willy

"It will take some imagination, but a thinking population would (virtually?) make every piece of legislation unnecessary. This would be true freedom, and probably lay the groundwork for a true democracy. " I do appreciate the support but your interpretation of my statement was off. You have an underlying premise of utilitarianism, that people do everything out of self interest. If they then were thinking, they would do the right thing. (I do hope I got at the premis of your statetment, if I am wrong, do correct me) I don't buy this. People are not rational and are inconsistent with what is the right thing. This is not because of lack of thought. This is because we have an inability to convince of every possible outcome of our action and thus have no idea what is in the best interest. This lack of control is then expressed in many ways, some individuals are constrained by social conformity and others reject it. My comments are only that I wish for people to at least question why they do what they do, and if they did the outcome may not be better but it would be intentional.

August1991, What you state is fact but a phenomenon happens when individuals operate in organizations. I lecture on ethics and as part of the course we use case studies that students have to take different roles in an organization. I set up a dilemma with personal ethics and organizational self interest. It never seizes to surprise me how many times students remove themselves, even in a case study from the decisions they make for the organization. Ideally individuals would own the role they play but they don't. I hope when individuals are confronted with the responsibility of thier actions they may operate more ethically, but I doubt it.

Had a good talk with an old PC member today and it was nice to be reminded that the CA party had the same roots. The only part of the party to go away with the merger was the Orchard group. They should have been NDP anyway. The Conservatives are the alternative and that is Maplesyrup’s problem. They are credible and he is not. Populism was a long tradition with the Conservatives; Mulroney forgot and thus was the creation of the Reform. We are back united, and ready to govern. Sorry about your luck Maplesyrup. As in the Diefenbaker time it may take two elections to capture Quebec but it will come. The record is still held by the Conservatives 206 seats, how many is the NDP likely to get? A united Canada with a united vision will be presented as the writ drops by the next government. I do apologize that I might antagonize but Maplesyrup in another thread stated I should not be involved in politics. I wanted to remind him that I am not only involved but the party of which I am a member has a real possibility to govern after the next election.

"The key factor, as Hugo stated, is a better education system which aids in the creation of an informed public." Education is not always the answer but a thinking population would be nice. A few questions: 1) In education what is the truth? 2) Are the academic elite the only group in society that does not control information by spinning? 3) Did Osama have a good education? Who educates seems to have a strong influence on the reality an individual holds. Advertising, polarized view points, misinformation and a confused public. In my experience people look to opposing view points and think the truth is in the middle. The problem with that approach is the truth may be one to the opposing view points. One should have the right to expression, but to communicate messages have to be trusted. Our biggest challenge in public institutions is the inability to trust anyone. The result is cynical, apathetic and a disengaged public. I want to be an idealist and say we have some honest politicians that may not lie but just water down messages for fear of misinterpretation.

The BC Liberals are Conservatives. Trust me I am one.

Galahad, and Michael, If you want to have funding for epidemics pay for a federal disease control center. One was proposed and it would have built on what they already have in BC. But the Liberals didn't come through. If you are worried about terrorism, one should manage the $8 billion that went to security already. If it is military concerns how about after the tax cut for military service people we have adequate funding for equipment and buy some of our own planes to get them in and out of harms way. Soon they will have to take turns wearing shoes. We had floods, fires, sars, BSE, softwood all last year and $2 billion was enough. Why then $4 billion? Do you know something I don't, should we be ready for the s@#t to fly?

Martin does not understand how to spend money. I was stating other priorities. Don’t use my quotes to support the scandal ridden Liberals. Example where did the money come from for the Toronto Subway? Another fund that looks very similar to the unity fund. Yes a slush fund. Look at where the contingency fund goes in the coming year. They doubled it. Does this allow them to pay off special interests with discretion and not account for it in the budget forecasts? Hey I firmly believe education and health need adequate money but I am talking about returning transfer payments back to responsible levels. If the Conservatives can do this by managing the money better and we have room for tax cuts great.

"Rather than posting your views on their parasitic recruitment practices, why not post what specific programs you disagree with?” If you disagree with the premise, all possible conclusions will show faults. Why do people do what they do? The answer of this question is the foundation of every policy that comes out of the political spectrum. When they get the wrong foundation or they are only addressing things in a purely reaction basis you limit the ability to do the public any real good.

"But no side "wins" completely, and not for any long period of time, so if the wrong side wins, it does not mean calamity." "When we trust to pluralism and the wisdom of the common man, we win. We get democracy, trial by jury, liberty and freedom." Man has no common wisdom, and the world is full of calamity. We have poverty, drugs, rape, murder, slavery, all operating in Canada and the US. Democracy and the right to liberty have not eliminated this horrible human condition. Some of us may choose to live in denial but pain and suffering are real. Wealth does not fix this condition either or the Betty Ford Clinic would go out of business. What is freedom? Are we free from social constraints, our abilities, social status, education, geographic limitations, other people, or crime? So when I talk about the value of outcomes, it is not a theory but an acknowledgement of our true state of being. Pluralism negotiates this condition but does not create a utopian dream. I have stated in other posts that I am a Christian, and this leaves me with a clear path for change and it is not in people to accomplish this. God makes the change. If you apply the gospel to your life it will change you. I don't intend to say that this is a legislation thing. (Governments are not the answer) Pluralism does allow for groups to express and live faith based lives in Canada. Based on that pluralism one can have a good end. I look at France and the recent rulings not to allow any public displays of religious symbols; I soon realize that pluralism also can do nothing to protect what is good.

