Jump to content

Bugs

Member
  • Posts

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bugs

  1. That's so lame, American Woman ... For the record, I don't think Reid's remarks are worth the ink they're getting. Indelicate use of words about one of these subjects that is full of taboos. In this clip, it seems to me that Ann Coulter is right. She points to the trifling things that Republicans have said, and paid huge penalties for ... and contrasts it to this, which all the usual suspects are eager to explain away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gie-WEj9GDA
  2. Be fair, Oleg, I never suggested you were a dumb rube, or that you don't get to have a cri de coeur every once in awhile. But I did point out to you how Harper has realigned Canadian foreign policy, away from the Lloyd Axworthy approach, into a direction where we actually do some good in the world while accomplishing something good for Canada. I went over the environmental issue. He accepts that it is up to the big polluters to make the deal. He accepts that at least some of these parties will boycott unless participation is voluntary, the targets allow them economic growth, and they don't lose any sovereignty. That's where Canadian diplomacy is effective ... helping to keep the big guys talking,while they start over on an environmental treaty. On economic issues, he's done what was required to protect Canada's interest in North American car plants, probably as well as could be expected. The economy is so hote that we are actually on the edge of bubbles in real estate, in support of the international approach to fighting the Depression. He has lowered tariffs in the face of a contraction, to encourage trade. I think we have a far more activist diplomacy than we have had in a long time, and far less sanctimonious and insipid. Axworthy put us at the service of the UN, and was perfectly willing to turn sovereignty over to those creeps without even bothering to mention it to we, the Canadian people. Oleg, in all honesty, it seems you want us to give you a chance to express your idealism, and your dislike of America, and that's what you find wrong with our country's foreign policy. It's self-interested, but it is oriented to moving negotiation processes towards the next step, for the most part. It's staunchly pro-west, where it used to be more conciliatory to terrorist countries ....
  3. You have to admit, he has a point, Oleg. Neither you not Moonbox like Harper very much, and I am not sure of the reasons (although Oleg's use of the term " ... a left over Cheneyite ..." is suggestive). For me, Iggy is the best leader of the Liberal Party that the Conservatives could have. I don't want to criticize him. However, he seems unusually inept, and awkward, stumbling around in Canadian politics, skidding from one position to another, picking policy fights with Liberal policies ... such as EI eligibility ... essentially because he's such a fucking -- excuse my language, but it is exactly the right word -- such a fucking cosmopolitan that he can't understand the elemental poles of Canadian politics. He thinks that Ralph Goodale is a Roger Dangerfield. He can't do anything but patronize most Canadians, because he thinks the country is full of rubes and yokels! The way the situation got out of control with Coderre is only the gravest of his errors. The most recent, most laughable example of his political dumbness is surely his complaining of Harper giving himself a holiday while on holiday ... You seem to be of two minds about him yourself. Why would Harper give up power to such a man? It would be irresponsible. He's waited patiently to get to the position he's in now. Normally economic crises favour opposition parties, but these Liberals are so bad that now they are the scarier alternative. In opposition to your view, I'd defend the position that Harper is the indispensable guy, right now. Who do you think mainstream Canadians would rather trust to run the economy at a time of great instability and challenge? Harper and Flaherty, or Ignatieff and Layton? You see what I mean? Who would replace Harper? (I know, I know, he'll get better, but the Liberals have obviously put Iggy in training wheels while they teach him the ropes. It'll take at least a year to turn him into Belinda Stronach.) But this is what confuses me the most: I am astounded that someone can see the same things I do and come to such radically different conclusions. You misinterpret Harper's statesmanship because of your intense negative feelings about the USA, and your desire for a morally acceptable international order. Look deeper. Harper is the most Pearsonian PM we've had since Pearson. With environment, for example, he works to keep the big powers at the table by promoting the center position. When he announced that Canada would not meet its Kyoto goals at the G-8 meeting, it effectively killed Kyoto. Which, itself, was a step forward. Since then, he has tried to separate the baby -- international cooperation on the environment -- and the bathwater -- all that stuff about carbon credits. He sold the target dates and the way of calculating limits. It's all tentative, as they move towards a treaty, but Harper is punching above Canada's weight, and playing a positive role, because there won't be any solution without China. Bottom line. Give the man a break. Comments?
