future taxes. As a result, lenders today offer a better (lower) interest rate to the government than individuals could obtain on their own. (The lenders know there is less risk and a greater likelihood of repayment if jail time is a penalty.) Broaden this idea, Hugo, and you'll understand the argument for government.

No, that's just evidence that Canadians have greater concerns than missile defence. (Missile defence? Huh?) If Kimmy goes scatalogical, that means Kimmy's a cross-dresser. She went too far, Liberally speaking. PM PM needs an anti-American, Leftist foil within the Liberal Party. Call her a Serge Joyal, or a Walter Gordon. Your opinion, MS. How many Canadians believe as you do? Wow, Kimmy and BD go at it!!Sorry, Kimmy, I tend to agree with BD here (S/he's on top.) PM PM gets a few US headlines, Andy Warhol 15 minutes, but softwood and beef are different. PM PM's message is to Canadians: I want to get along with Americans. IOW, PM PM is about to find himself between a rock and a hard place. Big Blue Machine, I hope you understand that every post you send to Maple Leaf Web is recorded on Lethbridge/Google servers for eternity. This means that when you turn 33 and decide to make your move into politics, some journalist is going to find all your posts to this web site and then publish them.BBM, have you thought about how future voters will perceive your postings?

Greenspan is just signaling to everyone that he has no objection to a falling US dollar. IOW, if the Fed raises the US discount rate (for domestic reasons and as he has often suggested), his statement intends to circumvent arguments that it's doing it to defend the US dollar. Smart guy, Greenspan. The Woody Allen of Central Bankers. (You can take that comment however you want to.) ----- Absolute dollars? As opposed to relative dollars?Yup! Canadian NHL players are paid in US $$. Why do they not settle for pesos or Cdn $'s?If you mean US dollars, say so (and not absolute dollars(?).) What are relative dollars, again? Sorry, I'm lost.

I'll take your smoking example, because it's a good one. Clear scientific evidence that smoking tobacco was correlated with cancer and heart disease became evident in the 1950s. That's when consumption of tobacco (at least in western countries) made a noticeable decline. IOW, people understood the message of scientists and reacted. Some chose to stop smoking and others decided to continue.The recent declines in smoking (at present, about 20% of adult Canadians are smokers) are the result of harsh non-smoking regulations, advertising interdictions and in particular, extremely high taxes. My point, Cartman, is that people (at least in the west) do pay attention to scientific evidence and base their choices on this evidence. Cigarette smoking is an excellent example of this. ---- The problem with the environment has absolutely nothing to do with scientific evidence, the credibility of scientists, the dishonesty of politicians or the rapacious greed of faceless corporations. Or, as MS put it more eloquently if mistakenly: Our environment is in danger because nobody owns it. The best example of this fact is that the ordinary person wants to do something for the environment but doesn't know how or what to do. All the left wing tripe about sharing our planet, moving away from a greed-driven, profit-oriented new human society will achieve nothing. The past few centuries are littered with attempts to reform human nature.

It is one thing to accept a patronage position, it is another to arrange party finances with taxpayer money, it is still another to accept envelopes stuffed with cash and finally being a mobster is something else again.You refer to Gagliano as a "corrupt little thug". I saw his photo and he's apparently not small. Corrupt, maybe. Mafia thug? Those are strong words unless we're talking New Jersey or Maryland politics. As to Gagliano, let's wait and see. From MS' link above: To me, this is the damning quote. PM PM did the same recently. It amounts to blaming an underling for a mistake. These guys are supposed to get the big bucks for taking responsibility.

I suspect the age structure of a province's population explains some of the differences in health care usage. In addition, the health services are so supply constrained that many anomalies might appear. (People don't see a doctor because they can't be bothered to deal with the bureaucracy and wait and wait and wait.) Despite appearances, Quebec is pragmatic in health and education. Quebec has the highest proportion of students in private secondary schools. Lastly, Alberta is a rich province. Rich people spend proportionately more of their higher incomes on health care (and travel) than poor people do. (This idea explains in part why Americans spend more per capita on health care than we do.)

MS, do you know Michael Collins and what he did? What did Arafat achieve?

There are few subjects that disturb me more than environmental protection. The Left is seriously clueless and in response, for partisan reasons, the Right becomes dismissive. This bothers me because the environment is ignored. While the Left and Right get into shouting matches about "Bush lied, kids died" vs. "Flipper Liberals" or "Tax and Spend" vs. "Thatcher, Milk Snatcher", the environment has no owner/stakeholder to defend its rights. As a result, we get this kind of nonsense: A CBC story from "progressive" California. IOW, Californians will get $100 of environmental protection at a cost between $1000 and $3000. There are much, much better ways to protect the environment but they don't fit into the Left vs. Right debate. That's sad, and possibly catastrophic for our great-great-grandchildren.

I have a vague suspicion that Parrish is to PM PM what Copps was to Chretien. It's a vaudeville schtick that both sides know about but neither side really acknowledges (even in private) for fear it may no longer work. Why does the Liberal Party need this? Why is the foil a woman?