How about good government as a policy? As for the fall election, it is two fold. One, we will see the extent of the scandals by then and be able to judge the Liberals on that record. Right now the jury is out. Second, in a 150 days we have merged two parties and elected a leader and currently have the most candidates nominated of any party but the Conservatives will mount a better campaign if they have a couple of months to sort out all the change. The Conservatives are ready to go. But unlike Stockwell they will not goat the government into another ridiculously early election, which just catch the opposition ill prepared. Would you like a list of there positions that I can defend? You won’t like them but I trust they will be the best for the country and I can defend them. Adequate funding for education and health care to start.

"This is what I mean by dispersion of power, in America, no one individual or united group can gain any large measure of power." Hugo, you state this as if it is inherently good. Many examples can be found where competing interests battle it out, but this system will propagate the status quo or the wrong side may win. Consensus builds a united voice, but middle of the road results. Voting can be divisive and can leave many groups disenfranchised. Competing interests don't ensure direction or progress. This competition can be regressive. Where is the metaphysic here? If God designed the world, then the world has order. The world does give us competing interests as balance but with design there is also a way it should be. One side should win for it to work better. Where does the value of the outcome, work into your explanation? If it doesn’t matter which way it goes why would we need to compete?

I am a Christian, and I would say simply this. Don’t blame my religion for my transgressions. People, who use Christ’s message for hate, are missing the point. The whole religion is based on grace. How can a religion based on forgiveness be the reason for war? I am not arguing that Christians haven’t done horrible things, they have. I am arguing that is not the teachings of the religion. Christianity starts with our need for Gods grace. No need for a sermon, but one should be careful what they wish for, a world with completely relative ethics is a world without ethics at all. Any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists please chime in and I think you would state the values of your religions are also a way to unity in God and not hate. Sarah, my faith in God is the foundation of my values and I can not separate it from my decisions and how I see the world. Are you saying people like me, people of faith should not be involved in public institutions?

No bounce didn't surprise me. Too much noise, and apathy. Adscam Committee, BSE announcement, budget, Spain bombings. Point is, it was a busy news week. I am amazed that more people don't seem engaged. This might be the democracy deficit that Martin has talked about. Low interest and apathy towards all politicians and it is being driven by scandals. The sponsorship scandal is on the heals of a dozen corporate scandals in the last year. Institutions and their leaders are not trusted. My read of the interest in the CPC is an extension of this. All politicians are the same, when the lips move they are lying. (public, not my sentiment) It would be a good time for someone to emerge that demonstrates strong integrity over time.

TD Bank CEO announced they are holding investment money waiting on a merger decision. They are working to the assumption that the election won’t go until fall, and the PM wont decided on bank mergers until after the election. The budget won’t have a lasting impact. It had no legs. Others say late May to late June. No consensus. Polls show a tight race. I like to predict things but the evidence is all over the map.

Interesting to see those under 35 with driving some of the numbers for the Liberals. This could help the Conservatives as those over 35 are more likely to vote. After all it is not support we measure but votes. Martin will have to have guts to go early. maplesyrup, look at the numbers closely. These numbers guarantee a minority government. 12 percent still undecided could still shift it strongly one way or the other. Take into account election time sees swings in vote up to 20% base on past results. This will be a barn burner.

Nothing that I have read in the bible limits creation to just earth. The bible talks about God, and humanity. God in biblical terms is omnipotent, timeless and sovereign. We are limited to our linear experience. (Bounded rationality) Nature proves to me there is a God, but the bible reveals who God is to me. I was an atheist most of my life, but now I find it hard to remember why I thought that was such a good thing. I guess it was the illusion of control. With God, I have purpose, I have freedom, and I have love. The Christian faith is the only metaphysic that I not only believe in but have studied and stands to reason. Philosophies always start strong and then they get mired with exceptions. I will admit, I don’t know as much about the other major religions as I do about Christian theology. I would like to learn more but if my faith stands to reason, it is true. The challenge with my last statement is that faith in God also is experiential. This is where the spirit part of the trinity comes in. I now this was a little more than your very simple question required but the question as I interpreted it was a little more about progress and tradition. I feel that science will explain a number of things but it can’t explain why.

"Besides, Paul Martin is a top notch business man, he isn't planning to get it from hard working Canadians, most of it will come via smart investment. I guarantee that!!!" I am happy to hear that you will guarantee this lofty promise. This means you can pay for it.

