The "Make It Yourself World" Of Michael Ignatieff

"It is that he cannot exist outside of the fictional make-it-yourself world of academia..."
Coren obviously has not looked at the U.N. lately. Or any lefty world come to think of it. They do exist, and quite well, thanks to stupidity and ennui. Let's not forget 44% of Canucks are functionally illiterarte, just the way lefties like them. As for Iggie having to actually do something if he wins the race, that is just a pie dream. Just look at the last 13 years of Librano rule. Say anything and do nothing (except accept money in envelopes). Works for me!

"Say anything and do nothing"

EXCEPT dole out lots of money to interest groups that would yell if the river runs dry.

The quote wasn't from Coren - I've quoted ET from the comments. I revised the post to help clarify that.

Iggy and his Desmarais/Powercor running mate have one purpose....secure the leadership for the powercor patronage cartel then take the PMO and treturn the nation to a proper insider corporate patronage bokerage.

If you want to run their backgrounds Iggy and Bob come from the Powercor crucible and are financed by its front men...Powercor isn't chancing this election they hace 2 horses in the race.

I'm not surpeised Prof. Iggy can't put a cognitive policy statement together...but neither can his pal Bob....that is because public policy is secondary to their thinking and purposes for acheiving leadership and office. They run with the agenda of their sponsor/benefactor.

Public policy is superficial to front men who want to run a patronage brokerage.

"The quote wasn't from Coren - I've quoted ET from the comments. I revised the post to help clarify that."
Thanks Kate. I like Coren most of the time and would hate to see a quote accredited to him that wasn't from him, sorta like the CTV and Harper...hehehe...as if they didn't know what the addition of an "i" to Israel would mean.

I did not see the Paikin - Iggy TVO interview but reading the comments of those who did, sounds like Iggy the academic is, like Slick Willy Clinton, pretty good at parsing his words.
I wonder how he will parse "Qana - a war crime" when he visits Israel.

justthinkin - the UN operates as a fictional world. Its members are not accountable to anyone, just as academia are not accountable to anyone. Its decisions are opinions rather than conclusions, are based on myriad backroom connections and tribal loyalties rather than facts and reason and are irrelevant.

Irrelevant decisions. Consider sanctions against Iraq, the infamous oil-for-food, which was rapidly removed as a practical sanction and turned into a private money-making deal for Saddam Hussein.

Michael Coren's comments about the Hezbollah manufacturing of 'victims of Israeli aggression' by their use of staged deaths, staged weeping mothers, staged bodies are 'spot on' in focusing on the Appeal to Emotion tactics to trump the lack of factual evidence. Ignatieff is doing the same- he's 'staging the scene' not with faked photo scenes but with 'parallel verbal worlds'.

Ignatieff's 'parallel verbal worlds' contradict each other. In World One he is An Expert in International Law and Human Rights and therefore can legitimately conclude that Israel committed war crimes. In World Two he defers to the organizations of Amnesty International and Human Rights, two highly compromised groups, and insists that they called Israel's Qana actions as war crimes. In World Three, both sides committed war crimes. In World Four, he claims that the term is a metaphor rather than a legal designation. In World Five...and so on.

You can do that in the academic world, where semantic verbiage can flip meanings as quick as a dozen pancakes.

In academia, it's called semantic composition, which simply means that the truth is what you make it, and this fits in with Ignatieff's self-definition as an Intellectual Philosopher-King. Reality is how he sees and speaks it. Didn't the Red or the White Queen or other say something like that?

Ignatieff's multiple fictional Tales of the World can't operate in the Factual Real World. The real world can't operate within multiple opinions. Either the light is red or it is green; either the steel infrastructure is there or it isn't.

Ignatieff's academic world rejects such niceties as facts; it prefers the freedom to float within a variety of fictional options.

Note how Ignatieff denied Paikin's statement that Ignatieff had lived outside of Canada for over 30 years. It happens to be true, but Ignatieff moved into semantic redefinition of 'living' by redefining the term 'lived'. He attempted to deny the assertion (lived outside for 30 years) by claiming that he had been up to Canada 'constantly', coming up for various TV interviews, academic meetings and so on.

So, if I lived in World One on a daily basis in one town, province, country; was employed there, paid taxes there, had a permanent residence there, then, according to Ignatieff, I could also claim a life in World Two, where I visited another city, province, country for a three day meeting. I could claim that I also lived in that second area. I could do that for multiple Worlds; gosh, I've never left any town; I live in all of them. At the same time.