  4. This is what Rex Murphy says ... to precis, he traces the prevailing standards in the cynical use of these Parliamentary procedures back to Chretien. It's true -- Chretien called an election just because he caught the newly elected Stockwell Day flat-footed. He cancelled the Somalia Inquiry. Rex points out that Harper carries on that tradition ... which is not a very proud one. And then he sets out how mainstream Canadians feel about the current state of Parliament. We pick up on his just at the point where his melancholy drone has us swirling our cognac, and taking a sniff. The Liberals miss their chance because they offer no alternative. They don't offer the prospect of any improvement in any direction. That's my opinion. If Canadians want a majority government, at this point, are they going to go to the Liberals? They're a confused bunch of dreamers, caught up in their own bonfire of the vanities. As an example, the Conservatives compromised on their budget when the Liberals had a electorally compelling reason to stimulate the economy. They should be able to take a lot of credit for at least some of the stimulus results. They could be taking some credit for forcing it on the government -- instead, they carp about what was done, or they deflect attention elsewhere. Meanwhile, Canadians busily juicing local businesses, hiring contractors, and getting some tax-free repairs made to their houses. People give the Conservatives credit for this. The Liberals don't have a distinct position on anything -- or am I wrong? They play almost exclusively to the media. The Liberals should not be heading towards an election until they have an issue. Beating a dead horse so poll numbers dip is not an issue. The Liberals haven't used their time in opposition wisely. Are they learning now? I don't know, what do you think?
  5. Well, it isn't as if Chavez is all give and no take. His fertile imagination, by itself, is a priceless contribution to South American culture. Chavez's latest artistic demand to Venezuela TV is to make 'socialist soap operas', probably starring a short stubby guy with no neck, and a nose that should be enshrined on a temple wall. I'm wondering what the sex will be like in socialist soap operas. Comments?
  6. So, in this age of the monster bailouts to the rich, and dubious stimulus bills, with $millions being sent to addresses that do not exist, to fictional zip codes, this little fib is one you notice? If it is a fib.
  7. The good thing is that we will soon know who has won, and who the greater deceivers are. In elections like this, polls become campaign weapons. The stakes become bigger than the seat itself. Polls are too easily fiddled with to be trusted, as the resources of national politics bear down on a local election. It's no longer a representative case of how the public is feeling. The last time this happened, in upstate New York, the winner ran far to the right of their own inclinations. The new member was reported as breaking four promises in her first week of voting, one of them a vote for healthcare just in the nick of time for Obama. The one thing we can agree on -- if the Republican wins in Mass ... it means the Democrats are in trouble.
  8. The significance of this bit of trivia is ... what? From this apparent inconsistency about the period when a politician's book was written ... don't we all know that someone else might have written the book for him, just like Obama got Bill Ayers to lend him him voice? It's common amongst politicians to have ghost writers, speech writers, etc. And it's just as common for them to claim authorship. Just saying ... I mean, if you think that this is the standard that politicians should be held to ... it just makes me wonder who'll be left in the room.
  9. Why? Wbat is happenbing in the world? Reid has been a valuable ally of Obama since the start. They have no apparent conflicts. What he said was the simple truth, wasn't it? He was pointing out to people, antagonistic to Obama that he was hardly even an American ... it's true, Obama's first experience of black America culture was when he went to Chicago as an adult. Reid was trying to persuade people that Barrack Obama was not a traditional, Democratic Party black machine politician, like Al Sharpeton or Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson famously said,..."See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith based ... I want cut his nuts off ... Barack ... he's talking down to black people." On Fox, talking to O'Reilley. Nobody thought that Jackson had done anything very wrong at the time. Reid is in a lot of political trouble, but it's not because of this remark. It's because of the Tea Party reaction to the Obama policies. Reid's been out front, leading the charge for Obama in the Senate, and that's why he's probably going to lose. Not because he used the word 'Negro'.
