The Terrible Sweal

kimmy wrote: Really? So, I suppose you have no idea why the party has had to twice fold itself away under a new label in futile efforts to get elected. And ... 'don't vote for them.' I don't see what you mean by about face. The new CPC has ALLl the taints of BOTH the old tories and the Rabid Alliance. It's not inconsistent for opponents to point that out, it's ... obvious. I think my position is more nuanced than that. Politics in Canada is corrupt, but that is only part of the problem. Decadence is afflicting our society. We, the people, and the leaders we support, have lost contact with the meaning of our principles, and our institutions have become infirm-of-purpose. And deeper still, all of the world is locked in was has become a life-or- death struggle between reason and unreason. So returning to Canada and asking: Which party will best give effect to our principles and enliven our institutions, I say neither, and vote Green. But I think the Liberals are less likely to undermine them blindly. What party is corrupt? I have to say, both, but with the Conservative party erring on the wrong side of my choice in the reason/unreason meta-conflict. No more than Paul Martin is Jean Chretien, no less than tories serve Money. Indeed, and where is the Reform spirit now? Forced down the throat of a protesting PC party, then quickly dropped. Grass-roots? Democratic renewal? Don't make me laugh. But you are presuming a conclusion: Is the Liberal party really so thoroughly rotten that such a metamorphosis is necessary? And you overlook an further concern: At what cost would this metamorphosis be accomplished?

And you were disputed on that, not on a strawman. ... childhood poverty, malice or incompetence of one's fellow man, whether you're good-looking, whether there's oil under your ass, whether you meet the CEO in the washroom the morning you have a good idea, ... That's merely to flip the straw-man onto his head. Do people blame 'everything', or do they blame those things they don't control? You know I hate to quibble, Hugo, but calling the product manufacturers 'externalities' is rather an confusing use of that term, given its already existing meaning in economics. Not, mind you that I disagree with you main point about videogames. Parents who don't want their minor children to play them have the same authority and remedies as parents who don't want their minor children playing with knives or propane torches.

Bro wrte: The obvious reason would be,that Mr. Harper would be our next PM,and in so doing,would hopefully rid Canada of the problems associated with having yet another Quebec rooted PM. The rest of Canada might have a chance to be governed as it should be,without Quebec calling all the shots. If you imagine political corruption is exclusive to Quebec, you need to pay closer attention to details of govenrment action in a whole lot of other places. Is BC politics lily-white? Ontario, NS?

You'd like for people to ignore one or the other side of the party's bastard beginnings, wouldn't you? I would find it interesting how, after making the argument that this goverment is culpabel for the actions of the former one, you could fail to see the irony.

I could not disagree more. Intellect: Harper's brilliance is evidenced by what, exactly? His skill for articulating neo-conservative cant? His ability to impress the intellectual lightweights at U of C? When it comes to intellect give me Martin any day. A proven CEO and interlocutor with thinkers around the world. Common sense? You can define anything that suits your fancy as 'common sense', and remember, common sense is what tells you the world is flat. Does fronting an organization whose sole approach to public policy is 'tax cuts' count as common sense? Anyway, we don't need 'common sense', we need uncommonly clear perception, sound principles, and a willingness to lead. But it is your last criterion, "genuine desire to govern Canada with all of our interests in mind", in which Harper fails miserably. Harper despises Canada. He doesn't want to govern it, he wants to revolutionize it pursuant to the ill-conceived fantasies of rightist doctrine.

Because they've never had a chance to govern. How can you say they're corrupt? Hello! Mulroney, Mike Harris.

The question I would pose is this: Why would voters who want to react against corruption ever turn to the Tories?

I don't see it. Who will elect them?

Here we go... tory partisans are working themselves up into a lather, but skipping important considerations which the voters will notice. August, Nixon was forced from office because he, personally had done wrong. There is no such indication about Martin (or as fa as I can tell, any of is cabinet).

Well, my patience is wearing a little thin with this pretense of the shocked piety of Quebec. Any Quebecois who is genuinely surprised to learn that there is corruption in government contracting must be descending from some particularly remote ivory tower. (Even the guys fresh off the timber trucks know better!)