You can do that in academic-speak, but in the real world of facts, you have to make single decisions. Ignatieff prefers the fictional world. In that sense, he's a 'perfect Liberal'.

At 9:50 AM, Michelle Oliel said...

I just want to thank many of you for your emails and comments of support!

At 9:51 AM, Michelle Oliel said...

Will see you all on the convention floor! ...-

Michelle Oliel has not left the Liberal Party.

She will throw her support to which other Lib candidate?

Joe Volpe is a natural choice. Joe has Stephen Harper's support. Go, Joe. ...-

What I found interesting wasn't just Ignatieff's statement, but the Liberal response to Harper's studied observation. They took a page right out of the Islamic world. Do or say something that's criminal and when you're called on it, respond with outrage in an attempt to turn the tables and play the victim. Scott Reid was performing the outrage act perfectly on Mike Duffy's show yesterday.

Disgusting. Yet, their outright bigotry is being exposed more and more.

Gee, just learned I am a resident of Edmonton as I have spent 5 days/year for the past 8 yrs, attending meetings, etc. During that time I stayed in Anne Mc riding, so I wonder if I was on her voters list. Did Scott Reid mention beer and popcorn.

Speaking of accountability, who are judges accountable to… other than other judges. Then consider that virtually every single judge serving today was appointed by a Liberal PM. Between academics, judges, bureaucrats, and the UN, there are a lot of “liberal” and unaccountable people running things.

ET, given your integrity about academia (that I otherwise think is the enemy within) I have purchased a couple (The Open Society I and II)of Karl Popper books, who you often quote. While he focuses on social issues he has scientific background and like you he uses fact not fiction.

I’ve noticed from those books that going from Plato to Hegel to Marx, that the bending of history to support utopian ideas has been going on for 2500 years. Broadly, it seems to be a human weakness (for some) to prefer the comfort of denial over the hard truth.

More specifically, I’m beginning to see that the Liberals are running things like a city-state. They, like Plato, want to halt change to the greatest degree possible. They prefer a tribal approach to try to achieve perfection and predictability of outcome. One can start to see the logic behind the alignment of the left with Islamofascism – a socio-political tribal way of life. Ironically, Liberals really aren’t in favour of progress- that’s a fraud – they are in favour of equality and sameness and most of all predictability. Ergo they like to plan. They like to watch versus action – that’s safer. Liberals are like Chauncey Gardiner, in the movie “Being There”; who told Shirley MacLean that he “liked to watch”.

What an incredibly fictitious life these Liberals would have us lead. They’d even have CUPE (you know, the union that York University faculty are members of and who want to sanction Israel) organize Day Care so they can brainwash our kids.

But this city-state throwback is troublesome to me. Because it really means that Liberals are not ready to have us join the world. Despite the fact that we know India and China are going to give Canada an economic pounding if we don’t get on with productivity improvements by developing an investment class. We need investment class leadership, economically engaged with a global economy (not just the USA). An investor leadership class that overtakes our armchair MSM/Academia chattering class who have been sheltering Canada in a cocoon. And Quebec into a cocoon within the Canadian cocoon.

My point is that Canada is not a city-state; we need a federal government that will lead us in this rapidly changing world. We are a market economy in a world that is both exciting and full of opportunity for our kids, yet dangerous – not a time for a city-state in denial of the world around it. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are like city-states and we need to wake up and stop voting Liberal.

Ignatieff's "truth of the day"aside, isn't there something very wrong about this whole Liberal leadership contest?

Look at the candidates, and their lack of accomplishments outside the narrow world of acadaeme, or politics. Some are outright flakes, and most wouldn't be considered for a minor executive or board position in any mid sized business.

This is not some newly birthed political organisation started in small town Ontario, it's the Party that's run the country for most of the last fifty years, and the majority since Confederation. So where are the competent, capable people, and there are lots of those in the Liberal Party, and why aren't they in this contest?

This entire farce smacks of a one man, or one small clique, show. Liken it to the top down dictatorial style of Castro or Kim Jong Il.

To analogise this to the sports world, this is like Pat Quinn as Coach/ GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs. He did a great job for many years, then for whatever reason, just seemed to lose the ability to field a competitive team. This happens in sports organisations constantly, and very quickly. The coach/GM is always fired, for non-performance.

In this case, I think sports does mirror life.

And Coach- General Manager Paul Demarais has grown stale in the job, and is fresh out of ideas, and subservient minions who will follow his despotical style. Time for the LPC to fire the coach, and bring in new blood, maybe try a grassroots approach to democracy instead of oligarchy.

It's been tried before in Canada, there was that Party out west back in the eighties, their name and leader escapes me, hmmm.

