The Terrible Sweal

I couldn't help but notice that these three parties were strangely keen to avoid another election. I got to wondering why, and figured that they each had decided they had no prospects of doing any better than where they are now. Which brings up the next question ... if that's how they feel, what the heck do they think they are about?

I still can't get over how easily Americans seem to be accepting these stinky little facts: -GWH Bush ran the CIA -Osama was trained by the CIA -the Bush's are oil millionaires -the bin Ladens are Saudi oil-service millionaires -PNAC needed a Pearl Harbor event -a Pearl Harbor event happened -GW Bush called it his 'trifecta' -Saudi's including bin Laden family were given immediate special treatment after the event -GW Bush administration (incl. Condi and Dick, oil millionaires) launched an attack on an oil-rich country that had nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor event -oil prices have been sky-high ever since on "fears" of supply problems.

Repug vigilante-ism. Class all the way. Did anyone see today's Globe and Mail with the photo of a big right-wing he-man pulling the hair of a young lady. Police better arrest the little slut, I guess.

I don't think that follows at all. The Republican Party exists, but it can rarely be characterized as 'true'.

Actually, I do disagree with that. This 'politics-not-science' line is just the lie that Canada's beef industry and politicians have as their chosen spin. The science says this ... 1) If you have BSE it came from somewhere. If you can't find where and remove it, then it may still be there. 2) BSE come from animals being fed animal remains. Another lie is that some body parts are safe and others not. This lie is based on the concept that the dangerous prions do their damage in the brain and nerve tissue, so muscle cuts are probably OK. Well, that's nonsense. The prion enters the animal thru ingestion. How then does it end up in the brain tissue? Through the BLOODSTREAM. The bloodstream feeds the tissues throughout the animal, so if the blood carries the prion to the brain, it is carrying it everywhere, muscle, bone, and fat.

In the speculative realm of separation, some provinces have more or stronger constitutional, and international law/sovereignty positions than others. To compare strictly on the level of 'equities', B.C., for example, brought itself to Confederation, whereas Saskatchewan is a creature of Confederation. (And BTW, if a wall is low enough, a mouse can jump it. A caterpillar cannot jump.)

I've tried it before. This time I came up: Left (-3.62) Libertarian (-4.46). Roughly speaking, I seem to be in good company with Ghandi, the Dalai Llama, and Nelson Mandela. BTW, did you check out this ... Iconochasms

She may have perceived a benefit - I’m not a mind-reader, but in my opinion she received no benefit. Both on the basis of my principial understanding of the dynamic of dealing with problems, and on the basis of my observation in later contacts with the person in question. I don’t think she received any benefit.As August suggested, I think we both would have been better off to go to sleep at least two hours earlier. However, you are right, August, in that both of us hope for some benefit - for her. I listened for three hours in the hope that if I listen to her long enough, she may eventually be open to receive what help I can offer her. I suppose you could say that this would benefit me because if she gets the help she needs she’ll stop calling me like that, but I could achieve that simply by saying, “Sorry, this is going nowhere. Goodbye.” I hang in there for her sake, not mine. I don’t think that fits with the pragmatic definition of ethics you proposed. Yet I doubt there are many who would say it was not a good ethical choice. Possibly foolish - blind optimism [], but ethical. It seems to me that if she perceived a benefit or potential benefit from talking to you, then she acted reasonably (based on her fact-set) in seeking you out. Whether there is a tangible benefit in your estimation, or even hers, is not the question. She acted as she did (calling you) out of a pragmatic wish to maximize 'net pleasure' by acting to secure the benefit (such as it is) of your conversation.

My comment still applies. The Senate committee is an oversight body. The executive administration is who the intelligence apparatus reports to operationally. Nice try to you. Oh, and P.S. Clinton quotes from 1998??? Come on.

There was a good column by Naomi Klein in today's Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...9/TPColumnists/ Excerpts:

That's a peurile comparison. Neither Kerry nor Clinton were the chief executive with a security and intelligence apparatus to call upon. Neither spread fabrications about Iraq's connections to Al Queada or WMDs. If they believed the administrations bullshit, well, then they were duped by a lie like a lot of Americans were.

Oh really? Was it enacted by a legitimate government? Yes. Was it declared illegal by the courts? No. Ergo, it was legitimate.

