Cartman

By this logic, we should sell our national parks to corporations and individuals who will protect them because they own them.

74 seats if the NDP takes Parrish.

Maybe this is not such a bad idea after all. The parties would not be merging, it sounds as though he is just asking for strategic influence and coordination. They will probably vote the same way on most issues anyways so they may as well coordinate their actions and both become relevant. I say get the media attention, take the hits and stir up the political landscape. New Dems and the Bloc.

The suggestion that “socialism” or a collective response to environmental problems has been inadequate requires that such a response has occurred in the first place and has failed or alternatively that it has failed to even recognize the problem in the first place. This is akin to purporting that science is woefully inadequate because the use of this epistemology has been unsuccessful at curing SARS or killing flesh eating bacteria. How can we judge it so considering that scientists have only recently (we assume) been introduced to these phenomena? We are judging its efforts before they take place. Kyoto is the first significant collective attempt at solving global environmental problems and it has occurred despite the influence of corporations that create these problems. Many things contain value and use value even if they are not privately owned. Most humans value sociality yet do not own friends. Some people value spiritual or religious beliefs but do not own God. Also, owning something that can be traded does not always mean one values it. Corporations that own the land they exploit do not necessarily treat it well. One can trade money for commodities but may also give $$ away to charity. How are we to explain morality if we accept that all people are by nature greedy?

This link is not about the Supreme Court, but it does deal with irregularities in our justice system (JP's) and I think you might find it quite interesting. http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040309.html#jps

Not bad, but even better was "It depends on what your definition of is, is". Senior Bush's "Read my lips" is also memorable. potato Quayle wins.

Agreed, but I think that the failure of corporations to generate such a market in the first place without the aid of states around the world says much about the necessity of intervention at times. I intuitively agree with this sentiment, but I am not sure why or what the alternative might be. I would be interested in your thoughts here. This is a very intriguing question and I do not know the answer. I assume that they are completely separate entities (no common ownership). I would also like to know how much was paid here. I must take a closer look at the specifics, but as the credit system is the heart of the deal, there must be some provision for a degree of transparency.

IMR raises some really interesting and important points. Average Canadians do not love Americans as they used to when I was a kid, though I admit to having nothing but experience to suggest as much. I remember the solidarity that existed before and just after we helped the US hostages out of Iran. It has been some time since relations were that positive. To an extent, I agree with the contention that some people use coded messages such as “I just hate Bush, not all Americans” as a way to hide their prejudices (against Americans). Expression of hatred is more sophisticated than in the Archie Bunker days. As well, it is not a far stretch to argue that hatred of a government can very easily turn into a hatred for an entire nation (i.e. Nazi’s and Germans, “the evil empire” and ordinary Soviets etc). Having said that, however, I am not convinced that disliking and expressing a dislike for a political leader or administration always translates into a dislike for an entire nation. I really do not like some of our elected political leaders, but I love my country. Whether a fondness for Americans generates any economic benefits is another matter and I am a little skeptical on this one. We do have problems with the US and we need to hold our own. But, the suggestion that we ensure not to foster a climate of hatred against anyone regardless of their sex, ethnicity and nationality is a point well taken and not to be so easily dismissed. IMO, I do not think many Canadians are anti-American or hate Americans, but it has reached a point where we need to be more reflexive and careful. Stupid statements from our elected officials sought after hungrily by our sensationalist media does not help anyone.

I would agree with your critique of this absolutist statement though believe you are creating a straw man to easily tear down since I cannot find where anyone made the suggestion that ALL corporations will go along with this voluntarily. Some corporations will go along with this voluntarily (even if they do not like it). The article in question demonstrates as much. Without taxes which few people enjoy, I am unclear as to how you would provide sufficient resources for the services of state regulation. I do not believe this would be done effectively by simply requesting charitable donations. Tariffs may hurt both parties to a transaction, but benefit others negatively affected by such transactions. In the case of environmental protection, the market has not adequately regulated itself in the eyes of 123 nations (thus far) and is perceived to be in need of state intervention. Ideally, we would not need a state to protect us from ourselves, but the ideal frequently differs from the reality.

While I actually agree with much of what you have said IMR, I do not accept that Kerry is a left-winger. IMO, the only left candidate was Dean. The Democrats elected Kerry simply because they thought he could beat Bush and their opportunism will eventually burn them. I do not think I have ever heard Kerry specifically say he would end the war in Iraq and bring the soldiers home any time soon. In our last election, I actually thought we had a pretty good slate of candidates, I cannot say as much for the US this time. This is a very sorry lot. The simple fact that they are spending more time arguing about what happened in Vietnam 30 years ago and not what is happening in the US right now is enough to show that. If Layton, Martin and Harper spent the majority of their time discussing Korea rather than health care, municipalities, the economy etc. I would be really pissed.