Speaking of beer and popcorn, I think I am going to have to restock. This leadership race is better that any comedy show on TV right now. Except, for watching the "loyal" CTV and CBC "commentators" fall all over themselves (with giggles at the helm) trying their best to spin every story in the Liberal's way. Iggy will be back in Harvard, Ontario might just get what they deserve.
Prime Minister Harper will continue to get the job done, Canadian's are passive not stupid. Anyone knows when they have a good "boss" you stick with them. (Regardless of what the press is trying to feed us!)

Call me crazy...but mark my words.When Iggy returns from his "fact finding" mission to Israel, he will have developed a new third way.He will discover after "talking with the locals" that there indeed was justifiable proactive response on the part of Israel.

He will once again be able to employ his smarmy mea culpa fallback stance and state that now he has better information on which to go on regarding if Israel had indeed committed a war crime.

This is so transparent as to be laughable..

Horrible thought, maybe Demarais isn't the coach/gm, but the owner, the Harold Ballard of Canadian politics.

nomdenet - glad you like Popper; I think those books 'say it all'.

Utopianism will always be with us; the notion of purity and perfection is not a human weakness though it can be, but a rational act of comparison. I can compare X with Y and see that one is 'better than' the other. That is valid for the production of food, houses, bridges, trains - and human organization. Human equality is better than inequality and so on.

Where it becomes dangerous is when you focus, as Plato, Marx, Hegal, European fascism, communism, Islamic fascism did and do - on the model. A model is an abstract, a human construct. When you focus on the model, and define it as the only legitimate reality, when you define the model as privileged and insist on its expression as the only valid life and you reject actual living reality - then you are in trouble.

The reason is, that a model and its articulation actually are two different things. I won't get into it, but the model is always 'potential' and never actual. To insist, to force material living reality to Be Like A Model is extremely dangerous. It requires violence, it requires force, censorship, fear, a centralist authoritarianism. You actually have to stop real living beings from developing and mould them by force into that model. Socialization is a form of this, but genuine socialization permits questions of the model, debates about it, changes to the model (women can't vote, women can vote). Utopianism rejects debate, questions, dissent, alternatives, change.

And it always fails. It fails from the 'bottom up', from the material reality. Just like N.Korea's Kim's material reality is failing to produce food; just like Zimbabwe's material reality (people, land, animals) are starving. Just like communism fell apart from the 'bottom up'.

The problem with Ignatieff is that his perspective is utopian and completely fictional. He wants to re-open the constitution to allow Quebec to be a nation. That's a clear emotive appeal to Quebecers to vote for him. The 'Israel and war-crimes' was the same; a clear emotive appeal to Quebecers who tend to be anti-semite and anti-non-francophone-war. The fact that neither is valid is irrelevant, because as I said, in the academic world, what you say remains 'verbal'; it never has to be moved into actual reality.

By the way, you mention Dion, but he's got dual citizenship, with France! Ahh, the patriotism. So does the G-G's husband, if I understand correctly. And they took it out for their adopted daughter.

My guess is the Liberals will go with Rae, a member of the PowerCorp, Desmarais group. And a social engineer type.

Last year he made a highly touted speech on the topic of what "Being a Canadian Liberal means..."

I assumed he was going to say "Being a Canadian Liberal means never having to say you're sorry". He didn't then, but I think he proved that he belongs squarely in Liberal ranks.

The Make-Believe Fictional World of 1848; The Year of the Revolution.

Note this: "There are people even now [1848] who don't believe that Napoleon was in Moscow [1812]."

Plus ca change, ...-

Quote:

Liberalism is a disease, just like tuberculosis of the spine.

Liberalism works like that on the soul.

Appearances become deceptive and the consequences of clearly present causes are dismissed as superstition.

There are people even now who don't believe that Napoleon was in Moscow.

... The most shameful products of godlessness destroy human feelings of nobility ... Black becomes white, darkness is called light .... I have, as in the case of physical disease, mentioned the mental symptoms of the final stages. God forbid that you, my friend, should be seriously ill.

But you seem to me to be sick, because disbelief in conspiracy is the first unmistakable symptom of the liberalism that dessicates the soul.

Letter of Friedrich Wilhelm IV to Christian Bunsen, Prussian Ambassador to England, March 1848.

Commenter:

"I agree. Debating liberals is a waste of time. They're totally immune to logical argument. They've innoculated themselves."

