idealisttotheend

We already have serious trade deficit in manufactured goods. It would certainly be ideal to improve our manufacturing base and if you have any ideas on how to do this they would be appreciated. Slaughter capacity to go up 20% this year and another 24% by 2006, export diversification strategies now a priority. (Hmmmm. US shuts out live cattle but accepts manufactured products plus our supply of the raw resource is up for Canadians. So we increase our slaughter capacity (a form of manufacturing) and diversify our markets. Ranchers get together to form quasi co-ops so that they own some of these slaughter plants giving them more control over their livelihood instead of being stuck with 2 or 3 US owned large slaughter operations. How interesting). The problem with China is ain't none of us gonna compete with their labour costs. Nor would any of us want to. This is another problem that we are going to have to solve as the free market doesn't seem to be doing all that good a job. Replacing the United States with China is neither possible nor profitable nor practical nor ideal. Selling more products to China is all of those things and should be pursued so that they do buy more products from us.

Joe Clark and Mr. Orchard were roundly treated with contempt by the leadership of the new CPC. As this forum shows, no one on the Con side seems particularily interested in acknowledging their point of view, just ridiculing them as not conservative enough in one respect or another. True but times have changed. Not many British loyalists around these days either yet almost all the men listed were loyalists (though they fought for Canadian independence). I think you will find the last election to be the final death knell of social conservatism in this country. I will bet you any amount of money that when the CPC got together to deconstruct the election, one of the main weak points they looked at were the various outburts of social conservative beliefs that hurt them in various sectors of the electorate. I will bet you that next election very strict instructions will go out that such beliefs are not to be expressed under any circumstances. Even during the campaign, Harper modified some of his positions on abortion and such to try and appease the voters. I don't say that to be mean or ridicule your beliefs but it is the political reality in this country and I don't see it ever changing. If you want to ask other people to follow your belief system you will have to do it without the benefit of the government. True, but Mulroney clearly lay the groundwork with his lowest ever approval rating, fostering the Bloc and Reform and just generally pissing off pretty much the whole country. It was the splitting of the party under Mulroney's watch that really did them in. Mr. Clark's budget of 1979 included writing off mortgage interest. Twenty years later the Ontario conservatives put the same policy into their platform as a major plank. Surely you aren't calling the Harris/Eves Tories Liberal? Mr. Clark also tabled a more fiscally balanced budget then the Liberals previous budget was. Is he a neo-con? No, but it used to be that you didn't have to be one to be considered a member in good standing with the Conservative party. But I guess that was before Bay Street bought the fine institution? And no, he isn't the slightest bit socially conservative but, right or wrong, if the CPC ever wants to form a goverment they're not going to be either. Really. It was the Conservative party that fought free trade all the way up to and including Mulroney who railed against it in the 84 campaign. Conservative governments have traditionally not been opposed to enviromental causes in the least. The conservative party out west is associated provincially with rural issues as is Mr. Orchard. The Conservative party has always run to the centre with the possible excerption of Mulroney in 88 who only won due to vote splitting between the Liberals and the NDP and destroyed the PC party in the process. The problem in this country is that we have forgotten our history. Hmmmm. People in glass houses........ So the Mulroney was centre left? The voters rejected the Cons in favour of the Liberals in 93 to get away from the centre-left policies of Mulroney? Very interesting. And then Diefenbaker (decades ago) was much more conservative when argued for and was elected on the promise of all sort of nation building projects, a bill of rights etc? Hell even Bennet came left at the end of his term. Exactly what is the difference between today's nationalism and that historically associated with the conservative party? Ever heard of the national policy, the new national policy and Dief's various initiatives. It's pretty damn similair to Orchard's policies. As to the United States we have spent the last 140 years trying to ward off manifest destiny. Nothing is different now except that manifest destiny is so much closer. Kindly provide examples of the pointlessness, mindlessness , jealously, resentment or zealotry of today's nationalism? (And no calling Bush a moron is not bigotry but free expression). If you can't you have just made a brilliant strawman argument.

No one was more suprised about the USA's ability to flip flip than Hussien. As late as 1990, the American government was trying to find ways of making the man smell nice (he was, after all a secular leader in a highly religious part of the world) and Hussien never thought the American's would attack him if he invaded Kuwait.

