idealisttotheend

I don't know much about the destoyer in question but the Americans tend to deploy their navy in task groups and Canadian vessels operate either alone or in very small task groups. So maybe the requirements are the same but that was my point. The American's have the most money for R and D. They do have the best systems now but historically they have not always been the best. The Zero and Mig 29 were both better than their American counterparts at the time. The Patriot system was considered less than effective in 1991, the Sparrow never worked all that well etc. etc. The Europeans are feeling their way through since they have bought American for the last fifty years and are now trying to reestablish an industry. The competition will be good for everyone involved. If you think about it's pretty hard to pay more for a piece of equipment. After all labour costs are usually 70-80% of the costs and of that money those labourers pay taxes back to same government (at a rate of nearly 50%) so really that leaves you a lot of wiggle room. I still think having each NATO country build one system (the States can build four or five given their economic size ) would be the best way.

You might be right regarding a Canadian government but don't be so sure about an American government. They're gonna have to pay off that debt sometime or they'll be a wholly owned subsidarary of China and Japan who are buying up the American debt. This will cause even more anti-trade pressure over there and NAFTA only got fast track authority by a 10-10 vote to start with.

Saul states in Volataire's Bastards that standardization with respect to NATO is really a way for the world's largest arms exporter to sell more arms and I am not sure I disagree. I'd also put to you that a nation with 3-4 destroyers has markedly different needs for those vessels than a country with hundreds. I see your point that it would be difficult to set up a production run for 3-4 destroyers unless you could find a comprable civilian hull to base it on. We had a hell of a time with the frigates though I blame the 'unique' plan of building half the thing in Quebec and half in the Mariatimes. Still, there are options. You could make a deal with Gruman to make a component of the destoryer's production run or you could work within the NATO alliance to ensure that say we produce destroyers for the NATO countries and another produces the tanks etc. etc. so that production is shared fairly equally, by countries with specific core competencies while still being efficient. We get left out since the European's have their consortiums and America is, well, America. In short I think defence procurement like all trade should be based on a variant of the Auto Pact, for each unit bought in country, a comparably valued unit should be produced in country. I know you are strong supporter of increased defence spending (as am I but probably not as strong) so you should consider that defence spending might make a lot more political sense if the money stayed in Canada and created jobs of some sort or another.

I think casear's point was that they barely got the damn things across the ocean as they started leaking (quite bad in a submarine and one of them managed 500 litres). The cost of repairs is at least 200 million over budget and they are way behind the original schedule. In short this was no great deal and as with all things you get what you pay for. Defence contracts are valuable not only for the cost of just building the thing, but for the technological spinoffs and such that they breed. Furthermore military production can be combined with civilian production to achieve the require economy of scale. So say if ferries and destroyers were built in Canada you could probably get the required effeciencies. Furthermore you might even be able to export some things.

OK. But if he is so secure why did he push so hard for the Lordship and why does he spend so much money on such trivial things as silverware for his jet plane. A man who is truly assured of his own superiority does not need such things as vanities nor to worry about whether or not he has as much money as the people in his social circle. If you wach Don Cherry on TV you'd think he is one confident sonf a bitch, but the reality is he is just the opposite deep down. In short, a man who truly believes he is superiority has no need to prove it through things like titles and honours and prestigious newspapers. Such a man simply does his work and lets it stand for itself. Black's work is to drive companies into the ground, yet he is still rich. I suspect he knows he is not considered even an adequet manager by people in the know and compensates for it. Anyway, you're the one who comapred him to Citizen Kane.

I've got it too, just today only this site. Quite annoying.

Black's main problem is his vanity and his insecurity (yes he appears to be the crassest, most secure man in the world but..) According to the news reports today he spent most of the money throwing lavish parties (42,000 for his wife's birthday party, God I hated her column in Maclean's) and such. I forget what Newman said of him but it seems to me as if he's got the same inferiorty complex of the rags to richest crowds. He's desperate to move in high social circles with people with more money than him so he loots his company to try to keep up. He has always lusted after his British honours and status papers like the Telegraph more than being a good manager or CEO. Pathetic really, to spend one's life lusting after such silly things so much that you show no ethics and get brought down in the end. Anyway, his humiliation is another win for Chretien as TN points out. Chretien got flack for standing up to Black from the right but like his position on Iraq, the man from Shawiningan comes out victorous again.

