idealisttotheend

I think August is right. When Clinton was around there was an awful lot less talk about anti-Americanism, in fact Clinton assisted during the referendum as I recall. When there was talk about anti Americanism it tended to resolve around American corporations among economic nationalists regarding things like the FTA and NAFTA. Canada, even under a conservative government, simply tends to get along better with a Democrat in the white house than a Republican. It may be as simple as the fact that a Democrat regiem signs on to international treaties and does not engage in controversial wars (and then punish the "unwilling" after) so there is little reason for anti Americanism. On the other hand though I think a polarization may have taken place. Among strong conservatives in places like southern Alberta I think there is a large increase in American support and 'solidarity' under Bush while those on the left tend to be more anti-American policy than usual. I don't think I've ever met or read anyone with a problem with the average American, just policies of the American government. But that's just my experience I guess others could be different.

Globe Story Mr. Martin is already being compared to Chretien, facing critism over a too strong PMO and being accused of not communicating. A lack of confidence in his advisors and the livelihood of his government does not bode well. The media will be slathering over any hint of dissent within the Liberals and the Liberals look ready to provide it. Mr. Maritn will not survive unless he finds some decent, competant advisors, unites the party and manages to be inspirational again (his strength).

(technical difficulties)

Kimmy you make a good point (as usual) but consider: will anyone pay attention to the first. Had Parrish said "I have some very serious concerns about the geo-political military balance being upset by Star Wars and also the allocation of resources to super weapons instead of to people on the ground and in the streets where the actual threats are prone to come from," would anyone listen. Would she get play on TV? A story on A1 or A3 in the paper? Would we discuss it on this board (I posted one Ms. Neville's desicive and overarching comments on the matter and it got one two sentance response from Stoker -- tell me without looking it up -- who is Ms. Neville, what did she say?) This thread has 11 responses and will only grow larger. Globalization? If a scholary report is issued tommorrow and finance ministers meet for the next round of the MAI talks will it get on the news and if so in what position and how much time will it get? If a 'protest' decides to set a McDonald's on fire you can bet the satellite trucks will be rolling and the remotes set up for the breaking news. This is not to say I support this, quite the contrary I think we need to raise the level of political discourse significantly. But facts are facts and we can bet that Ms. Parrish has raised more peoples attention to opposition to Star Wars than Ms. Neville. Ms. Parrish represented that opposition poorly but facts are facts and news cycles news cycles/

I would rather have the general public holding the shares because a pension fund nor the government would pay the sort of salaries you can get with publically held companies. 1) General Public -- I would worry about share prices in the short term and trying to get taken over or not taken over as the situation is. 2) Pension fund -- here I'd worry about more medium -long term prospects than with General Public. 3) Federal Government -- mostly political considerations whatever they are du jour. Note that political considerations may be low prices or equal access or whatever not necessarily cynical considerations. In any case though, EPCOR in Edmonton is owned by the city government and it's a well run proffessional and profitable corporation. The Crowns in Saskatchewan do pretty well also.

If the Liberals have any brains they won't be teaming with the Tories very often nor the Tories with them. Not very actually. I failed to consider that there doesn't need to be any vote or even debate in the House. Martin can just push it through but if he does he does so at his own peril though I have this funny feeling that he might do just that. He promised to be more democratic and there looks like there's a lot of opposition.

Given that he ran around a food court shooting at his ex-wife and pistol whipped either he or someone else I'd say that the police were justified in using deadly force when he wouldn't surrender. But that' just IMO.