I agree with Kimmy that TNs post generalized far too much about "Albertans." I would like to take issue with one point though. You may, but the Alberta government doesn't. Media that reports things unfriendly to the government get labeled "unbalanced" and are frozen out of interviews with government members and any other sort of access to government information or sources. Wild Rose Country, CBC's very good province wide discussion program cannot get any member of the government to appear because it regularily askes hard questions of the government. Media across the province know better than to question the government too harshly. CBC Calgary gets government ministers on their shows but the interviews are pro forma and only one or two "negative" questions are asked in each interview. In pursuit of the one party state, the Alberta government also has a larger "public relations" staff than Ontario does. Every piece of media regarding the government is recorded. Members of the public relations staff have been know to participate in writing letters and calling call in shows without identifing themselves as government employees. The PR staff reports directly to Klien and are involved in major policy decisions. The days of seperation between the civil service and the party in power are long gone. People complain about the "liberal media" in Alberta. The opposite is true. Besides the CBC everything is owned by either the SUN media chain or Southam/Can West (or their latest incarnation). Neither can be accused of overly liberal editorial positions.

Clark would have won a majority in 84 given the chance, if he had then everyone would have forgot their little counting problem in '79, (really in the country's best interest because it allowed Tredeau to fight Levesque in the referedum). It was his own party who kicked him out and then he took the leadership again when no one would touch the thing with a 10 foot pole. The PC party was led into oblivion by Mulroney who went from the largest majority ever to 2 seats in less than 10 years. Reform and the Bloc were both created to oppose Mulroney, (at the expense of the PC party in Quebec and the West). Campbell put the final nail in the coffin with her lackluster campaign but it was all Mulroney that led to the destruction of the PC party not Clark. If you want a literal explanation, then McKay led it into oblivion when he "merged" with the PCs. Joe Clark opposed this bitterly. Joe Clark is a good man (certainly a better man than Mulroney, Day or Harper) and should not be spoken poorly of except with good reason. Mr. Orchard's platforms is very similair to that of Mr. Diefenbaker's. From his website. It baffles my mind that conservatives are fighting the likes of Joe Clark and David Orchard among others. "Cast your net too shallow and you shall surely starve." China is quickly becoming one of the largest importers of primary materials in the world. Since we have never properly developed secondary or tertiary sectors in this country (due to our trade patterns with the US many would argue) it is our raw materials that we will likely look to sell to them.

People forget that it was the Conservatives who were the voices of Canadian nationalism from MacDonald all the way until Mulroney sold us out. Many people see Orchard as NDP and Clark as Liberal but in reality they both represent the traditions of the PC party pre-take over by Bay Street. The fact the neither no longer fits in shows both the effective end of the real PC party and the polarization of politics in this country with the CPC going farther from centre then they have ever been. The days of the big tent political parties are over (the Liberals still manage but it is breaking down and holding together only as a ticket to power). I'm afraid AF that the social conservatives went down with Day. Harper is not a social conservative and no social conservative will ever lead the CPC again if they want to be competitive in Ontario. I agree with you that social conservatism is popular in rural areas and among farmers but won't even wash in urban Alberta. I'm afraid that to each his own is here to stay (modified by appropriate but few laws of course). How about for the jobs, livelihood and pride of the farmers, loggers and ranchers hurt by unfair and illegal trade practices of the Americans. But oh wait that's our fault for not being compliant enough. For saying some things that weren't very nice. Is it a colonial mentality or beaten wife syndrome? I can't decide.

You have sources for this information? It is very interesting.

Farmers were a major force behind the creation of the CCF/NDP and Saskatchewan was the birthplace of such socialistic polices. If you read up on the history of Alberta you will see that social credit was also largely supported by farmers. Social credit's early polices were pretty much the opposite of free market policies. A conservative who realizes large corporations are bad for capitalism. I think that you are the only one on this forum. I agree totally but you will find that the largest defenders of the free market these days are big corporations (especially in your cherished USA) and that big corporations are the necessary result of an unregulated market place. As to the taxes, small buisness already get a lot of breaks and advantages an they still don't have a chance against the WalMarts of the world. Surely you can see that those two statements directly contridict each other. Why? Why not Mexico's? Why not keep our own? Just to appease the US. Are you too afraid of the responsibilities of having your own country? Do you think that we as Canadians are so inferior that we cannot determine our own customs and immigration? This is a nice sentiment. Tell me, what legitimate national interests (besides the appeasement of the USA) have the military been unable to fulfill in the last 50 years? What threats have we failed to defend ourselves against (please say terrorism)? Whose health care or education ought we have cut short so we could have a larger military? And yes the USA complains bitterly about our defence spending. Who is the largest arms exporter in the world? What was the last non-USA initiated military action undertaken by the western world? Perhaps it is in their interests that we have a larger military and not necessarily ours? Canadians joined both world wars before the USA did. We fought hard and well. We fought in Korea. We were well known around the world for our peacekeeping skills which aren't as sexy as the Nimitz class carriers but are at least as important. We went to Rwanada when the US wouldn't because they were too afraid of seeing American's shipped home in body bags. While we could have (and should have) done better, we at least tried and we tried to send more troops but couldn't because the USA wouldn't lend us the airlift to get them there. The military needs better equipment, a refocused mission and seriously needs to be de-politicised at many levels but we have nothing to be ashamed of in many respects.