Here MS, try this: CBC Regional Link

Interesting enough, while the BSE situation is tragic, it is promoting increased slaughter capacity here in Canada. Slaughtering cattle is a secondary industry and so BSE may actually help create jobs here in Canada. I guess the moral is: if you want the production jobs, restrict exports of the primary materials to bigger economies as much as possible.

You walked right into that one MS. My suggestion: argue against Pit Bulls and known vicious breeds specifically. TN has a good point but there is not much you can do about people mistreating their dogs that except donate to the SPCA. BTW most people who commit sadistic crimes start on animals, therefore by protecting animals from human abuse to a larger extent we would also be protecting humans. It's also a good argument for not giving people who do abuse animals community service as IMR suggests but serious jail times.

My, Confused in Montreal, you've developed quite the sense of humour recently. Unfortunately you're understanding of economics remains dogmatic. If: Why: Are gas prices always the same in any given area. How does this particular market survive with an essentially similiar product (loyalty plans non-withstanding) and clearly advertised prices with little location or service advantage between companies. Why oh why are the prices always the same?

CBC Regional Link It appears that members of the Clearwater River Dene Nation are blocking a highway running through their reserve. At issue is the band feels that a shutdown of a now defunct uranium mine is not employing enough of their members and while they're at it they want lands they have "traditionally roamed" (i.e. not part of their reserve) joint managed with the provincial government. I'm all for native empowerment and local people doing jobs in their area when qualified but am hard pressed to see how this is not simple extortion. The mine does not appear to be on their reserve neither are the lands they want to be part of "managing." So is it really the best solution to blockade a road to get what they want? Would a non-native group get away with this? Again it looks like extortion to me and in the long run will probably simply get their members resented and scare people away doing any developement in their area.

Greg, Well that's fair dinkums I guess, it was just a thought. Thank you for your detailed (and diplomatic) response. -idealisttotheend

I think there are bad apples on both sides. I'm truly sorry about your experience IMR as that shouldn't happen in a civilized and democratic country and it's the sort of thing you carry around for the rest of your life. I don't think that kind of behavior should be seen as endemic on the left though, or be seen as representing the left. After all there were 250,000 protesters in NYC and there were almost no violent incidents. TN is right, the right can be bad, intolerant and violent as well.

Albertans need a democratic province. The only way that will happen is if the Liberals and NDP get together over there instead of spending most of their time attacking each other. There are talented people in both parties (though the Liberals have been losing people either federally or just all together) like Kevin Taft and Brian Mason. But they constantly reject any idea of a merger and when it's brought up they just put down the other guys. It's really very sad. Klein sad his biggest opposition will come from the right and if this keeps up he will be right vis a vie the Alberta Alliance.

(I think we lost our resident Australian Takw... or whatever his name was, I'm sure he would have enjoyed the subject).

If I may interject... From your link Striking the law off the books was a function not of the interpretation of the law (S. 251) but rather an interpretation of the Charter. The law was found to viotate S. 7 of the Charter and therefore by the interpretation of the CHarter (a law passed by politicians) it was struck. So theoretically, eureka is absolutely right. the SCC can only interpret laws not make them. But realistically the judges do come about as close to making law as possible without being making law through things such as reading etc. This too though, is the will of the politicians. S.1 of the Charter is what makes virtually any law in the country wide open to judicial interpretation by effectively giving the judiciary the sole (or rather supreme) right to determine what is and is not "reasonable in a free and democratic society." Note that this even leaves the interpretation of "free" and "democratic" completely in the judicial purview. Many would say determining what is reasonable in a free and democratic society is what politicians get paid for but they gave the supreme call on that away. While I'm not sure it hasn't actually been good for the country that this is so (though there are notable exceptions IMO like native fisheries in Altantic Canada), the politicians made the Charter and the politicians (and only the politicians) can change it.

