August1991

Public shame. If you don't vote, everyone knows... Why bother? Even more, why bother to figure out amongst all the verbiage who promises what? Your vote changed absolutely nothing in the past election, Maple Syrup. You might as well have stayed home.In fact, your vote gave you nothing of any practical use to you except: 1) you felt you did your civic duty, 2) you took sides and made election night more fun and 3) you can impress family and colleagues with your political knowledge. It is on these points that democracy rests. Compare all the effort people devote to finding a good job (or a good house) with the effort they devote to finding a good political party to vote for.

You are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the following data: US in 2001 by city Canada in 2001 by city (go to the bottom). 2001 is an arbitrary year. Homicide stats, for obvious reasons, tend to be the most accurate. For fun propaganda, read this from the government about firearms or rather read this from the CBC about urban crime. In all of this, I found this quote the most intriguing: What a strange species we are.CNN report

For the 2004 election, you can get Elections Canada numbers (seats/vote totals) both nationally and provincially here. For the 2000 election, you can get Provincial/National vote totals here. Am I wrong if I say that there is room for only one national/federalist party in Canada? IOW, the Liberal Party succeeded in the past election in creating the sense that a vote for anyone but the Liberal Party was "unCanadian"? This thread discusses whether "Westerners" should be upset that their "values" are not shared by more Canadians. (Of course, BQ voters knew all along that the Quebec values are not shared by the rest of Canada.) IOW, the only party in Canada that attracts voters for "pan-Canadian values" is the Liberal Party. Yet another way to state this is to say that the Liberal Party should rename itself the Canadian Party. (In effect, this is what the Parti Québécois is within Quebec.) The implication here is that rural voters tend to identify more with their region. Urban voters identify with the country. Canada is a country of rocks and trees. Urban Canadians are the least confident of the lot, and probably stand to lose the most from the demise of Canada as we know it. Not only would Ontario become Michigan, but Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton and Winnipeg would become St. Louis, Buffalo or Cleveland. As far as I can see, the past election was SN, AFU. What's "new"? The support of Quebecers for a regional party. The success of attack ads. These will both be with us for the foreseeable future.

Oh really?Below happens to be the first site that google gave me. There are solutions, I think, through side payments but I'm not certain if they work. In Canada, BTW, with three parties on a single dimension, there is no solution either. ****** TalkNumb, your beloved Morton had a letter in the NP this morning suggesting that the left and "centre-left" won the election. Are the Liberals centre-left? News to me.

OPEC, but something more pernicious too. The 1970s were a period of no economic growth in the US and Canada. In part, this was due to oil price increases in 1973 and 1978. But it was primarily due to the US Fed (and the Bank of Canada) losing control of the money supply, or believing they could control the economy through changes in the money supply. By 1979, inflation was high and nominal interest rates were high. Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker to the US Fed and things changed dramatically. Volcker stopped printing new money. In the short run, this provoked very high noimnal interest rates and a severe recession. But within about five years, inflation was down to low levels. But nominal interest rates truly fell to and stayed at historic levels only in the early 1990s. The Bank of Canada's policies followed the US Fed. Our recession caused the federal deficit to balloon. The high interest rates meant we were paying upwards of 30 billion a year in debt charges. This is the world Mulroney inherited in 1984. He set out to reform UIC (no success) and reform the MST, a crazy tax created in 1926. The GST was not intended to generate more revenues than before. Mulroney also wanted to protect Canada against the US Congress (FTA) and solve the Liberal constitutional mess of 1982 (Meech Lake). Lastly, I think he wanted to make amends for Riel and make the Conservatives a viable force in Canadian politics again. Just to hold the line as Wilson and Mulroney did through the 1980s was an achievement. The US economy performed admirably in the 1990s and nominal interest rates are now low and stable. The US Fed is preoccupied primarily with price stability now. The interventionist types of the 1960s and 1970s no longer exist in the US Fed's inner circles, thank God. Alan Greenspan reads Ayn Rand. You can live in a fantasy world for awhile but eventuallly reality imposes itself.