  10. There's been a running argument on here about Senor Hugo Chavez, who stokes South American nationalism to 'white hot' as often as he can -- which is a lot. Some people say Chavez is a Messiah, sent to bring Cosmic Justice to Venezuela, in the form of a military-socialism with a nasty edge; there are others who insist he's a squat little military dictator who is trying to duplicate Castro's achievement. Now it seems we are closer to an answer. Chavez has decreed that the value of Venezuelan currency ber cut to half of what it was the previous day. Since the state oil company sells oil priced in American dollars, it puts the government in a much stronger fiscal position because it buys labour in Bolivars. He can use the money to nationalize the remaining big assets of the Venezuelan economy. public dissatisfaction at frequent blackouts and water shortages and a 2.9 percent economic contraction in 2009, hope to strip Chavez of his legislative majority in September. Comments?
  11. I can understand why politicians fight over who will be blamed for a particularly disasterous decision, but I, personally, don't come on here to get into a bunfight with supporters of particular parties, particularly those who think their party has never erred. I thought that we'd have a discussion of how Obama's political capital is being spent. It's one thing to say whether it's been well spent or not, and another about whether his political force is being diminished. This is American politics ... surely we can be more objective about it that we can about our own? Locating guilt is not the issue. I think Obama made the wrong choice when he took of Gleithner and Summers et. al. It would have been better to let the bankers take the burn, and to protect the wealth of the American people. Without a doubt, that would have caused two years of turmoil, but also, without a doubt, the American economy would have come out of it stronger than they will be. Or so I think. Others may have a different judgement. But how was Obama going to do anything different? The New Deal is the folkloric tradition of the current Democratic Party. The pillars of that party were formed in the last Depression. They instinctively use government to protect people. (The only difference is where they once used to tax the rich to feed the poor, now they tax the people and feed the banks.) And what could be more romantic than another New Deal, this time with a black President? It might have been worse for him now, if he'd gone the way I think he should have gone. Can we lay aside the issue of blame? In any case, he is losing political support very quickly. Independents -- who largely supported Obama -- have become Tea Party protesters. Conservatives want to tear RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) apart. Sarah Palin draws huge crowds everywhere she goes. They're a long way from having a candidate, but the energy is moving to that end of the spectrum. With Obama, what was once enchanting is becoming irritating and repetitious. Heavy-weight Democrats like Chris Dodd and Durgen are throwing in the towel, after waiting 15 years to get the double majority and the Presidency ... and then, only a two year break before that it was Reagan-Bush. These guys have come in from the wilderness for a second brief respite. Normally, they enjoy so much seniority that they are in very sweet spots in the Senate. It would normally be a time for them to reap what they have sown. Instead, they are quitting -- it must be because they don't want to be humiliated at the polls. It suggests that Obama's coattails are turning negative. Like Bush's. We can watch and see if candidates want to book Obama during the campaign. If they don't, it means that Obama is wounded. All this coming year is going to be a test of the Obama team's policy decisions. They've popped the corks on Wall Street, but in real life, a jobless recovery isn't a recovery at all. If the jobs don't start coming back, increasing monthly, what will they do? Put it on a time line. Right now, we are getting December job numbers. It's Christmas. It isn't decisive. But in mid-February, we'll have a genuine measure, and by mid-March, a trend line emerging ... I would say if they don't have positive job growth going by then, it's going to start to get ugly for Mr. Obama. Of course, they will throw money at the problem. But they have to be creating 300,000 jobs a month by September for it to do them any good. Do you see that happening? Comments?