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=85997&forum_id=5

ET, “my guess is the Liberals will go with Rae, a member of Powercorp”

Yes and that brings me back to my rant about the lack of a broad investor class in Canada. We don’t have enough captains of industry with far-flung operations in the rest of the world. How can our PM and Cabinet Ministers get trusted, factual information about how the world works?

We’ve had half a century of cocooned PM’s from Quebec who would talk to their sponsor Paul Desmarais who owned Total Petroleum in France and who’s information came from a Chirac-type warped view of the world. The partial exception to this was Mulroney who branched out a bit more and was vilified for it by the MSM.

Amsterdam and Venice and London became great centres of global information in their hay day because their merchant marine would come back with useful comparative advantage advice for their political class to act upon. Instead, our CEOs come back from Florida with tall tales of how many of their fellow Canadian CEOs they met on the golf links.

In other words, who can Harper call if he wants a run down of what’s shaking in Shanghai? When every Canadian company follows BCE and has been made an income trust that pays out 100% of its earnings instead of investing in the future, maybe we’ll wake-up. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he’s “concerned” about that and he should be.

Even though I am an academic myself, I can't help but feel a little troubled at the prospect of the Igghead leading our country. Is it just me or does the tingle of Trudeau and social engineering resonate from the depths?

Or am I completely jittered for no reason?

Cheers!

Leto

I completely agree, nomdenet. The deliberate establishment of Canada as a dependent economy is something that most of us are completely unaware of.

We are dependent for the purchase of our exports on only one country, the USA. Such a one-nation dependency is absolutely unheard of in the world. Canada is unable to compete with other nations in the world market and instead insists and demands that the USA purchase its goods. We subsidize many of our industries to enable them to produce rather than allowing them to be competitive. This requires a lot of tax money.

This means that we haven't created an investor class; our high taxes mean that we don't have Canadians who can develop industries, who can develop research centres, who can even set up charitable foundations. No, when we require industrial dev't, we can't do it ourselves. We require foreign investors to come in, purchase the goods, build the factories, hire the workers. We can't. That's yet another economic dependency.

Research? We've defined research as non-foundational and instead, as 'descriptive'. And we've centralized research funds within the federal gov't. This has resulted in an ingrown academic 'bloc' which awards grants to its kin, a kind of academic tribalism, supporting postmodernism, feminism and the cult of the victim and so on. We are unable to develop foundational exploratory research because of the stranglehold on funds by this centralized bloc, and because we can't fund long term risk-taking research.
So, for example, we copy the drugs developed elsewhere; this costs us nothing. We don't have to pay for the costly labs, the ten years of research staff and work, the equipment. Nothing. We just copy the results and market them cheaply. Oh - and we also inform everyone how Kind Canadians Are, because we, unlike the Evil Greedy US, don't charge high prices. Hmmm. That's because we didn't develop the damn drugs; we just copied them. Yet, we self-define ourselves as morally superior.

Quebec? Don't get me started! As you say, it's a cocoon within a cocoon, with all its industries developed by Canadian taxpayers, supported by Canadian taxpayers, with special tax-free status given to foreign investors (the tab is then picked up by the Canadian taxpayer), with its roads, its education - all funded by tax money from outside Quebec.

That was yet another aspect that was so deeply offensive about Ignatieff's proposal for 'nationhood' for Quebec. Well, yes my dear, being a nation sounds great, but doesn't nationhood bring with it responsibilities? Doesn't the term 'nation' mean economically, fiscally, self-supporting? Quebec has set itself up as embedded within and supported by the Canadian taxpayer. It has the largest national debt, the highest taxes, the lowest self-organized entrepreneurial businesses, the most unions, the most social welfare offerings - all supported by the Canadian taxpayer. It cannot sustain that socialist life of ease on its own.

Therefore, Ignatieff's proposal was purely fictional, meant to emotionally entice his Quebec listeners. It was deeply offensive to Canada, in my view.

In actual fact, Quebec could never be a nation, understanding a 'nation' as responsible for its own economy. The rest of Canada would have to keep handing over the bucks, while it preened itself travelling to international conferences.

Canada has to allow its citizens to develop levels of wealth. We have insisted that everyone be 'middle class'. It sounds so noble, so compassionate. But in a modern industrial world, it actually means that Canada becomes completely dependent on others. You see, industrialism requires long term risk-taking investment, where investors have to invest a LOT of money into very costly infrastructures that take years to build, take lots of expertise, and take years to generate results. Your average peasant agricultural economy doesn't require such long term investment; a few cows and chickens that reproduce themselves and you're OK. So, everyone can be, in that peasant economy, more or less at the same level.