August 1991, This is twice in one day that I have to say I am in complete agreement. As one of the true right wing people posting on this site, my first priority would not be to cut taxes. I want our federal government to focus on its responsibilities. Set priorities based on that plan and only spend in those areas. Where the provinces have responsibility, the federal government should send the money along. I am not sure why they added $2 billion to a $2 billion contingency fund. After a year with SARS, BSE, Softwood, Storms, Fires and they had enough contengency. I don't want to know what they might expect to happen this year if it costs more. An added billion to education, and an extra billion to health care would have been wiser investments. It is like owning a car, if you don't buy new tires the old ones won’t work forever. They are budgeting on operating expenses and not reinvesting into aging infrastructure. And they keep growing there influence without finishing the job. Example, the low income loans program for education. For $300 million, fifteen years from now some underprivileged kid will be able to afford one text book. Money spent but not invested. And all the papers covered the new money for education. How about the new money for health care, the same money that has been announced 5 times. $2 billion for the country, I know the health budget in BC is $12 billion this year, so with our cut we can hire a couple of doctors and buy one new MRI. That should go along way to fixing the system. Not a good budget for anyone. We will see a slow decline, until we need massive spending to catch up.

We are in agreement and this is my frustration.

The pot must be pretty good in that studio. Moe Sihota (former provincial NDP cabinet minister turned reporter) probably leading the charge. Vancouver Island has pockets that would rather we all start organic farms, use only alternative medicine, and shut down all polluting industry (all industry). This way we could all be poor, and live in the dark ages again. Get real. They will gain some seats but they have little rural support and if you haven't noticed most of Canada is rural.

August 1991 I do only know Trudeau from books and biographies, as I was not old enough to vote when he was in power. My point was more general. I didn't perceive Trudeau to be politically correct around the country, in words or action. He was the last Liberal PM to lead the country. He had a vision, shaped our future, and in doing so he stepped on a number of toes. Harper's critics have characterized him as being too insensitive to lead the country. My point was that a number of good leaders rattle the status quo. What is the big deal about what Harper has said? If people don’t like his ideas fine but why discredit him with comments about his personality or sensitivity. They should just sell there policy or poke holes in his.(I know this is not realistic but we can always hope for the high road even though it will always end up on the low road) The two repeated comments: Fire wall, comment was about staying out of provincial jurisdiction. This would be a good idea for all provinces. I support this idea assuming it would also come with an increase to health and education transfer payments. Atlantic Canadian defeatism, comment was a plan to change the hard realities on our east coast. High unemployment, seasonal workers, and the federal programs that don't change the situation. Let’s not make a turn of phrase into extremism. August 1991 I don’t think you have been doing this but it has been repeated on this site and in the news papers enough to make me nauseous. What is the conservative platform and will Harper follow is through? I trust him so far and I like the platform. Those that don’t should focus on real policy concerns. If they have a reason not to trust him I would like to know as well. It might not be Trudeau mania but at least it is leadership. If I am wrong tell me so and I will change tact. (Ex. Layton reminds me of a used car salesman, slick, outgoing and you can’t trust him, or Martin is just too old) I need not go on with name calling.

Daniel, Harris was backing Stronach for the leadership and has no offical position with the federal party. The only federal party to have an offical attachment to the provincal government counter part is the NDP. I will agree many Ontario PCs are supporting the new Consevative Party. They are not likely to line up behind the Liberals or the NDP. I would note that Liberals in BC also in large numbers support the new Conservative Party. This does not have to be about history but where we would like to go. Party memberships are $10, you to could be a member.

Layton can debate Harper anytime he wants after he wins a seat.

cgarrett "for example, canadian are mobile, but their wealth is not. the tax hit for taking ones wealth out of the country is extreme. read some books about it. there are a select few countries that we have international agreements with (sweden i think for example) where canadians can move their wealth tax free but these are few and far between and they are not tax havens." If you divest, one does have to pay a huge price. Markets however work on the assumption of growth and where should you put money then to grow. Where it is restricted and can’t move? Canadian business people can grow their wealth outside the country. i.e. Paul Martin and the Barbados Steam Ships. If we are not competitive here not even the Prime Minister would invest new capital to grow a business in Canada. Think about it.

The polls will be hard to interpret until the writ is dropped. It is traditional that most Canadians don't pay that much attention until the election is at hand. As for your question about Martin. He was a great opposite of Chrétien. This may have only been image but one a business man and the other a life long politician. One big on environment and law and the other big on finance. As a combination people were left thinking they will balance each other out. They appeared to both hold power in the party and this gave us confidence that this would moderate decisions. Chrétien would want to spend and Martin would push back. This was image. Now it is just Martin and he seems confused. He promises social program investment and comes with half measures. He says look at my balance budget, but we see spending scandals. At closer examination people are also noting how he balance the budget and realize that provincial governments were left with the bill while federal ministries kept spending. He is falling through the middle and loosing his appeal on both sides. And lastly when you have lost peoples trust you have no ability to communicate. He is like the beautiful model that becomes ugly when you get to know her.