Would you believe that I read August's post, thought about a reply, was going to post it, then read Eureka's and had exactly the same arguments right down to the Orwell reference. Amazing... only I'm sure eureka was more elegant than I would have been. To add: Ever seen a buisness report on television without the daily footage of that damn bell at the NYSE (the NYSE now being drapped by that giant American flag, a symbol appropriated by the right for the most part.) Or the NASDAQ ticker. The DOW Jones average is of little value as a representation of the market and is more of a symbol in itself. Oh look, the DOW is up 30 points must be a good day, look it went over 10,000 break out the champagne, (once the speaker is drunk on the champagne in question), say what does that mean anyway, 10,000 what exactly? The left sees conspiracies in corporations and the capitistic system in general (and I would not always disagree). The right sees conspiracies in the government which is coming to unjustly and unfairly take their money, their guns and their God. Welfare, minimum wages? All a conspiracy to keep wages up. People with absolutely no evidence regularily state that welfare fraud is rampant, people on welfare could easily get jobs and criminals have it much too easy as they just reoffend when they get out anyway. And reality.... well that's probably only to be understood on another plane. In short there are problems on both sides and just as you will have the same problems with a big corporation as a big government they are often the same. I think Orwell changed his story on socialism a couple of times. He was a socialist but hated the Soviet union essentially, possibly I think that he, like so many on the Left, were disillusioned by the example being set by Comrade Stalin. I think the point to be taken is that socialism and totalarianism are seperate entities and that one can have one without the other. Furthermore one can have totaliarianism in 'right' societies as well, neither Mussolini or Pinnochet were democrats and some people say America is showing characteristics of emerging totaliarinism. Understanding something is not the same as accepting it. Laws of economics will be rewritten just as laws of politics or physics have been and will be again. Here we agree. The Right is defininatly not the brain and the centre and/or the left can easily do both jobs.

NAFTA S. 605 The net effect is that if there is a shortage and we were exprorting 80% of our oil we must continue to export 80% according to sub a). Currently we export 62% to the US and the variable is that Eastern Canada imports almost a million barrels so in a crises Eastern Canada could find itself without oil that we were compelled to ship to the US. Of course it would require both an inability to import and a cut in production so maybe it's not so bad after all. Globe story (On an aside, note that economists in the Globe article are skeptical on high oil prices being a good thing for the countries as a whole but that they are a good thing for Western Canada. It's the NEP debate all over again)

Ah, a fellow Mulroney hater, makes my heart sing. But then I guess it was Chretien who actually signed NAFTA (were the oil provisions in both the FTA and NAFTA, I think so but I can't remember). The oil provisions are nothing short of colonialism but then my favorite casear post of all time best sums it : Just kidding. The question is, of course, would the Americans have anything to do with free trade without guarenteed access to our oil?

There is one check. Don't elect people who would appoint raving lunatics to the SCC. It's more profound than it looks, not "the" government, "our" government.

The 407 is just deficit spending by another name and in that manner it does represent Harris' legacy. The government sold the highway for 3.1 billion in 1999 and now Ontarians will have to pay the company in question tolls for the next 90 some years. As we see the government even loses the rights to set the tolls. BTW the plan was to charge tolls for 30 years to pay the 1.5 billion for the highway, therefore simple mathematics tells us that to charge tolls for 100 years in exchange for borrowing just over 3 billion cost Ontarians 2 billion dollars over 100 years, (paying five billion dollars in total). That's 66 per cent total interest at the toll rates the government was going to charge which is obviously lower than what the company is charging even now. Compare 2 billion dollars to 5% per cent a year in interest (which the government can pay off early if it wants). Plus there were calls for an inquiry after it was revealed that the government was offered a better deal that was less cash up front and rejected even that. Pure and unadultered stupidity by Harris, he just wanted the books to look they had more money than they did (and the Harris Tories had a record of selling government assets to pay for things -- ultimate short term thinking). The moral: elect the conservatives and they'll sell you out for 100 years I guess. (Note the lack of smiley face, I'm dead serious).

You would know better than I, August, but I wonder if Marois and her supporters don't smell blood in the water vis a vie the current weakness of the federal government and the ability to blame the sponsorship scandal on the Liberals etc. Levesque waited for Trudeau to leave office after all (and got a nasty suprise when he returned). Not that Chretien was that much of an asset to the federalist cause but I don't see Martin or Harper being that much of an asset either. Interesting too, the PQ strategy since 95 of being all things to all people. Is it a cunning strategy to slowly make seperation a reality de facto by the slow devolution of what's left of the federal government? Waiting for the next Quebec flag burning? Or is it just people in power wanting to stay in power and having their ideology corrupted by it? Who knows, will there be another refendum. Will anyone care?

Taser is close range, the guy had a gun and shown himself willing to use it. Wouldn't have worked.

From your link: Thank Jehovah/God/Allah for the ones who still have heart, even if she is wrong. Trudeau, from somewhere above here, is smiling.