Who was the last Prime Minister you were proud of

[Hux]

. The Liberals are just like the Democrats,

There is a huge difference. Here's an example: the Democrats can't even say that as a party they support a woman's right to choose, there is much more of a "right wing plank" in the Democratic Party than the Liberal Party, they're actually closer to the Canadian Conservative Party.

Canada is one of the most left wing social democratic nations in the world due in no small part to the Liberal Party being in power for most of the last century. The proof is in the puddin'.

So we should all vote Liberal than.

No, just don't complain about Harper and the Conservatives forming the Gov't.

You're riding went NDP not because you were brave enough to vote for who you want, but because it is one of the few ridings in the country that is actually winnable for them.

Everyone complains about our electoral system, well guess what? You're not going to change the system by ignoring the reality of it, or through "principled" voting for who you want to form the gov't by supporting the local candidate who represents that party.

Until the system changes, play the game, if progressive voters (Green, NDP) were a little more strategic - to illustrate this did you know it would have taken less than 500 strategic votes in key ridings to stop the Conservatives from forming the Gov't? There ya go, if progressive voters did this the Conservatives would be lucky to elect anyone outside of Alberta.

Strategic voting would allow for a gov't that would better represent the views of Canadians.

But alas here we are, and I honestly think that these amateurs in power and their shit-show government bodes very well for the next government being Liberal, and won't be close enough that strategic voting will even be necessary.

[Birdy]

grrr.. spite voting drives me insane. soo....... manipulative!

jack layton doesn't stand a shot in hell of ever becoming prime minister of this country, but if you believe in the NDP's politics, and you like your local representative and think he/she may do a good job on your behalf, vote for them. don't vote for some half-ass schmuck from a different party just because you're trying to rig something up. what the hell good does that do? all you're going to end up with his a half-ass schmuck government that you don't really agree with. compromising your values for the electoral institution is BULL SHIT!

[MarcO]

But alas here we are, and I honestly think that these amateurs in power and their shit-show government bodes very well for the next government being Liberal, and won't be close enough that strategic voting will even be necessary.

And I hope you are right, sir!

[Hux]

grrr.. spite voting drives me insane. soo....... manipulative!

Manipulative? um yeah, duh, that's the point. If you think manipulation has no place in politics you have your head in the clouds (or somehwere a little more fecal-y).

but if you believe in the NDP's politics, and you like your local representative and think he/she may do a good job on your behalf, vote for them.

There has been all kinds of research on voter motivation ie. some people vote for the local candidate, some the national party, some the leader, etc.

If you are voting for the local person hoping they will be a good MP, vote for who you want, if you truly are hoping for a gov't closest to NDP principles explain to me how by not strategically voting (in a key riding) you AREN'T potentially allowing the CPC to win and thus enabling a

half-ass schmuck government that you don't really agree with.

To me NOT voting strategically in a key riding, is compromising your values.

I use the ice cream example, if the NDP is dark chocolate with almonds, and the Liberals are chocoloate, why would you could choose vanilla (Conservative) instead of chocolate!? spite or just compromising your true taste/favourite=principles?

[SmoothedShredder]

Manipulative? um yeah, duh, that's the point. If you think manipulation has no place in politics you have your head in the clouds (or somehwere a little more fecal-y).

What the hell is wrong with us? How does a thread about pride turn into this? Why would anyone say something like this, and then think they are the better person?

Edited September 28, 2006 by Guest
Added Quote To mark my eyre!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

What the hell is wrong with us? How does a thread about pride turn into this?

Easy - because we let ourselves get all abstract. I do that all the time .

It's also loaded into the word "pride", a category basically concerned with defensive identity, and defense and offense go hand-in-hand (look at how Gay Pride parades went on to spawn Straight Pride parade among people who in turn felt threatened by it).

And then there's the matter of people never being satisfied with the people who end up telling them what they can and can't do, even when they're elected to do so, because of the simple fact of conflicting interests. And even if you want to opt out of that system, you don't get to, which means more resentment.