Not in industrialism. Canada has refused to allow its citizens to move into hierarchies of wealth. We consider it 'bad form' and sneer at the US, which does. Of course, we then become utterly dependent on this same US to purchase our goods and build our factories and labs and provide us with Nobel quality research~ We can't.

You can't have it both ways; you have to make choices.

this is politics at its finest.

be all things to all people, have your cake and eat it too, and make lofty promises appealing to the moment, and then cap it off with broad sweeping cliches and vague contradictory declarations.

the quintessential politician.

which is why the igster is the front runner.

dont criticize the igster for playing the game the way its played; criticize those (now who would that be ???) who REWARD those who play by these rules.

Sorry if I’m getting carried away with Canada's lack of investment class but … BCE is like the EU where socialism has created such pessimism that only the immigrants from Muslim countries have kids. The demographics in the EU are in rapid decline (See Mark Steyn’s America Alone). Ditto Quebec’s socialism has caused demographic decline.

If BCE (Globe & Mail, CTV) now has to pay out 100% of earnings to get a tax break, then it can no longer have aggressive plans for future investment, ergo no BCE offspring. Therefore why would an entrepreneurial person work there? All BCE needs is caretakers. BCE will de facto have no kids. Just like Europe and just like Quebec.

All this happens for very rational reasons. BCE has been protected. CTV is just a government-protected portal for American TV programming, it produces little and what it does produce it gets Ottawa subsidy to cover, which is why it likes Liberals and hates Conservatives. BCE has been cocooned for so long that they no longer have any hope in the future and so what does our Liberal appointed civil service in Revenue Canada do to help? … it allows massive tax leakage to this inept destroyer of capital instead of cutting corporate taxes across the board and encouraging more RIMs to offer shareholders suitable risk/reward value propositions.

They (the EU, Quebec, CTV) are like the USSR in slow motion. Even Bouchard understands the Quebec situation and has written about it in his Manifesto. Why isn’t the Liberal leadership talking about that instead of traffic congestion in Toronto? Because Bob Rae and Iggyhead (Leto, I like that term, and welcome as another honest academic) don’t have a clue about capitalism any more than Trudeau did.

I'll just comment on one tiny point:

"He can bring in trivia such that Quebecers are upset because their health cards aren't recognized elsewhere as a justification for their being 'upset' and wanting a nation. ??"

I work for a provincial health care plan and I'll tell you that no one where I work doesn't "want" to accept Quebec health cards.

The fact is the province (or "nation") of Quebec refuses to accept ours and their health system essentially won't cooperate with ours. I assume this is to maintain their independence because they treat us exactly the same way we treat foreign countries like the United States and Botswana. I.e., you have to pay for the medical service yourself and then submit your bill and wait for (partial) reimbursment later.

I believe this does a tremendous disservice to their citizens.

Of course, this does help maintain Quebec's fantasy that they're an independent nation that just happens to be largely financially supported by Canada's "have" provinces of BC, Alberta, and Ontario.

---
The above opinions are my own and in no way reflect the feelings of my provincial medical insurance system. (sarcasm on: I'm sure they're just thrilled that Quebec alone among Canadian provinces refuses to accept our health cards and to cooperate in providing both our provinces' citizens convenient access to health services while travelling in Canada /sarcasm off)

I'll just comment on one tiny point:

"He can bring in trivia such that Quebecers are upset because their health cards aren't recognized elsewhere as a justification for their being 'upset' and wanting a nation. ??"

I work for a provincial health care plan and I'll tell you that no one where I work doesn't "want" to accept Quebec health cards.

The fact is the province (or "nation") of Quebec refuses to accept ours and their health system essentially won't cooperate with ours. I assume this is to maintain their independence because they treat us exactly the same way we treat foreign countries like the United States and Botswana. I.e., you have to pay for the medical service yourself and then submit your bill and wait for (partial) reimbursment later.

I believe this does a tremendous disservice to their citizens.

Of course, this does help maintain Quebec's fantasy that they're an independent nation that just happens to be largely financially supported by Canada's "have" provinces of BC, Alberta, and Ontario.

---
The above opinions are my own and in no way reflect the feelings of my provincial medical insurance system. (sarcasm on: I'm sure they're just thrilled that Quebec alone among Canadian provinces refuses to accept our health cards and to cooperate in providing both our provinces' citizens convenient access to health services while travelling in Canada /sarcasm off)

I'll just comment on one tiny point:

"He can bring in trivia such that Quebecers are upset because their health cards aren't recognized elsewhere as a justification for their being 'upset' and wanting a nation. ??"