  12. Let me take a stab, my own personal conclusions. I think this spectrum idea is almost entirely ideological. It confuses the issues to know that someone is right-wing or left-wing. To understand what I mean you have to understand that the two phrases could effectively be translated into the terms bad guys and good guys. And we all know who the good guys are, don't we? As an example, conjure up the vision of the left-winger. Almost certainly, you are involved with notion of the dispossessed getting their due, of idealism, of a kind of social heaven where everyone gets everything they want, regardless of income. It's like a Valhalla for the 'helping professions'. Contrast that with the vision of the right-winger. Basically, it's Hitler. A lot of people in Canada end up acting as if people who think the government should balance its budget are the sizing them up for a horrible fate. Every time some barbarians are skinning missionaries alive, someone will start calling them right-wing, just so nice people know who to support. On the other hand, no constitutional usurping worries us if it comes from the left-wing Hugo Chavez. This is all such nonsense, particularly when you reflect on the fact that the Nazis were a socialist party. I don't mean to make a big thing of this, except to illustrate how ideological the spectrum idea is. However, the full name of the Nazis was, in English, a mouthful like the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party. Who do you think they were appealing to? One of their early themes was that they were the national socialist party, in opposition to the international socialistt party -- the Communists. It's from this framing notion that the smugness of the left comes from. Google Jean Fitzpatrick. She has a notion that better covers this territory. Basically, the spectrum that really exists is one that runs between minimal government and totalitarianism. You can identify stages on a scale of totalitarianism, and show a startling correlation of the size of the state and the restriction of general freedom in the population. I think it makes a lot of sense. Consider the case of privacy. The reason it has to be defined, and requires policy, is because big organizations are invadings ours all the time. Privacy is a rear-guard action that the government itself evades. Privacy issues are chiefly used to protect specific civil servants from being identified, as parts of cover-ups ... Guité felt his privacy rights were violated, after all. Just saying ...
  13. Watching the shine come off President Obama ... Drudge's headline, today, screams "Count the lies. Obama vowed 8X to televise healthcare" Video clips like this are all over the internet today. In the meantime, C-SPAN is almost begging to be allowed to cover the debate live. Obama has counterattacked by putting the legislation on the fast track to passage. This streamlined process is highly unusual, and usually only used when there is a large consensus. It has the virtue of keeping the public out of the debate, because nobody will really know what is going on until it reappears as a completed work, a humongous pile of legal jargon that, probably, no one person will understand, or even have read. The problem is that there is no need for speed. The bill doesn't kick in until 2012, and then it only collects premiums for a couple of years. There's no reason this couldn't be on C-Span, except ... possibly ... for the public reaction. I don't think anyone expects the new plan to actually deliver healthcare until 2015. Check me if I'm wrong ... The latest is that the White House is stone-walling. Obama is going to get crucified on this, because his reasons aren't plausible. Look for his approvals to drop another 5%. And you have to ask yourself: Is he going to pull the same thing with Cap & Trade? People are getting increasingly fed up. He is going to lose a lot of credibility over this. Comments?
  14. As proof of Oleg's assertion, I offer this ... NO ACTION ON FANTINO TORONTO -- Despite an Ontario Superior Court justice ruling last week that Ontario's top police officer must face allegations he illegally influenced municipal officials, the Ministry of the Attorney General says no further action has yet been taken. In a decision released last Thursday, a Superior Court justice ruled OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino must face allegations by Gary McHale McHale, who led rallies to protest what he has called two-tier justice in the policing of an aboriginal land occupation in Caledonia, claims Fantino influenced municipal officials when he sent an e-mail allegedly telling the mayor and councillors not to attend McHale's rallies. A justice of the peace who heard McHale's complaint refused to issue a summons for Fantino. That ruling was overturned in Superior Court but no further action has been taken. http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2010/01/06/12360921-sun.html
  15. This guy is simply writing a fiction. What has the Mitchell Map got to do with anything? The promise was made to the Six Nation of a land grant in Canada after the American Revolution, in the 1790ies -- The Mitchell Map is one year after the end of the Seven Years War! The aboriginal natives in Southern Ontario were (other that around Lake Erie and the Niagara Peninsula) were Hurons, who were wiped out by disease. The Six Nations are the children of immigrants to Canada, just like the rest of us. They got a grant, and they sold it. Joseph Brant, himself, sold a big parcel to German farmers, which became Kitchener. Prices were about $1 an acre. The land was held in fee simple until 1840, when the remaining land was consolidated into a reservation. This became the model for other native groups, and the reservation was was created to keep their remaining assets safe from commercial sharpies. Six Nations natives have the same rights to overturn a sale as anyone else. They are not a first nation. They are not aboriginals in this part of the world, except as you and I are. They have no aboriginal right to the land. That's for the guys the Six Nations used to push around, back when the Mohawks were cannibals. Our problem is we have racist courts, and judges with lots of education, but no historical understanding, no sociological understanding, just an understianding of which way the wind blows.