Kimmy, No-one is taking Alberta's money. No-one denies that the province in entitled to collect royalties on the oil. Nevertheless, a province's resource administration rights don't defeat the interest all Canadians have in all of Canada and so the federal government can us its own constitutionally apportioned power to derive benefits from the oil for all Canadians. Regarding the separation point, I think you fail to understand because you don't wish to understand. What you purported just now to mock was hardly that incomprehensible: "Can the mouse jump over that wall?" "No, and the caterpillar even less so."

WTF? Does that make Harper a running dog lackey? I think the only other choice is 'dupe'.

Which Liberals? Some Liberals feel antagonistic toward the criminal Bush regime, certainly. But the government of Canada has shown no antagonism whatsoever. Do you mean to suggest that the American government under Bush is playing petty politics with an entire continental industry? Shurely not!

What's he going to do, wave his magic wand? Or sit on George's?

Just because you don't like the facts, Kimmy, that doesn't change them. Using reductionism to conflate adminstration and royalties with ownership doesn't change the fact that programs such as the NEP are constitutional. Purporting to mock an out of context slice of our prior discussions does little to improve the credibility of your argument.

It is not 'splitting hairs'. It is the essence of the issue. Canada can make use of the windfall under Alberta in exactly the same ways it can make use of the coal under Nova Scotia or the asbestos under Quebec ... constitutionally through legitimately enacted public policy. The objections from some Albertans to the federal level of government are, in part, based on a mistaken sense of their entitlement. Clarifying the constitutional facts will help alleviate this, hopefully. I do agree with your point about taxing lottery winnings though. Why should oil wealth be exempt from the reach of the polity just based on who happens to sit above it?

You're not paying very close attention, obviously. The reason: OWNERSHIP. The resources BELONG to CANADA. They are merely administered by the Province of Alberta.

What tripe!

1. When you are talking about banks and other financial institutions you are already subsuming a vast state and inter-state aparatus underlying them. 2. What the state should properly do and how is certainly the question. As you know, I suggest that where the state can improve market efficiency by reducing transaction costs, it is reasonable to consider attempting it. 3. If persons breaching contracts can distribute the cost to other market participants, there is incentive to breach. If contract enforcement prevent breachors from distributing the costs, it is capable of improving market efficiency, and hence welfare. Inasmuch as we see states enforcing contracts in experience, this may explain why.

I suggest that Republicans must hate America. The evidence: 1. policies which undermine freedom. 2. policies which undermine equality of opportunity. 3. appointment of judges who undermine the Constitution. 4. administrations (Nixon, Reagan ... ) which have carried out policies which violated the Constitution. 5. policies which undermine the separation of church and state. 6. policies that harm the economic well-being of the majority of Americans. 7. policies which endanger America's standing internationally. 8. policies which invite unnecessary violent reaction.

Same diff. But if you prefer, OK. "Market conduct" covers more than just the transactions concluded. An exchange is a contract. I disagree. A bare exchange does not create reciprocal rights between the parties which characterize a contract. No reciprocation of rights between the parties survives past the moment of a bare exchange. Definitely not true. Contract law is merely a set of rules that assist people to trade. When you say 'a set of rules', you confirm my point. Rules, if they can be enforced are just another word for 'laws'. If they cannot be enforced, they are another word for 'suggestions'. There is no enforcement available for common grammar rules, and so, no-one contracts on the basis of them. There is enforcement of legal terms, and so it is on the basis of legal terms that contracts are concluded. Sigh. Except (as I have been saying) where information asymmetry and/or hidden variables prevent other participants from knowing what you know, or enforcing against you if you cheat. Really? How is your reputation propagated? How does the market get and judge this information? How efficiently? You guys kill me with this fantasy of 'self-enforcing'. All these self-enforcing schemes you refer to are all built on the foundation of state laws and interstate treaties. States condition the environment entirely. Was it you who posted about Coase? Better read up.

So you didn't even read it, but you've got a whole paragraph or more to say about it. How thoughtful and worthwhile will that be, I wonder?

Though I am unwilling to concede the irrelevance of the distinction between penalty and transaction cost, your summary of points is fairly well put. 1) I would have to change 'private market transactions' to say instead, 'participants' market conduct'. 2&3) If it is not established and enforced it is not law. Exchange can exist without contracts. But contracts cannot exist without law, and law comes from states or state-like entities, ie. recognized as authoitative by market participants and capable of enforcing dictates on breachors.