I work for a provincial health care plan and I'll tell you that no one where I work doesn't "want" to accept Quebec health cards.

The fact is the province (or "nation") of Quebec refuses to accept ours and their health system essentially won't cooperate with ours. I assume this is to maintain their independence because they treat us exactly the same way we treat foreign countries like the United States and Botswana. I.e., you have to pay for the medical service yourself and then submit your bill and wait for (partial) reimbursment later.

I believe this does a tremendous disservice to their citizens.

Of course, this does help maintain Quebec's fantasy that they're an independent nation that just happens to be largely financially supported by Canada's "have" provinces of BC, Alberta, and Ontario.

---
The above opinions are my own and in no way reflect the feelings of my provincial medical innsurance system. (sarcasm on: I'm sure they're just thrilled that Quebec alone among Canadian provinces refuses to accept our health cards and to cooperate in providing both our provinces' citizens convenient access to health services while travelling in Canada /sarcasm off)

Oh … and the problem isn’t simply about financial capital, it’s a severe shortage of entrepreneurial human capital. Even if Danny Williams could entice the oil companies back to Newfoundland that he chased out with his machismo.. the entreprenurial oil executives and their families have moved out of St John’s, it's a global industry with lots of project opportunities. Those types of executives ain’t coming back for another generation. But Danny’s background is in the protected cable TV industry so he doesn’t understand that.

Because we don’t have an investor class we aren’t developing the risk taking entrepreneur class fast enough. Nor are we doing the right amount nor the right kind of R&D.

Canada has a lot of work to do over the next decade to deal with this problem and as ET says … “The deliberate establishment of Canada as a dependent economy is something that most of us are completely unaware of”

Your should sell memberships to this blog, so much action for so little to see!

I totally agree with WL Mackenzie Redux that "Iggy and his Desmarais/Powercor running mate have one purpose....secure the leadership for the powercor patronage cartel then take the PMO and return the nation to a proper insider corporate patronage bokerage."

Two for the price of one.

It doesn't matter who wins the leadership, either Tweedle Ignatieff Dee or Tweedle Rae Dumb. They've been called in to do CPR on the dead body of the Librano$ on behalf of Power Corps, and it's just a game, a dirty one at that.

As I said in an earlier post, I hope they both gag on their silver spoons or, if not that, on the disgusting assignment they've taken on, of reviving a putrid, corrupted, stinking corpse.

To quote my father from a letter to the editor published by MacLean's back in the '80s about Pierre Elliott Trudeau and company: Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are like "bagmen at an unholy wake."

Ignatieff is smooth alright but not as smooth as he thinks, certainly not on par with Willy, "Ah did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinski", Clinton.
Willy is now much sought after on the speaking circuit so smooth works for him. Sexual dalliance gets you Star Power.
Iggy is already taking us fools trying to smooth over his gaffes.
Accusing Israel of war crimes in a province which is anti-Semetic to pander for votes is going pretty low on the Principles scale, when he had a different view on subject previously.
Powercorp is accustomed to being the power behind the throne, it's tough times ahead for them.

My apologies for the off topic comment, but did you notice that the CTV poll titled -

Stephen Harper said most Liberal leadership candidates were 'anti-Israel.' What do you think of this?

- is still up? Hmm, interesting. I cannot recall one of their polls ever running this long. I bet dolars to doughnuts that they are letting it stay this long so they can make sure that it eventually changes into a result that THEY and their Liberal syphocants are satisfied with, as I'm sure the current result is NOT to their liking.

Iggy*s crime is that he is unable to speak the truth without hanging himself politically. [ Another hopeless professor.]

The Isrealies did loft targeted missiles at Hezbollah launch sites.

Hez launch sites were mobile so the degree of Israeli war crime was the degree of disregard for innocent lives at what they knew were quickly abandoned spots where launches had been made.

Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets with no thought to innocent citizens at all. Far more criminal.

In any case, both sides were guilty of war crimes, although to different degree.

Iggy, like so many professors, may be full of accurate knowledge, but without knowing how to use it wisely, there is a massive loss of usefulness.

You may step down now Iggy. = TG

Toronto Debate - October 15, 2006

The forum will be taking place October 15th at Roy Thomson Hall at 3p.m.

Send the issue you would like to see addressed to info@liberal.ca before October 12th. ...-

Will Boob Rae wear clothes?

Will Iggy wear a muzzle?

Will Dion bring along his pet dog, Kyoto, and a pooper-scooper and a tri-coleur?

Will Dryden be the Man in the Iron Mask?

Will Brison access his Blackberry?