Jargon. Partial truth. Over-inclusive. Arguable. Which Israelis? I woudn't agree with the characterization: 'exploited'. Agreed. Well, they contributed and perpetuated at least. It is illegal. What percentile, by what criteria. That's a very ... flexible proposition.

That sentence is an impossibility.

meanwhile, the provincial breakdown is astonishing! NDP gained 13% in BC, Torys gained only 1. In Ontario the Tory's are actually down 2% , NDP up 2. And in Alberta? Tories DOWN 3, Liberal UP 8%. Manitoa and Sask are adding 12 % for the NDP, with Tories down 8. Based on these numbers we'd be looking at a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance.

In the same vein, I've heard the Greens are up 3% too. Again, what we are seeing in these polls is a reflection of the form of the question: How would you vote today? People of all political pursuations who voted Liberal last time are just parking their support. Meanwhile, the IPSoS Reid poll (Glob and Maul, this morning) has 87% saying they want the Report before an election. 52 say the Liberal party as an organization is not culpable. And Martin leads Harper personally 48 to 46.

Brion is young enough that the could wait out two leaderships and still have a good shot after that.

In Mulroney's case he slipped out and left a patsy to take the hit. Will Martin be Chretien's patsy? We'll see, I guess.

Yes , but that's a different question. All good reasons to wait for the report.

This is the common view on the Left and I find it surprising. I can only suspect that it stems from the abject terror of Harper becoming PM.On a separate thread, BD said much the same. (As did even I.) If the Left is downplaying this scandal, the media has certainly decided that it is "explosive". The media would run with anything that they can parlay into viewer/readership. I just can't see the fact that politicos were corrupt here changing the major voting imperatives at work in the country. Today's big poll has two pieces of info: 9% drop for the Liberals (down to 25) on the question Who would you vote for today? But 62% doon'tt want to vote until after the report comes out. Why? Because they are keen to vote for the Torybastards? Hardly.

Invaded 200 countries? That's hard to believe, even in all of U.S. history. Let's count (generously): Nicaragua (coupla times) Vietnam Laos Cambodia Somalia Lebanon Iraq Cuba Libya Panama Grenada Iran Germany N. Korea? Phillipines Hawaii Various Native American nations Japan Mexico Italy British North America Afghanistan Hmmm. Who am I missing?

Even through this channel, what would he know about the corruption? Would he know that a sponsorship program was going on? Yes. Would he know that it was shovelling money into ad firms? If anyone around him thought it mattered, yes. Would they know that no work was being done? Maybe. Would they know that a select few high-living prime-ministerial henchmen were carrying around brown envelopes of graft? I don't see how they could know that, really.

If I were convinced that Belinda is intelligent, honest, caring, and stable I'd consider voting for her even though she's a tory.

Or, a prosecutor might suggest, a "pattern of behavior". Certainly, yes. But a pattern engaged in by who, specifically? I think that all of Canada's federal governments trhoughout our history have engage in practices which fit under that description. And you could substitute in the words 'patronage' or 'corruption' for expediency. AND, electing the Torybastards, or the NDP for that matter, won't break that pattern just because we switch parties.

2. a. Do ethical/moral imperatives exist which in some cases make it true to say 'because we can act, we must act'? b. What imperatives, what cases?

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Why? Why are bullets so mean to people?

I think the next election outcome will be a Liberal majority. I don't think this election will be in the very near future. The government won't fall over the sponsorship scandal. I think most Canadians can see the basic truths of this situation. Even if this specific corruption went to the highest office in the land, Paul Martin did not occupy it at the time. Groupaction was at the very center of this, so we have probably heard the worst of it, intensity-wise. The testimony will wrap up and then there's the long wait for the report. If the Martinites have any sense at all they will try to 'take leadership' on this meta-issue in a credible way very quickly, as well as put in a good (enough) effort at pursuing the specific wrongdoers. Meanwhile, if they can ever put together a couple of months of apparent good government people will WANT to give them a longer try. If the government falls before the report, the Liberals will say the opposition should have waited and that they disrupted their clean-up program. Digression, prediction: Chretien will get off. Not because of anything the Liberal government or any of its members do, but because the 'Canadian Establishment' will require it. Further digression: If you understand the implications of the above comment, you will understand why there is no point in punishing the Martin Liberals for this scandal by electing the Torybastards.