And then there's the sad story of the NDP and other leftist parties and how they've tanked whenever they've come to power.

And then there's the sad story of every party that's eventually tanked whenever they've come to power.

Power blows. What makes us think it's a good thing, unless it's hedging someone else's power?

[SmoothedShredder]

Why focus on the negative? And why participate in society AT ALL with such a finalist/defeatist view? Seems like Unibomber talk, from someone enjoying all the privildge of TV's, cars, schools, internet and everything else some kind of 'power' has provided us.

Pride is a good thing, except when you have too much of it, and it makes you blind to what makes it good. When you act out of pride, and try to hurt someone else, you aren't making anything better... and that's really not pride to me, it's a failed attempt at pride. Pridelike, but missing key components.

Besides, I believe the only way to make those receptive to your idea's who currently are not is to be kind, and through your convictions, you may attempt to persuade (or as it was put earlier manipulate (which I always though was sinister in tone, and therefore wrong)), others to agree... but if you paint an alternative of sadness, and fear, then I've found you really just scare people away, and then, who's your democracy? What is the 'Evil' about in Evil Mouse anyways?

No doubt politics is a tight wire act... and yes it can get frustrating to see the participants fall from time to time... but the difference between them and us is that they are acutally up there doing it... and for sure, it must be tough when the audience is booing them for the service they provide... no matter what political stripe they wear. Perhaps cheering them on would be better... perhaps they would get 'better' faster... and all these good idea's will be heard and accepted... or... as it seems to me, we can coast on the backs of all these neat machines!

[Birdy]

welcome back ss

To me NOT voting strategically in a key riding, is compromising your values.

I think i'm overly aware that the political ground game is your work hux.. and that's cool for you and I respect what you do.. but it's not for me, nor is it for the vast majority of the voting public.

strategic voting is institutional, it's purpose is to sway votes.. it plays on people's fears and asks nothing but the question "what if". it's not surprising that the biggest supporters of strategic voting in this community happen to work for political parties.

being true to what you believe and not buying into all of this election time 'vote for him to keep him out of power' crap is what i value. not compromising yourself for an institution is what i value. if all canadians dropped the spite from their election time diets and voted according to principle perhaps we would have a government that is truly reflective of what Canadians think and want. something we should all strive for. screw the game, it's a GAME!

manipulating is evil. check the dictionary.

[Hux]

it's not surprising that the biggest supporters of strategic voting in this community happen to work for political parties.

This community is not exactly a microcosm (sp?).

Buzz Hargrove and the CAW were the biggest boosters of strategic voting in the last election and they do not represent any party.

[Birdy]

shocking. unions probably hold more power than any political party combined.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

unions probably hold more power than any political party combined

Come on, really - unions were brought into being as a check-and-balance mechanism (just dig into 19th c. labour practices to see what the market produces on its own), and while they've sometimes accrued obscene sorts of power relative to their position (and who's kidding whom), they ultimately have no final decision-making power in Parliament or anywhere else that laws are passed. Influential, yes; decisive, no. Even major parts of the NDP bridled at Buzz last time around. You have to hand it to the NDP, really, for being able to hold auto-workers and tree-huggers within the same ranks.

SS, there's happy, and then there's proud. I'm happy to be happy, but have to remember to be cautious when I'm feeling proud, because it's usually because something's put me down and I feel some need to right myself again. That shit is inherently unstable. I'll opt for happiness any day.

(Re. that Evil in the DEM, btw - sorry about that, I don't try to be evil or anything (who does, by their own reckoning?). It was something stuck to me when I got the Dr. bit, which was concerned largely with the study of, well, evil. Please forgive me if it remains a bit of an obsession.)