Will Joe bring pizza and beer for sale?

Will Gerard the Food-Banker bring beans-in-cans?

Will the Lady wear a boa?

(Anyone missing? Oh. It's Oliver-CTV and Giggles: co-chairmans.)

nomdenet and ET:

I also agree that Canada's economy would be better with a larger investor class. This has always been our problem...probably because it's just easier to exploit our natural resources than try to do anything else.

However, this seems to go on regardless of which party is in power. It appears that "The Establishment" is what runs this country, not the government. Notice how quickly and easily millionaires like Emerson and Stronach change sides...because it doesn't matter which side you're on, the real masters don't change.

Stephen Harper has done nothing to convince me that anything has changed since the Conservatives have come to power. Selling out on soft wood is the most obvious example. Speaches by Harper (before he became P.M.)for more integration with the US economy do not bode well for Canada's independence.

iberia, the lack of an investor class is a serious problem in the Canadian economy. But it has nothing to do with the option, as you suggest, of only 'exploiting our natural resources'. After all, even to access those natural resources requires an investor class.

As for the lack of an investor class being attributed to a particular political party, I'll say that it's attributable to a particular political ideology - the ideology of a welfare state. This has been the mantra of the Liberal Party, which has essentially governed Canada for most of its industrial development, particularly since WWII. The Canadian economy is a young economy and its industrial nature is equally young. It has never really developed an investor class and has instead, set itself up as a centralist gov't. And, under Trudeau, it moved into a welfare socialist state which requires heavy taxation and gov't controlled distribution of those monies. That nullifies an investor class.

This welfare state ideology developed with the view of a one-class society, all more or less middle class. Taxes and equalization would enable such a homogeneity. The federal gov't became more intrusive in its taxation, in its governance. It essentially took over the economic dev't of Canada, subsidizing, with taxpayer money, the industrial infrastructures of Quebec, the Maritimes, - and the forestry industry, etc. We moved out of a private enterprise economy into one controlled and run by the state. No investor class could develop.

And, because our industrial dev't was so limited, controlled by the central gov't, and its 'unelected appointments' to key positions in banks, industrial dev't - we dev't a small closed clique - the Desmarais, PowerCorp etc gang. This clique moved into political control about a generation ago (the Trudeau era). They prevented the dev't of a robust private economy in Canada because the Big Projects were always allotted to them.

We then established a dependent economy for the rest of Canadians, by setting up a system where we export primarily to the US. We don't compete on the world market. This set up a false economy, in that we had a 'guaranteed consumer' and we didn't have to invest in bettering our products or competing.

We don't have the infrastructure for developing an investor class and we don't have the infrastructure for entrepreneurship and competition. First, we have to develop an investor class. Contrary to your conclusion, Harper is moving on that; one of his budget agendas was that there would be no capital gains taxes on investments sold IF the money was re-invested in a project in Canada within six months. That's an important start - dropping the capital gains tax. There will be more tactics like this - for Harper has made comments on this investment problem in Canada.

As for the softwood, I completely disagree with you. The US was completely right to impose tariffs, for Canada was effectively subsidizing our forestry, by its ridiculously low stumpage fees, far, far below the costs of US lumber which are cut on private lands. This subsidization enabled the Canadian foresters to both mark up the price enormously and even so, charge less than the US. The US were asking that our stumpage fees be fair market value, not a subsidy. Harper was correct. Most Canadians have been kept in the dark about this by the Chretien and Martin gov't, which used the situation as a political tactic of Bash the USA.

Developing an investment class in Canada is going to take time. First, we have to stop taxing capital gains. Then, we have to educate the population to stop sneering at the achievement of wealth and stop thinking that wealth is spent buying yachts rather than investing in research, in industrial dev't, in foundations.

In the US, for instance, a great majority of foundational assistance is private funding, while we in Canada must rely on the federal gov't to fund everything and everyone. This means that we, the people, have very little say in what our money supports. If the Canadian committee, filled with Liberals, wants to fund SOW and other organizations, even though we don't want to - well, they get funded because that small board makes the decisions about our money, In the US, the individual gives to the charities of their choices. That's called freedom.

The Harper method of decentralization, of reducing federal power, of giving power back to the provinces and the municipalities, of reducing taxation, and of getting out of centralized funding of all kinds of Do Good projects, leaving them to be funded by individual choice rather than gov't commitee choice - will enable Canada to 'take back its economy' and put the economy into the hands of the people...rather than a small unelected clique linked to gov't figures.