BBM makes a good point that the different ethnic groups could easily fall apart and the territorial integrity of Iraq would be in doubt. Much like Tito's Yugoslavia. I don't think a strong dictator is necessary but strength is necessary especially as the Americans don't seem to be willing to allow the majority to set up the religious state that would probably naturally ensue in Iraq. I wonder, know that I think about it, what this says about America (that they oppose religious states). After all, isn't a Christian state closer to an Islamic State then a Secular State.

And you agree with this??? One party control tends to be bad for democracy. As for Klien, he is pragmitist above all else but more of a spender (at election time) than a butcher.

Mr. Lougheed signed off on the NEP though it didn't help him much in Alberta politically. Mr. Treduea gave a hell of a lot of people the finger (literally or figuratively) in his long life. The "West" ought not feel special. The incident in question was Mr. Tredeau giving a small group of farmers the finger as they were calling him names (I believe). How this became the entire West is beyond me. Tredeau was arrogant and had a big ego but he was not dishonest and he most often annoyed people by standing for what he believed in no matter the cost. This is a quality we have in short supply in this day and age.

So now we have the two necessary myths to this movement. 1) the myth that one region has political and cultural traditions that are homogeneous "We in the West think....." "We in the West want....." "We in the West believe......." 2) the victimhood myth "the NEP caused X number of Albertans (note: no longer the "West") to lose their jobs/livelihood/pride and was horribly hard on us" "Trudeau gave "us" the finger (sniff, sniff)" This is so very predictable.

I agree with willy. People need their "circuses" or sports arenas in this case. Life with only the bare essentials is not worth defending in this age of plenty. Furthermore most of the money will no doubt stay in BC and create a boom for the area and lots of jobs. If the Olympics are well run they will not lose money and so all this will eventually be revenue neutral. I think it unlikely that it will turn out as Montreal's did in '76 and so whether or not the money would be better spent in health care or education is moot.

bump -- communist health care? We already had this debate Argus, while I respect you skills as a debater I think you lost this one.

Some argue that the only reason the US signed the free trade agreement with us was to guarentee their access to our oil. Makes perfect sense to me.