  16. The Six Nations are the children of immigrants to Canada, just like the rest of us. They got a grant, and they sold it. Joseph Brant, himself, sold a big parcel to German farmers, which became Kitchener. Prices were about $1 an acre. The land was held in fee simple until 1840, when the remaining land was consolidated into a reservation. This became the model for other native groups, and the reservation was was created to keep their remaining assets safe from commercial sharpies. Six Nations natives have the same rights to overturn to a sale as anyone else. They are not a first nation. They are not aboriginals in this part of the world, except as you and I are. Our problem is we have racist courts, and judges with lots of education, but no understanding. No historical understanding, no sociological understanding, just an understianding of which way the wind blows.
  17. I named the thread, and it is obviously off-putting to some. Sorry. At the time, I thought it was just a bit of irony, laced with edginess, smacking of a youthful view. I thought it would be taken lightly. I found myself strangely un-nostalgic. The dominating faces -- Bush, Gore, Kerrie -- arouse no warmth. Objectively, the naughts were better than the 90ies. Unemployment came down, the deficit austerity was at least relaxed, and until September, 2009, the economy at least seemed expansive.
  18. Yeah, Oleg knows who the minions are! I don't know the exact rules, but Bob Rae got a couple of hundred thousand dollars from his brother. Goodness knows if he has that much money just laying around, but he probably signed a note at the Bank. Rae's brother has a life-long association with Power Corporation. It's more or less the same with the others. There may or may not be some ultimate backing from the Corporate world lurking in the shadows. The rules prevent any one individual from exceeding a maximum donation -- and it's fairly low. So you can see the size of the loophole that Bob Rae poked in the legislation. But it's not the bankers, it's more at the level of personal loans. By considering these unpaid loans to be donations, Elections Canada has effectively allowed people to donate thousands of dollars more than they were legally allowed to. Secondly, what about the people to whom the loans are owed? How does Elections Canada decide that these people's loans are to be considered a donations? There's laws that deal with that already. If it's an overly large donation, there should be some 'fine' assessed against the 'income' the Liberals get from Elections Canada. Otherwise, Elections Canada has conspired with the candidates in defeating the purpose of the reforms of election financing.
  19. And you know what? The bitch is that he's better than the other guy! (Though it's a little hard to see how the head of a minority government can be dictator very effectively. Two subversions of democracy in four years? Not bad. I am sure that Chretien outpaced that, by far. Remember the golf course deal? Or the Somali Inquiry being shut down? Remember when he had the head of the Bank ruined for being right? Christ, he even prorogued Parliament repeatedly, just as he liked. Nobody even complained. And Mulroney was no angel. There must have been years there when he subverted democracy half a dozen times. That's what's weird. Despite what is said about our present PM, most people are just glad that they have him, and they think he's better than what he replaced. I suppose it's a bit like the relief that comes when you stop banging your head against the wall.
  20. Thanks for posting this. Its one of those items that could slip into the memory hole very easily, and it will be very revealing to see what the penalty will be for the shortfall? At one time, I understood that if the loans weren't repaid, they became private debts. If that's so, this is a break for Dion and the rest. But if it's a donation, is breaks other rules. What are the penalties, do you know? Does it count as a donation to the Liberal Party?
  21. The problem with this plan is that it doesn't change anything for the consumer. It will make things worse. If the government of Ontario wants to get out of the alcohol business, they should not sell the whole monopoly, they should allow free enterprise, and sell off the individual locations to the highest bidder. The union can go fuck themselves. Why should a guy at a cash register get $25/hr? Privatization should not be a matter of selling a monopoly. It should be sold while the market is opened up to other licensed vendors. Otherwise, it will be like Rogers cable running your liquor store. They use their monopoly position to squeeze everybody they deal with for money, and give as little as possible. At least with government running it, they don't care about economic rationality. They don't mind not maximizing revenue -- they like to keep up appearances. If the whole monpoly goes private, in a piece, or a few regional monopolies, it will usher in a real deterioration in the quality. After all, the service part of the deal couldn't be lower unless you scanned and bagged your own booze.