Why a faith is required in the consideration of morality August gives me just what I was waiting for. Sweal, I'm with DAC I don't understand how your three points does anything but suppose consiousness. I don't see how it lead to a systematic rational technology to describe morality, a preference for example is not a moral unless you are arguing for a hedonistic paradigm. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't, just that I don't understand how it does. Here August descirbes his utilitarianism. The thread is subtitled religion vs. reason and on the surface August's would seem to be be anti-faith (and it certainly is anti-religion but not anti-faith.) The ultimate left brain position if you would. His personal faith is obvious and he has stated it over and over again in these forums. August has faith in mathematics. His faith tells him that mathematics will allow he (and everyone else) to place one linear value on the good (achiving a particular objective) of any action and another linear value on it's cost (resources expended). We then select the action with the biggest difference between the two numbers and we have acted correctly and morally. Tredeau would be proud. This certainly seems to be ultimate rational viewpoint. But if August were to post a thread debating the merits of utlitiarianism and there were enough people willing to debate it, we could go 15-20 pages on the subject (and it would be an interesting debate to be sure). There would be many different viewpoints with some agreeing and some savegely disagreeing (math can't describe good, it's impossible to precisely define the amount of good done and the cost incurred, too many variables and considerations and back to the original problem, how to define a worthy objective from an unworthy one). Therefore if we could cast enough doubts on his assumption that mathematics can prodive a solution to the morality we would stop his utilitarianism from being a uselful moral system for him. If I could convince him that he couldn't reliably cost any given action he would be unable to use his system to define his moral and he cannot rationally prove rationality because it is ultimately a circular argument as are arguments supporting any moral system . Since all it would take is enough doubt to do this I submit that he had to have faith in his underpinning of mathematics to begin with and there is no strictly 'rational' base for his moral system. That's the negative of my "ultimate relativism", I'll try to post on the positive later.

I don't think the Federal government acutally receives any dividends from Petro-Can anyway. It just holds the stock.

Idiots is uncalled for... but she is entitled to her opinion without the obligatory rant against the counrty being "the most non muslim anti-American state." (The Americans are not popular with pretty much the entire world these days including in counties whose governments suppport American policy). In any case this is a democracy and there is such a thing as free speech and the free exchange of opinions. Shouldn't that be what we are talking about anyway? The actual merits of the position being debated (and Yes the MP in question's comments about idiots doesn't do that as well as it could but it shouldn't be used for a new round of front page news "look who spoke out of turn about the big bad Americans.") After all are these actions more on the wise side or the not so wise among many other arguments?

Ah I see I have disagreed with TN on whether or not there is a culture in Alberta. I agree that there is a strong political culture but don't think that translates into a 'ethnic' culture of shared history/purpose/myth quite yet but some are hard at work at creating one.

I guess you have a point August that le reste du Canada is superior to le Canada anglais. I didn't know the history. And FTR, I don't contend that Quebec is one province out of ten but that it does have a special place amongst a complex regional/situational/cultural model. I think we were les duex nations perhaps even as late as Diefenbaker or St. Laurent but recently it's gotten much more complicated. The point is pertinent to your topic though. You assume (and I would bet the anti-Canada side of your french forum does also) that Alberta would face 27 million other people with a similiar culture and characteristics. The assumed collarary is that the situation for Quebec is this way now when that is not the case. For the analogy to work, Alberta would simply be one 'english' culture among many diverse 'french' cultures (say even something as simple as the Metis in Manitoba versus the Quebcois in the townships). If the US was France then they wouldn't even really be able to talk to the French Canadians since the language is so different. Kimmy's point is a good one that Albertans would probably learn French but that would not imply compromise not assimilation, (the whole damn world is learning English at present). What Alberta would do? It could do what is it doing now. For example why did you use it in your example and not PEI or Saskatchewan? I bet that it is because Alberta (or rather a section of Albertans) are developing or trying to develop a minority culture very similair actually to the seperatist sentiment in QUebec. As such they are becoming the minority strongest 'culture' in the 'ROC' and get the most attention. A sector of 'homegrown' and 'severely normal' largely rural people are creating a culture based on different economic and political values in a almost one party sub-state that does not encourage dissent including through the press and does encourage conformity. Remind you of anyone? More likely what Alberta would do depends on the Albertan. I expect the real question in your french forum is how the Albertan 'culture' differs from the Quebecois. While this culture is developing it doesn't really encompass even a large minority of the population yetl. It makes a lot of noise and has the government (or elements thereof) to speak for it along with the Byfield-Levant crowd and their generous big buisness backers but Alberta is still really a diverse place. Insofar as you can generalize those generalizations will break down to rural/urban, northern/southern, Edmonton/Calgary, ethnic/non-ethnic etc. etc. Will it be different in ten, twenty years, possibly but for now there really isn't one 'Alberta' over-culture.

ROC = Rest of Canada (all of Canada outside of Quebec) seen to represent the English speaking majority. BTW it doesn't really exist it's a myth created by Quebec but don't tell the seperatists that because they always get upset as their claim to victimhood is taken away from them.