I must say that I truly dislike when politicians speak so conservatively and in such coded form that a person needs a degree in modern languages to understand and interpret what is being said. This allows them to flip flop too easily. I appreciate when politicians are honest and forthright, but there must be a way of doing so without resorting to such inflammatory language. Conan (another American who hates all Americans) did a show on this issue. He noted that one Cdn politician referred to Bush as a moron while another called him an idiot. Bush reacted angrily and yelled "moron or idiot...which is it!"

Surprised you have not received more responses to this question BBM. Perhaps the question could be amended by also asking why people don't have political ambitions. I have no political ambitions because I think that we treat our politicians very poorly (for good reasons much of the time it seems). I have a few friends at various levels of government and would not want any of their jobs even with hefty pay raises. I blame the media but I also think you need the right personality.

That is a good idea RB. I usually do not have time for messenger except while on holidays which are quickly coming to an end .

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...lein040825.html 1. Health care. 2. Green tech. for the economy.

It will happen one way or the other. The only questions are whether we get on board with it and when the entire world will as well. As mentioned above, some corporations are already getting prepared. Check this out. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...lta_040825.html

I am not very familiar with Charron, but I am surprised that Abella was appointed.

Hmmm...I would really like to know if there is something going on here or if this is mere coincidence. With all of the recent corporate scandals, I find myself increasingly suspicious when execs. leave under such circumstances. http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/...bin_040823.html

I will find the link, but it is my understanding that public employees wages have now eroded below that of the private sector and the gov't is losing some valuable employees. As for your question, what extended benefits are you referring to? Are they benefits that we should all be getting?

We better get on board with this because our economy will suffer if we try to ignore the issue. Eventually those governments (and corporations) who invest in cleaner tech. will begin to place onerous tarrifs and other restrictions on those who do not. I suspect that many US firms already recognize this and will conform to standards regardless of what (semi) free market theorists like Bush and Harper propose. Bartering a better deal is preferable to having one inevitably foisted upon you and being a pragmatist, Chretien recognized as much. Cry all you want about "hokey science", but the reality is that the world community believes that the market has not effectively regulated itself and consequently an interventionist program will take place whether we like it or not. While the right has demonstrated its eighteenth century belief system to be antiquated on this matter, the left has shown it is most relevant and vital to our economic well-being.

I agree with Take on this one. Willy Do not get me wrong on this one. I realize that there are some people who just seem to be unable to make things fall in line no matter what. At times, it is not just the economic disparity that holds them back from integration. But many measures suggest that poverty is not about a core group of "offenders", but is a game of musical chairs. For many reasons, people run into difficulties including divorce, layoff, traumatic incident in their lives etc. What concerns me is the fact that child poverty was supposed to be eliminated from society a few years ago (even the Cons agreed to this one), but has actually grown during the 1990's. As I said above, it will affect everyone in some way. I agree that the difficulty lies in what should be done. I do not think that this has been on the radar screen as of late and should be more salient.

Who knows Take, I think we switch governments every 30-40 years or so. It may get interesting yet. I think the perception is that the more blue we elect, the greater the opposition to the feds we will present. Diversity of opinion is generally regarded as a weakness that may hurt our interests. Until the economy crashes, this party can relax.

I would but I never use it.

The desision to create PCan had nothing to do with giving CDNs shares. It was about the gov't gaining both knowledge and a strong presence in the energy sector. If I recall correctly, in 1973 OPEC had reduced oil supplies thereby precipitating an "oil shortage" in North America. The economy was in serious trouble. There were LONG lineups at the pumps and Trudeau believed that American oil companies were taking inordinate profits and not disseminating accurate information about why prices were so high when supplies had not significantly diminished. At this time, there was a minor Cdn presence in our own energy sector so he created PCan to exert a measure of control. In any case, PCan began with a $1.5 billion investment and has grown dramatically since it was enacted by Parliament in 1975. It has also been one of the largest investors in the tar sands and on the east coast and has been responsible for training others who later established Cdn oil companies themselves. BTW...more recently, Glen Clark formed a commission to investigate why gas prices fluctuated so dramatically in BC. Again, this was done on the basis of a lack of information or a perceived lack of information.

Let's face it folks, we should be happy to pay $1/litre right now because it is going to cost you FAR more in the near future. I read in the Calgary Herald where they expected it to be $1.2/litre this year and this does not even take into account the environmental costs. Europe pays much more. I don't really care because even with the relatively large price jumps, my car uses so little fuel that it ends up being a few $$ more at the pump. I am also looking at buying an even more efficient car next time.

I should mention that in Ontario, I might pay a little less but if my employer pays it on my behalf, then I must claim this benefit on my income tax so it probably ends up being the same.