August, August, August. You've basically argued for regulation and a restriction of the free market, in this case for labour in teh NHL. I never thought I'd see the day. To start off, you are trying to redefine the terms to suit your own preconceptions of economics. A more apt analogy is that the NHL is the proffessional association representing the thirty seperate teams. NHL head office might like it if the teams ran like branch office but that is far from the truth. The reality is that the current problems are caused by owners in the larger markets wanting to spend their way to a Stanely Cup while the owners in smaller markets are trying to survive at all (and are in fact running as essentially non profit organizations at the best of times while not being all that competitive). The NHL does a good job of presenting a united front (by heavily fining owners who speak out of turn) but in reality if New York and Detroit were being run as branch offices the NHL wouldn't have the salary problems that it does. Untrue. Competition for players is driving salaries up. No one in Edmonton considers themselves to be cooperating with people in Colorado, in fact the competion from Colarado is drivng them out of buisness. (Note: there will likely be no team in Edmonton if a salary cap does not get done). The salary cap is an example of the different NHL teams cooperating to try and regulate the competition between them. Otherwise the rampant competition will destroy the entire league. A form of regulation if you will. One could even draw an analogy to government regulation in the economy. Before you argue that Edmonton should be left to die in a Darwinian expression of it's market failure consider this. 19 teams lost an average of 18 million dollars last year in the NHL (source: The Levitt report). If Edmonton goes, a lot of teams are going to go with them. Secondly, Edmonton remains one of the strongest organization in the leagues. Many players that go on to large contracts and superstardom still come up through Edmonton. Edmonton drafts well, coaches well, has good goaltending and usually makes the playoffs even with one of the smallest salaries in the league (breaking the hearts of it's fans every year by selling many of it's good players to reduce it's salaries). The fact that Edmonton doesn't make money has nothing to do with their merit or skill within the market. I dare you to find anyone who knows anything about hockey (or economics) who will argue that Edmonton is unable to survive as a franchise because of any reason other than it's market simply isn't big enough to get the $200 dollar ticket prices. This is important when you consider whether or not free market price setting is a form of cooperation between Edmonton and it's rivals. The NHL (and pro sports in general) is in many ways a very good microcosm of the problems with economics. The only difference is that in this case it is labour that benefits from the race to the bottom. In this case it is labour that threatens the entire system with their greed (and their own long term interests). Something of a role reversal but that too can speak to the power of unions. It is worth noting though that leagues with the best regulation of competition among members (like the NFL with their salary cap) are doing the best while under regulated leagues get themselves in trouble (NHL, MLB). It should also be noted that in sports teams like the Calgary Flames and Florida Marlins can beat the big salaries despite the odds. Such cannot often be said in the real world, (when's the last time a Microsoft or Wal Mart went down to smaller competition, it's almost impossible).

Study's have shown (and no I don't have a link handy and these studies are not widely distributed) that smokers save the health system money. Everyone dies of something and that something requires expensive treatment usually. Smokers just die about ten years earlier so they actually cost the system less money since those ten years are usually "non-productive" i.e. the person would not be working. Smokers are unhealthier throughout their lives but again they "miss" the years where a fall will lead to a broken hip or where they require an old folk home etc. The blame the smokers movement is just a way for goverments to justify cigarette tax hikes.

Kindly note the tense: "had" not has. Under your logic it would then be necessary to invade Russia since terrorists have access to a weapon here or there of Russia's arsenal.

Bro when labour costs were my responsibility I never, ever hired more people than I needed. High taxes or no high taxes I used as many person hours as I needed and not a half hour more. To suggest that I would hire more people because my company paid less tax would be to suggest that I was an incompetant manager and wasted the company's money. Furthermore no company in the world would spend money earned through lower taxes on labour. It would go to profit or the shareholders would through management out (or simply not give them as large bonuses. The exception is R and D but that is the only exception. That is what is simple.

Think 1984, language is a form of control. The key to winning a debate is to be able to define the terms to your advantage and so make your arguments self fulfilling.

Indeed where is your regard for the lives of the Palestinian civilians cut off from their homes by this wall. Where is your regard for the dead Palestinians killed by Israel in this conflict. I think an earlier statement is correct in that the only lives you seem to have a regard for are those of Israelies. So says Bush. Funny that when the FLQ were commiting acts of terror Ottawa did not declare war on French people. Nor has the IRA caused Britian to declare "war" on Northern Ireland or the Catholic population therin. The USA has similarly not declared war on anarchists within it's borders or people who live in log cabins in the woods. Why is it then acceptable to declare war on Palestine because of the actions of Hamas? For the record I agree that 1967 was not Israel's fault nor do I see a problem with building a wall around Israel, so long as it remains restricted to it's rightful borders. I am unconvinced that the argument for a "buffer zone" on someone else's land is morally superior to the one for "living space" in Poland. Indeed with the settlements one could easily argue the two are one and the same in reality. Israel did have a hard time through 1973 and if the occupied territories should not be returned to their respective pre-1973 owners (a justifiable argument) then a buffer zone is best established as either a Palestinian state or a UN protectorate. Walling off land and keeping it under Israel's control (formally or de facto) is annexation pure and simple.

In modern societies, people fend for themselves by working together, pooling their resources through centerally delivered programs. Humans are social animals. Hjarmar, you're invective against easterners is quite misinformed and, as usual, you didn't bother to provide any proof. You tell me where these jobs are. You tell me which companies are looking for unskilled workers at wages high enough to make moving worthwhile and I will believe that they should move. If you can't do that then you're argument is spurious (sometimes I wish I believed in personal attacks).