Edited September 28, 2006 by Guest
bad html

[Birdy]

i don't quite so easily sever the words influence and decision. what is the purpose of a lobby group if so? sure buzz hargrove may not occupy a seat or actually get to say "YAY" or "NAY", but i'm positive the directive of the CAW has and continues to be considered by our top ranking politicians. clearly they'd be idiots not to. unions today are a very, very far cry from the unions of the 19th century. actually, i wouldn't even call them unions anymore. venture down to good old chatham-kent to see just how much union influence can factor decision making.

[djmelbatoast]

Hargrove's suggestion obviously did not have much of an effct as both the NDP and Conservatives elected more members than they had in a long time.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I think - and correct me, please, if I'm off base - we might have two streams of thinking going on here: morality and practicality. Money is practical, but can be used for anything, even things that are awfully Wrong.

Of course, politicians need to consider their power base - that's what it's all about (ok, not "all"). And sure, people get suckered into letting people make their decisions for them - e.g., say, unions (and so on). And yes, even, unions in the 19th century got decidedly messed up. What do you expect people to do, once they have all that power thrown into their lap?

The nice thing about unions is that they remind us of the processes that are supposed to underwrite democracy - even if ideal, and horribly corrupted. Like democracies.

[SmoothedShredder]

SS, there's happy, and then there's proud. I'm happy to be happy, but have to remember to be cautious when I'm feeling proud, because it's usually because something's put me down and I feel some need to right myself again. That shit is inherently unstable. I'll opt for happiness any day.

I'm not sure when 'happiness' became part of this discussion, but I think it holds true for both. Definately there comes time for self-control for both 'ends' of Happiness and Pride. But if you are happy all the time, and never have the pendulum swing to the suffering side of the equation!, all the power to you, and you can just ignore the rest. I consider myself far more stoic than Hedonistic, cause well frankly, I really despise the 'Terrible Tuesday'. I also realize that with self-control, I can still enjoy life, if only through a certain absence of pain through planning, and a general sense of 'keeping my head up'. That being said, there's still room for pride as a good. But certainly I can see examples of your suggestion where 'pride' gets in the way. I usually call that kind of 'pride': vanity.

Sometimes I wonder if people around here would even want a Government? And if so, what would they want it to do? I think that if people would consider these things, they would realize just how valuble what we already have is, and perhaps maybe appreciate just how tricky it is to work out issues rationally, let alone adding the terms 'hate' and 'evil' and 'fecally' to the debate.

That being said, I'm really quite proud of what 'we' as Canadians have as a whole. Sure it's got it's kinks, and of course we may have to ultimately answer to the Black Pope, or the FSM, but in the meantime, I think 'we' have a tremedous base to 'start' with at anytime we so choose to roll up the sleeves and get to work, or if needed to recover in the safety net. But I grow tired of the constant harassment which seems only destined to sabotage any collectivity through the current governmental system we could actually achieve, and perhaps that's the goal, but I don't like it... I think there certainly is alot of room for collectivity and the benefits in having 'agreements' between individuals such as money, or roads, and the government is a great place to do it... it's just too bad that some seem to absolutely reject it AND don't realize just how overlapping our lives actaully are, and how much self-control we actually need to tolerate each other, and keep things working. But if we could just learn to live with some of our fears, open our minds just a little bit, apologize a little more, and respect that others may hold a different view point (or worse yet, the same point of view but wearing a different flag), maybe we would actaully see some of the positive change I think we ALL are hoping for. And in general, I think this could deliver people huge dividends in happiness, if only through an absence of fear and hatred by those who are aflicted with it.

Birdy: Good to be back... I think! :cool: Hopefully no one will notice me with these sunglasses!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm sorry those terms became problematic - I was trying to get across some difference between self-assertion and self-aggrandisement, but didn't know how it would work out. Who, when all is said and done, owes us the fuck anything.

Fwiw, my concern wasn't between pleasure and suffering, but between contentment and malaise. It's a fine point, but, imo, an important one. One could be content and suffering, or pleased and subject to some malaise.