They function as two entirely different companies, one in Montreal and the other in Toronto. With the exception of Don Murray and Celine Galipeault (?), they don't even use the same journalists. Sorry, MS, the idea is daft.Incidentally, ratings for Radio-Canada are much higher, I believe, than for the CBC.

Since when? The history of the French in North America is only a long history. We're talking several centuries in either case. But I don't quite see the relevance. My parents were married when I was born so you're wrong. How does my comment remind you of this? Are you referring, for example, to the fact that Canada relies on the US for its defence?

That's false in practice. Most contract disputes are resolved between the parties privately - and frequently without any court involvement. (Think of something like credit card debt and credit rating agencies.) In general, I agree. But does the CWB act in the interests of farmers? Why not have a selling cooperative?And if we have to subsidize wheat farmers, what is the best way of doing it? You seem to say the CWB is a bad way. True? And individuals make up all those companies. Perhaps it is most important to note that all of the relations between those people and me are voluntary.I have always been uncomfortable with the word "capitalism". I tend to prefer the phrase "market relations". There is no race to the bottom here. Presumably, these laws make people better off. IOW, they are cost justified since they should bring greater benefit than they cost.In any case, it is not one single state organization in the US that decides these laws. And I'm not certain how they could be used generally to form a cartel excluding Canadians. On the contrary, the FTA (and the WTO) are improvements over what we had before. The western world has finally gotten back to where we were in 1912. I agree that the mad cow business was silly. But the question is: would market diversification lessen the risk? I doubt it.Nevertheless, I understand the point you are making. Something similar occurs in mining towns. If the price of ore goes down, it's a catastrophe. It was very political, I'm sure. But insurance schemes, particularly in Canada, are often State operated. Pension, health and auto are examples. There are numerous types of agricultural insurance schemes too.With a homogenous group, group insurance is often the most effective insurance scheme. That is the argument for State health insurance. Does it apply to crop insurance?

The whole discussion strikes me as bogus. The median voter theory amounts to an arbitrary way to choose a dictator. It requires a single dimension issue where voters can choose their position. This is obviously false but it does offer some insights into US voting with only two parties. In Canada, this is complete nonsense. Canadians vote primarily for regional interests. (What is the BQ? What was Reform?) Ideology takes second place. I never saw your numbered predictions here, TalkNumb. Am I mistaken?

IYV, does right wing = evil and we = good?You seem to suggest that everything you dislike is right wing. Wouldn't it be better to say "social conservative" instead of "right wing"? I think the point raised elsewhere is that the Conservatives should be more "fiscal conservatives" and less "social conservatives". I wouldn't exactly call this a "Red Tory" position.

Your comment reminds me of the American that comes to Canada, looks at our money and starts laughing. And this is what Canada at night is. Elections Canada?I doubt partioning Montreal would be practical or even desired. What many understand is that they pay taxes to Ottawa and get little in return. Or rather, they get what an Anglo dominated government decides to give them. For example, such boondoggles as Mirabel.They are also aware that Ontario's auto industry receives pork and Ontario relies on nuclear energy financed by the federal government. The same applies to Syncrude and Hibernia. We can get into a pissing match if you want (I don't care to really). I'll simply state that many Quebecers do not feel they are well represented in Ottawa. The sponsorship scandal is the latest evidence of this. The basic logic is that as a linguistic minority, they are out of the loop. The priorities in Ottawa are simply not those of Quebec. Quebec City would spend the money better. Sweden has about the same population as Quebec and a similar area. It even has a Finnish monority. The Swedish state is very interventionist but this works, to a degree, and Swedes seem happy with it. They certainly enjoy a high standard of living. This is the economic argument. The political/cultural argument is different.