But if you lived in Alberta wouldn't you want a bigger chunk of all that money, especially as prices rise? I mean it could lead to lower taxes, more infrastructre, better programs (or the Alaskan way, a check in you hand). It could be invested in other sectors to develop them for when the oil runs out. In short why should the multinational oil companies get such a large piece of the pie insead of the government/people taking some too? BTW, goverments set royalty rates for oil not oil prices (though one could argue governments that are members of OPEC set prices Canada is not a member.

This is hilarious, absolutely hilarious Found this wondering through cyberspace -- too much time on my hands you see. But it is hilarious.

Alberta's are $ 4.30 a barrel and Saskatchewan's are $4.50 a barrel. The rates are set by the provincial governments.

Looks like the Liberal women's caucus is going to give Martin large problem's if he wants to go ahead with missile defence. Sun News Link Interesting. Will the left wing in the Liberal party break down to a women -- men split? At least we still have one party that has discussions amongst itself. Globe story Looks like the NDP and Bloc aren't going to support missile defence and this seems to be the big issue for Mr. Layton (which I find strange). Nevertheless, I will go out on a limb and say I don't think that the federal government will get the necessary support to push this through, (Martin still has a fractured party and will, or should, avoid irrantants). So much for kissing butt to the US military industrial complex in order to fix our trade problems.

CBC Regional link A week ago the Pembina institute came out with a report calling on the Saskatchewan government to increase oil royalties. (When the government is the landlord) Being the Pembina institute it wants the money used for research into new energy technologies and cleanup of old drilling sites. This does seem like a good idea since Saskatchewan could sorely use a new economic engine (wheat is just so "old economy" ) and the Liberals are only proposing a 10 cent a barrel increase. Also interesting though is that Alaska gets $11.60 per barrel and Saskatchewan only collects $4.50 even though I expect it can't a lot less to extract oil in Alaska than it does in Saskatchewan. Free market Alaska versus socialist Saskatchewan? Alaska has more than double the royalty? BTW -- Alaska has a novel way of dealing with it's oil royalties, described here, paying dividends to it's citizens. This is opposed to how Alberta does it, putting the monies into general revenue and being broke as a province when the price of oil falls (no new schools/hospitals this year) and rich when it goes up, leading to instability and unpredictability in provincial budgets year after year. IMO the Alaskan way makes much more sense though, back to the topic at hand , I think Saskatchewan's royalty rates should be higher regardless.

Why MS if I didn't know better I'd say you didn't like the *loud clearing throat noise* "Liberal" priemer of BC. In any case I think there should be a law requiring byelections within a certain amount of time in all juristictions. There is a law requiring election so why not byelections?

Globe story It now appears that there will be confimation hearings for the selection of judges to the Supreme court. A panel of 7 MPs and 2 legal experts will question the candadates and will submit a report to the PM. The PM retains sole right to judge who is appointed or not appointed. A typical Canadian compromise? Will it be useful? I don't really know what to make of it myself but it's been a big issue post charter so I guess it's news.

Globe story Apparently General Henault just finished a press conference to refute the allegations that there will be cuts to the navy and air force. Instead it appears that the forces manpower cap will increase to 65,000 from 60,000. Apparently the general has also received promises from Mr. Graham that the budget will be increased. I support this news but am still bothered that the General is giving a news conference at the behest of the PMO. Shouldn't there be more seperation in order to assume proffessionalism all round?