For a baseline of life's occupations: whenever things get really rough, I always remember the guy who earned his crust by scooping the shit off the platforms at the train station in Calcutta, there where all the signs on the train tell you, "Don't use the commodes when the train is stopped." We watched him walk between the platforms with his little bucket and trowel, one would presume day after day. Anybody who is earning coin doing anything else, pay heed; for my part, I try to remember to.

Canada is special only by having not so many people around as to force others to do this kind of work. What are we, half the population of California? Let's please remember this.

[SmoothedShredder]

For a baseline of life's occupations: whenever things get really rough, I always remember the guy who earned his crust by scooping the shit off the platforms at the train station in Calcutta, there where all the signs on the train tell you, "Don't use the commodes when the train is stopped." We watched him walk between the platforms with his little bucket and trowel, one would presume day after day. Anybody who is earning coin doing anything else, pay heed; for my part, I try to remember to.

Canada is special only by having not so many people around as to force others to do this kind of work. What are we, half the population of California? Let's please remember this.

Now there's something we can both be proud of! (?) Didn't realize that's the only reason there weren't people picking up shit off the platforms at VIA Rail... nor did I realize that we were in a pissing match with California... Really what are you talking about?

And FWIW, nobody owes us anything, but it certainly is nice when we get it (Health Care, Schools, Roads, Garbage Collection, Safety Standards and Enforcement), but still all I seem to hear is "MORE PLEASE.............you're evil."

[AD]

Wow, SHOCKER, no-one has mentioned Paul Martin.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Really what are you talking about?

Please cf. my signature line - it's entirely possible I could just be running off at the mouth (or fingers).

Iirc, though, I think I was aiming at the idea that humans are fucking awful creatures when given half a chance, who will screw each other over with the slenderest opportunities, and anyone who wants to exercise their moral faculties is committed to a long upstream swim. The invisible hand of the marketplace, e.g., will be holding a whip to drive the slaves into their work unless mechanisms are in place to prevent it from doing so.

So Canada's a great place that way, relative to many other places around the world, because we've been involved in a long process of putting those mechanisms in place. I think where the dander goes up is where different governments turn their attention to those mechanisms, to reinforce them, to develop them, or to erode them. And they do this for the sake of the people who constitute their power base.

While I agree then, SS, that I would also want to see a world where everyone steps respectfully back and takes one another into consideration, there are still zero-sum games being played out all the time that will only make people more stubborn and disinterested in hearing the others out, and this, I think, has to do with the tensions between altruism and self-interest (and there are never clear political markers around this; all parties pander to both orientations in different ways). Take private health care: at the institutional level, whose interests are served by setting up these systems? Somebody's going to get richer for it. And some people are going to be healthier for it. But others will get poorer, and fall into worse health for it. Is there middle ground here? If you support public health exclusively, what do

you say to the guy whose future is riding on the profit he expects to turn from such a system, or the person who has that $1000 kicking around for an MRI? Conversely, if you like the idea of two-tier health care, it follows necessarily that the worse care will be given to those who can't afford it, who are, and will forever foreseeably be, a statistical reality.

I don't know if that explains anything any better; I'm hoping - I have this horrible feeling you're reading more malevolence into my posts than is actually (I think) there.

And FWIW, nobody owes us anything, but it certainly is nice when we get it (Health Care, Schools, Roads, Garbage Collection, Safety Standards and Enforcement), but still all I seem to hear is "MORE PLEASE.............you're evil."

I don't know if that can be laid at anyone's door in our time. I would say, though, that one of the 19th century architects of conservative politics, Herbert Spencer, used to argue that government should remove itself from garbage collection, health care, etc. (everything except police and national security), so that individuals would be most unfettered to pursue their own natural abilities and pursuits... the ones who already had the means to do so, that is; the poor were supposed to just die, and so leave the gene pool (and society itself) cleaner.

That was obviously then, of course, but I hear strains of that contempt for the already-marginal in the policies of the CPC (viz. the nickle-and-diming of social programs a few days ago). I do, though, keep trying to look for that middle ground, hopeless as it seems sometimes.