I was intrigued to see this report referring to fighting in Yemen in the past three weeks or so: Admittedly, the toll may be smaller.Reuters and Yemen I have tried to find numbers for Iraq in a similar time frame and I found this: By my rough estimate, that is low hundreds.Australian news source Iraq obviously attracts alot more attention than Yemen. But in the Iraq case, one car bomb leads to numerous news reports spread out over several days. The impression differs from reality.

Don't you think this is something the Iraqi people should decide? They have already seen too much of their country's fate determined by outsiders. Surely they should be now free to determine this question in their own way.

Given some of the yahoos on this forum, one wonders whether Canada is a help or a hindrance.But seriously, Cartman, that is part of the question. There are very few French Quebecers who believe that English Canada helps ensure the cultural integrity. (To translate, would you believe that the US helps to ensure the integrity of Canadian culture against the onslaught of globalisation?) IMV, Quebecers' attachment to Canada is mostly practical, with a dose of blind tradition. There is a backlash against the union-nanny-state-establishment PQ but I don't know if it is pro or anti independance. (Call this the TalkNumb effect, à la québécoise.) Many of the posters to this web site, and certainly those on the left, seem to be Canadian nationalists with a deep suspicion about the United States. Translated into Quebec, they would all be péquistes. That's impossible. The state of Michigan suffered worse, if Michael Moore is to be believed. What's your point? What part of ROC fears most or is most opposed to negotiating a special status for Quebec? (Let's say, fiscal autonomy with contributions to the central state on an issue by issue basis. Obviously, Quebec would no longer receive any transfer payments.)

There are all kinds of ways to define membership in a club.Any Jew in the world can become a citizen of Israel. Anyone of German background can claim citizenship in Germany. Anyone born anywhere to at least one Canadian parent can be a Canadian citizen. I have never heard anyone suggest that Quebec citizens be anything other than those resident on the territory of Quebec. At present, the typical determination is who is entitled to provincial health insurance. Thank you, MS. However one feels about Canada or Quebec, there is something called objective truth.

True, the softwood tariffs and the mad cow ban were set by the US federal government. Considering the numerous products crossing the border, this can hardly be called a blockade. The FTA was designed precisely to limit this kind of government intervention. "All trade deals and rules are set by and agreed to by governments." That's simply false. Contract law is largely private. It is individuals that agree to a deal, negotiating the terms as they see fit. "All regulation involving the production and consumption of good are set by central governments." Is the US a socialist country? ---- From abroad, we confuse the United States the country and the US federal government. In fact, the two are not the same thing at all. Is "Canada" our government in Ottawa? At least you understand that the sole entity capable of "stupid bully tactics" is the US government. This is a succinct argument in favour of limited government in all countries. But will you make more money by opening up shops abroad? If you will, then do it. (I'm not against Canadians buying non-US products, or selling in non-US markets. I'm against the Canadian government forcing us to do it.) Wait, wait. Why should the government assume risks and not the individual shop keeper? Who understands risks better? Diversification is one way to avoid risk. There are many others.And what is the risk? That the US government will take an action that will harm the American people! The softwood lumber tariff is not good for the United States. If you don't like this argument, consider this example: Finland and the Soviet Union. Finland prospered by having most of its trade with the Soviets. IME, many English Canadians have a dislike of Americans and want as little to do with them as possible. This emotion colours all debates. I'm not certain about the source of this emotion. ********************************* 2001 data on world wheat exporters is available here. 2001 data on world wheat importers is available here. The CWB is a marketing monopoly. To export Candian wheat, you have to go through the CWB. The issue is whether the CWB has any world market power and hence could make world prices higher by reducing quantity sold (like OPEC and Saudi Arabia). The short answer is no because Canadian wheat doesn't dominate the market. US wheat represents about 28% of the world market and the US is a "price leader". That is, the US price is the world price. But since the US price is determined by market forces within the US, this is not evidence of monopoly power. (The US price is obviously influenced by US government wheat subsidies and this would drive world prices down, not up.) The CWB is a method to subsidize Canadian farmers: This is from the CWB web site. As a large bureaucracy, any gains are probably lost though. I would not be surprised to learn that farmers are increasingly dissatisfied with the CWB.