I thought that the judge's argument that the two were not emotionally cabable to deal with two boys was pretty weak. They should have went to jail for just as long (if not longer) than I would if I picked up a random child off the street and kept them in a cage for 13 years. Deterence needs to be a real factor in child abuse cases IMO.

Boydfish said: These two are arguments are diametrically opposed. One one hand you argue for one person one vote and then with your next breath you argue for equal rep among the provinces and avoiding the tyranny of the majority (which I asume is this Ontario-Quebec axis you persist in blaming for all your problems.) Which is it? It sounds like you want one when it gets you more votes (like one person one vore over PEI) and the other when it gets you more votes (re: triple EEE sentate and Ontario and Quebec). Your idealogy here is unclear. Having said that, I agree with BG that HOC should be elected by fairly equally represented ridings and that the senate should promote some form of effective equality among the five regions, in a perfect world. Since it is not a perfect world I don't intend to seperate but to work for change. Alberta is an arbitrary line drawn across the map of the old NWT, it is not a nation anymore than Uranium city is a nation. BC as a former colony has more claim to nationhood but not much more. Whether you admit it or not you are basing your argument for nationhood on shared political beliefs (that BC and ALberta "lean right") and therefore it makes considerably more sense for Vancouver to be it's own nation. Let's see BC survive without Vancouver. You obviously didn't read that part of my post. Edmonton constantly pushes for some sort of almagamation and is constantly rebuffed. The situation gets worse every year as Edmontonians get tired of paying taxes for people who live in the suburbs. No one wants more walls they want fewer walls which why it is relevant to the topic at hand. The BNA keeps the Gspe and the Kootnaneys part of Canada. Further subdivision is potentially unlimited as you could find a majority to agree with any given division simply by defining specific areas you want to divide. I will work on a seperate to prove sub division is a bad thing. A) these things tend to cycle and one region that is rich now will later be poor. if the market falls out for one resource, the resources that the market didn't fall out of can pick up some of the slack and economic chaos and poverty is mitigated by the diversity. C) it is morally wrong to buy leather seats for your SUV while people in another region are starving simply because you are sitting on the biggest deposit of "X." The number of MPs are skewed by the 'quirks' of the FTP system as you are aware. If you can't even get a majority to vote CPC (with the Liberals in such disarray) then you cannot claim that "British Columbians" and "Albertans" are right wing. Vancouver is known as a city where you can walk down the street smoking a joint and not be hasseled, not exactly a conservative bastion. Edmonton is stubbornly Liberal even as the provincial government threatens to move the whole damn show to Calgary. Ft. McMurray is populated mostly by easterners who aren't going to want to be in a seperate 'nation' than their former homes. Aboriginal bands in BC are not going to give up their constitutional protections under the Charter by leaving Canada and joining the "nation" of BC. All these groups have claims to nationhood by your argument, why don't we just go back to the city state model of old? That's nice. Kindly name the BC MPs who opposed these actions (bringing in the BNA was done before BC joined in 1871 I believe anyway). If they did not oppose it then either they were not representing their constituents and should not have been elected or their constituents agreed with these actions. The BC provincial government signed off and participated in the drafting of the 1982 constitution to say nothing of their federal representatives. When Brampton has two million people than the people from the NE corner will complain that the people who live downtown and on the S side always speak for Brampton and their voices don't recieve enough weight. Or some such combination. This is a problem of the modern world and not easily dealt with. It is constant though in that it always happens. My computer has some problems staring up and shutting down sometimes. These are 'quirks' of it that cause it not to run as well as it ought to. But I still use the computer. I just work around the quirks and try to fix them in time.

The real deficit culpurit was OPEC. Countries all over the world went into deficit as they subsidized energy prices in what they thought was a cyclical problem (short term) not a structural (long term) problem. Treduea went right along and while he was wrong so was most of the world. Mulroney was unwilling to make really hard choices (significantly raising taxes or axing spending) which is why he was culpable, though the interest rates didn't help. Of course, high interest rates were Mulroney's own policy (in the war on inflation) so he can be blamed for that. As to the topic, people are forgetting that as interest rates rise government surplusses will fall considerably. Therefor the Liberals are being by far more fiscally responsible while the conservatives are trying the same trick that they have tried all over the world for the last thirty years. Project economic growth you can't guarantee and isn't very probable or reasonable and then pretend you can cut taxes and raise spending (especially on defence) at the same time. Very silly.