(Btw, I've missed you around here, W . Where you been at?)

[SmoothedShredder]

And FWIW, nobody owes us anything, but it certainly is nice when we get it (Health Care, Schools, Roads, Garbage Collection, Safety Standards and Enforcement), but still all I seem to hear is "MORE PLEASE.............you're evil."

I don't know if that can be laid at anyone's door in our time. I would say, though, that one of the 19th century architects of conservative politics, Herbert Spencer, used to argue that government should remove itself from garbage collection, health care, etc. (everything except police and national security), so that individuals would be most unfettered to pursue their own natural abilities and pursuits... the ones who already had the means to do so, that is; the poor were supposed to just die, and so leave the gene pool (and society itself) cleaner.

That was obviously then, of course, but I hear strains of that contempt for the already-marginal in the policies of the CPC (viz. the nickle-and-diming of social programs a few days ago). I do, though, keep trying to look for that middle ground, hopeless as it seems sometimes.

(Btw, I've missed you around here, W . Where you been at?)

I see what you are saying and respect it, but I have to disagree, or atleast seek some clarification on where you stand... if you stand at all... re: can't find middle ground

Before answering this myself, can I get where you stand on this? Becasue normally I would assume that it would mean you would want alot of government... and that does have a cost... a dynamic cost, and we can't just print money and make it all better... inherant in money is a form of bartering (though I believe subsidies truly supress the free hand of the market, and increase suffering in places/nations which cannot even afford the subsides, then we go in turn blackmail these countries to sell of coffee/banana's/drugs at a discount). Are you all for finacial equality, and at what point? City/Nation/Global... or perhaps more of a controlled min/max equation? What happens if one person can make alot of money, and through the taxes, they can help to pay for many people MRI's, at no cost to those who need it but can't afford it. Isn't that the true nature of the system we actually have in place now? Other than taxes how else will the government make money? Ought we now punish those who have earned money by taking it back, and now branding them as evil? What happens if you ever climb up tax brackets? Shall you give everything immediately to charity? Or will you puposely avoid advancement for fear that you will become something you don't like?

Anyways, to actually answer one question I was out east for a Month. A great trip! I biked across Newfoundland with a friend and some neat people I met at Evolve who were biking accross Canada for Charity... Originally we were going to PEI, but we both decided that it was fate, and off we went with our new friends to the hilliest... windiest province in the world!!! EVERYDAY WAS A HEAD WIND... and it's constantly uphill cause it takes so little time to go down one, and 5 times as much to go up! What a great place. And the East Coast is so fabulous... such receptive and supportive music fans, and such happy people. I even played at an Open Mic in St.John's on George street with some of Great Big Sea in the crowd... How Newfie is that!? It was a slap in the face to come back here to Toronto, and I miss the East Coast so much.

When I got back to the board, I realized that perhaps it was just a place for people to go and vent, and that debate isn't really what this place was all about. And since I'm related to Jaydawg, his many Jambands trials and tribulations, and I'm not very popular round these parts, decided maybe it was best to just stay away... that was until I read some more of the BS I've seen in the last couple of days. There's no need to tell someone to put their heads up their ass. Now it's time to open a can of whoopass... now where is my brainrewashing machine!

[bONES]

not to get back on topic or anything, but i'm old enough to remember Pierre Trudeau and even as a kid I liked him!

he gets my vote

[timouse]

my cat's breath smells like cat food.

[Im going home Donny]

Didn't anyone dig young Joe Clark?

He seemed more honest than most and was big into womans equality long before it was fashionable or neccessary for a politician to be so.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

You're right - he's too easy to overlook. Clark comes out looking much better with time; I remember him being treated as a joke back when he was in (never helps not having enough time in office to get around to doing very much), but I'd take his old-school PC sensibilities over today's CPC any day.

[phishtaper]

Kim Campbell - the best 47 days in this country's history.