By that logic, Canada should join the United States and we'd all be richer. And Canada is one of those silly places in the world that force radio and TV stations to play "Canadian" content. WTF?

In Canada, or NB. Well they used to be in NS but then... And how long have they had their language rights respected? What's the rate of assimilation even now? They have their own state in a country without a majority. And you're going to go far in the Indian world if you only speak Tamil. For all intents, assimilated. This one I might agree with except it would be tough to say the Flemish form a majority. Belgium is rather two scorpions eyeing each other in a bottle. Hmmm. Does French Quebec treat Anglos as well as the English treat the Scottish? There has always been an Anglo in the Quebec Cabinet. Has there always been a Scot in London?Who is more resentful, a Scot or an English Montrealer? I'd go with the Scot.

It is the federalists in Quebec, the Jean Chretiens and the Denis Coderres, who are doing this. They were the ones who bought all those flags. Find me an ethnic minority, anywhere in the world, that is as well treated as the Anglophones of Quebec. Is your point worth going to war over? The people currently living on Quebec territory are perfectly aware of what that means. It would not be practical to divide the island of Montreal. The people of Quebec have extremely strong feelings about this.----- I think you are viewing this too dramatically. This situation will be resolved in typical Canadian fashion. It will be boring. Quebec will obtain autonomy within Canada. This would be ideal for everyone.

Quebec independance is not strictly a question of money. Most people who favour independance have not made a profit/loss calculation, and indeed they have no desire to make one. In western Canada, it seems common to think that Quebec independance is a bluff to extort money from the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the question of Quebec independance will not go away. The Charest government is unpopular now and it appears it may be a one-term government. (It has three years to go so alot can change.) With the PQ, there will be another referendum. Two last points: By choosing Lapierre, PM PM implicitly rejected the Trudeau-style of federalism. Watch carefully for the cabinet portfolios given to Dion and Lapierre (if Dion gets one). Second, it was painfully obvious to everyone in Quebec that no one in the federal government was capable of confronting Duceppe in the past election.

If you look at a clear night sky far from a city's lights, you can see about 4000 stars. All these stars are suns in our galaxy, the Milky Way. In fact though, there are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. And it is estimated that there are at least 125 billion galaxies in the universe. These numbers are so beyond anything comprehensible that literally anything is possible. If you say there is "one chance in a billion of life evolving in a solar system", then in the universe, it would have happened 10 trillion times.

Taking your toys and going home? Why?

Off the top of my head, South Korea in 1953, Lebanon in 1958 and all of Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, Kuwait in 1991.You may disagree about "installing democracy" so I'll refer to "installing sovereignty". Keep in mind that between 1945 and 1991, the US was involved in a Cold War. The battles of this war were not easy and the priority was to defeat the enemy. And the US eventually did. (I am not saying that Ronald Reagan defeated communism. I'm saying that all the US administrations from Truman to Bush did.) But look, Rev, I think Hugo is logically correct. He gave a counter example to your claim and that's enough to disprove it.

Interesting debate, guys, but keep it respectful. DAC, you have just replaced faith with the scientific method. A doctor can advise me about arteries because people have conducted experiments and drawn conclusions. These can then be used to make predictions that turn out to be true. Nobody who claims that I will exist for all eternity in hell if I don't believe in Christ has done anything of the sort.

Example? But you were "profiled" and you provided some valuable information to society by your purchases. You "voted".Everytime anyone buys something, using a credit card or cash, they "vote" for the item. Corporations, if you will, respond to that vote. My point is that cash means a virtually anonymous vote. or pay Gil Parent's salary. My own favourite is Sergio Marchi. But hey, someone's gotta sit at the chair.