Hugo: I will defer to you, temporarily on Japan since I don't know that much about it but I still disagree. Since the innovation of the spinning jenny more and more products have been produced to fill the gap and keep the majority of the human race labouring. For this not to be a doomsaday senario more products must be produced and consumed at a rate equal to the increase in productivity. Else, the system (i.e. the wage economy) fails gradually usually. Furthermore the issue is multilateral trade. Basically if unfettered trade ought to make the poor rich and the rich poorer (save those who directly control the capital, technology, infrastructure). Throughout human history trade has never been so liberal across the world (consider also that technology makes it easier (read cheaper) to transport things between diverse parts of the world) so there is no real precendent. A) The OS is the standard to which all software used on the PC is applied. It's a big deal. B. Microsoft is not concerned with the computer market, only the OS part. Considering Mr. Gates is the richest man in the world, "desktop operating systems" don't seem to be all that small a part. Nor is 10 Billion dollars in annual sales. You cannot make your argument by simply expanding the scope of the sector the company in question is said to be monopolizing. Note (well) that most of the people on your list are people that started at the very beginning of the sector in question. Gates started Windows when no one else was in the market and by licencing to IBM he simply sold to a very large well established corporation. No one realized it's value since it was so new. Ford started small too, but by empoying Taylorism and mass production techniques he built himself a very large company that while not a monopoly consistantly succeeds despite itself. Since the car was invented or the computer (say 20 years after either) there are no stories of the little guy beating the big guy. Furthermore we are dealing with companies not individuals. I believe my point stands. There are no (or rather very very few as there must be at least one even if I can't think of it) large companies that have fallen to significantly smaller competitors in recent economic history. Big companies are built by then little men (Asper, Patterson, Thomson, Molson etc.) but little men don't put the bug guys out of buisness. If you know a few please point them out that break this rule please point them out. IBM (in the bonehead move of all time) failed to further monopolize the computer market by buying the rights to Windows but note that Microsoft and IBM are in fundamentally different buiness. One company writes software and one makes hardware, the two need each other but they are very different buisnesses. Wealth cannot be created by nothing. It can only be multiplied at varying rates. Complex cause Begging the question Straw Man ...are just some of the logical fallacies possible from this argument. Since states exist in all places, you can argue that states are responsible for anything and everything that has and hasn't happened in this large world. Some of the thousands of actions the state takes may encourage monopolies (Crowns, subsidies to large companies, controlling oil prices etc) but on balance the state tries to disuade monopolies (and promote competition) not encourage them unless it is fascist or near fascist (say right wing Republican) or communist. Unless you believe we have a planned economy, the state cannot hold primary responsibility for anything that happens in the free market.

I guess August's way is a bit better. It makes more sense to have M&R seperate.

I think the quality of the forum is very good and has become excellent in recent months. There are almost no personal attacks, trolling, spamming, flaming and all those other terms of the trade. Discussion is informed and at a reasonably high level but not to high as to scare off those of us who aren't intellectuals. In short all things are quite well. I think that the one problem is that discussions tend to get off topic. Once a thread goes becomes x posts long it invariably turns into something else. Plus the same discussion often takes place in multiple threads (I think I've seen KK debate the merits of UN resolution 1441 in about five different threads, these arguments are informative but perhaps they could be confined to one or two threads for maximum effect). I was looking for an argument we were having on the wheat board and couldn't find it anywhere until I played with the search function long enough. TOday BBM said which perhaps shows just how bad it can get (and I was involved in the discussion not passing any blame). Sort of like a game of telephone start with Ralph Klien and end up with dildos. Ideally, everyone would stick to the thread topic but this is not an ideal world we live in. Therefore I purpose some of the veteran posters (say 500+ posts) be given limited moderation duties if they are willing and able to do so regularily. Therse duties would be limited to splitting, combining and closing threads for the purpose of keeping them on topic, avoiding duplication and in the correct sub forum. So for example the Klien thread would simply have the posts regarding sex toys (or rather legistating morality in a democracy) spit from the Klien thread to a new thread where both discussions could continue. All admonoshing of posters for whatever reason/rule violation and editing of posts for same reason would be left to the indomitable Greg. Moderators would be restricted to either commenting in the forum or PMing the aforementioned Greg if they had an itching need to do so (but they would have no responsibility for such). It sounds like a small thing but I think it would really make it easier to either look up arguments on whatever topics are here and to contibute to those arguments if they have been idle for any length of time and that this would make a big difference. That way when you read the thread on Klien you would see nothing but posts about Klien and if you wanted to see the arguments about making sex toys illegal there would be a thread with that in the title. It would also make MLW a more valuable resource for Guests (and the decision makers August says read these forums, however many there may or may not be ) as it would be more what you see is what you get instead of 7 different arguments in 13 pages of thread or 1 argument spead of four different threads. Agree, disagree? -Idealist

Strong support for gun control legislation So if 51% of people support banning guns it would be acceptable (this could easily happen with urban areas being highly anti-gun)? In fact that's a great example since Urbanites tend to dislike guns but they are better liked in rural areas. Majority rule will let urbanites impose their will on the rural people even though their circumstances are very different. This is acceptable Stoker? Furthermore, what if 51.2% of people support banning guns on Monday and only 49.8% support banning them on Thursday. Ought the law be constantly changed on controversial issues to reflect changing opinions?