  22. You're right, it wasn't the Queen ... just getting sloppy. It was the monarch, which is the point. No aboriginal right. Which means that verbal evidence does not trump property records, which is my point. This thing is not a land claim. It's an armed insurrection that the OPP is too gutless to handle. They may have a point -- the natives have a couple of dozen ex-marines in their number. They probably outgun the OPP, and the OPP are all well-paid, well-padded guys who spend their days sitting in a cruiser. Right now, that idea that this is a armed insurrection is being denied, so all the explanations are bogus. The background to this is that McGuinty carried on a persecution of Mike Harris, claiming he had ordered the OPP to kill natives. In fact, the OPP were shot at, and returned fire. One of the native kids was killed. McGuinty was guided by a goal of showing himself to be a better leader than Harris -- he tried to conciliate, and the natives spotted his weakness immediately. So, we have the OPP helping the natives abuse their neighbours. One man, a contractor, was almost killed when the natives invaded the house he was building for his daughter's wedding. He has wit with 2x4s, and had his skull fractured. The OPP were outside, trying to prevent the man's son from getting in the house at the time! They contractor was almost killed, and the charges that were laid were for things like public mischief. The legal key to this is that these particular natives are the children of immigrants just like the rest of us, and therefore they have to aboriginal right to the land. If they get to roll back land deals made over a century ago, so does everybody else. After all, the Charter of Rights says we are all equal, regardless of race ...
  23. I know what you're talking about, I have many of the same feelings. I used to have a passing interest in politics, after the sports page, if you know what I mean. When I had my epiphany from the NDP, there weren't that many people who saw things the way I did. And, in truth, I was probably a sputter of frustration half the time, and not very coherent -- starting about 1980. Political correctness was coming in, and it was heavy. Bob Rae's government was on the horizon. I found that the NDP was no longer the champion of ordinary working people. It was becoming tartars of human rights and feminism, and all the other groups demanding more, and I had turned into a white male. The new class enemy. Anyway, I was looking for a political saviour. When the Reform Party became visible in the big smoke, I got excited. My point is that, ever since 1990, at the latest, I've been anticipating a party gaining power that would free us from all this collective guilt that the abstract people want to lay on us. You could say I've been waiting for 20 years! And now close are we? But the problem is ... what else are you going to do? I already vote NDP -- strategically. (I live in Dovercourt riding, in which the Conservative candidate doesn't stand a chance, and where the Liberal member -- Mario Silva -- is so unredeemingly slimy -- that I would gladly do my bit by helping the NDP guy unseat him. The same way you'd help a neighbour get rid of a skunk. (Actually, the NDP candidate wasn't bad, an intellectual environmentalist ...) It isn't like there's a lot of choice.
  24. Well, Robert, you're certainly persistent. You may not quite realize the role that patronage has played in our politics ... since day one. It's a part of democratic politics, and always has been. Admittedly, it isn't one of the features they brag about when they're telling the school kids the official lies, but a little empirical study will show you. You can trace the growth of the Democratic Party in the US from big urban machines, at the start of the 19th century. From the start, they were using their electoral muscle to get their hands on patronage. Tammany Hall -- New York's machine, and the trail-blazer -- often played a very helpful role in integrating new immigrants into the economy, and used their ability to affect nominations to garner the patronage plums they needed. Just so you know, the central figures in Tammany Hall were Irish at the time. When Baldwin and LaFontaine made their deal (and became the first Reform Party), one of the big elements of the deal was who got the patronage. Canada has always had 'brokered' politics. It's a political scientists term. Basically, it means that deals are cut pragmatically, and patronage is used to sweeten the pot, and make the deals work. Many of the issues that grabbed the country were taken into the back rooms of the Liberals Party, and some set of compromises were made, with 'sweeteners' for the side that needs benefits. Patronage has always played a central part in the governance of Canada. There are whole sets of appointments that are nothing else but patronage. Why do you think so many Liberal politicians wives are 'Citizenship Judges'? But think on this -- the reason the Conservative Party consistently raises multiples of the contributions that other parties raises is that it has so many members, and the average donation to the Conservative Party is around $200+ -- they have more small donors than the NDP, which may surprise people, but it's true. There is no way that these donations were the decisive factor in these appointments.
×
×
  • Create New...