Iberia, I think “the establishment” will always try to run things –they’re alphas, like in the wolf family. Unfortunately Canada’s establishment is too inbred and historically weighted with the Pierre Burton, Margaret Atwood crowd that live off big government and subsidies. Plus the arts by definition despise capitalism. We need an establishment that is more diverse and super competitive and who like to the race, like sled dogs.

The fact is that most big business, even Bay St, has been Liberal. I don’t blame Desmarais for trying to get things his way, alphas do that. I blame the lack of a vibrant competitive MSM for not exposing the 2-way patronage of big business with Liberals. But interestingly Conservatives attract more entrepreneurial, non-establishment business people.

The Conservatives were only in power a brief time during the last century. However, Mulroney managed to open up Canada to free trade and this was opposed by the Liberals whose corporate cronies and unions didn’t want the competition. NAFTA was the first step in getting Canada out from behind an insular east-west trade wall that benefited Central Canada .. it allowed for the West to grow.

You say you want an investment class, then what’s wrong if Emerson got elected CEO of a big forest co and made some money through success? Please explain, how did we sell out on softwood? The US collected $5 billion from its citizens and will give us $4 of US money collected, why is that a sell-out? Why do Crown lands allow over cutting to create union jobs when, if owned privately, that land would be better conserved? The land is de facto subsidized.. we don’t have a good defense. If the forest companies don’t like it, sell the product to another country .. ahh they can’t, because they’re totally dependant upon the US market … we’re adolescents at global marketing.

Harper wants more open trade wherever he can get it, what’s wrong with that? That’s a parallel strategy to what ET suggests and what I’m taking about … which is growing a Canadian investment class that builds world-class companies that can compete anywhere.

Further to ET's analysis: Harper saw this problem before being elected, correctly referring to Canada as a "corporatist state" (soft fascism, if you will). On the lumber issue, there was no problem with the the maritimes, where woodlots are privately owned.

Absolutely right about capital gains. Large unrealized capital gains lock people into investment positions which, but for the tax on a disposition, they would frequently switch into more productive assets. We all lose. Realized capital gains should only be taxed if the proceeds are spent on consumption, not when re-invested within a reasonable period of time.

The economic illiteracy esp. under Papa Chretien was breathtaking: recall he didn't like tax cuts because "the rich would only put the money into savings", which presumably he thought was a mattress.

TG: In no way is Israel guilty of a war crime. The war crime was committed by the party which used human shields for their launch sites, namely Hezbollah. I believe Geneva makes that very clear.

Real Conservative : In what sense are you are a "real conservative" as distinct from, say, ET, nomdenet, been around the block, et al? In what sense are they false conservatives? With apologies if you've outlined your "real conservative" philosophy already.

I've never read Ig. He should have kept out of politics. I think he has blown his chance of winning the Liberal Leadership. The liberal party members will have no problem recognizing that he is simply babbling.

Now I understand what iggy's problem is, He is just a professor, and an absent minded one at that. New poll puts Rae in the lead, but also says iggy has the best chance to beat Harper. Can 3 cities really elect a government. I doubt it. He would have no seats in AB, some in BC (vancouver) probably none in Sask, as Goodale might resign, and who knows about Que. If Que goes total librano again, Alberta says goodbye.

'nomdenet' and 'ET' and 'been around the block', accurately describe how Canada came off the rails during the last 40 years. It would never have happened without the "bought-out" Canadian Media's help.

Assuming they could bring themselves to read the above mentioned posts, I believe a sweaty, sleepless night is in store for some Canadians. They never realized others knew of Canada's Dictatorship secret. News anchors never mentioned it. Never on the Fifth Estate. No Headlines. Never on Canada AM. ........ can't be.

well maryt, if quebec does go all out liberal maybe they are hoping for a reprise of some variation of adscam.

wouldnt put it past them or the liberals.

the 21st century version of *buying votes*

elections in canada were not always secret ballot; you could in fact verify in those dark times that the vote you bought for the price of a shot of whiskey did in fact go your way.

now compare the cost of a $5 shot with a X00,000,000 dollar fictitious advertising campaign and tell me things are 'better' in canada regarding the political system, NOT to be confused with the social, economic, medical, technical, etc infrastructure we enjoy that we canadians built and paid for.

Wayne's World? No.

It's Michelle and Iggy's World: Librano$ World.

...-

At 2:55 PM, grit heart said...

Wake-up call to Alex Plante:

Michael Ignatieff has backed away from the comments he made on Tout le Monde en Parle.

He know is not sure if War Crimes were committed at Qanna and says that it is up to international bodies to decide.

He has changed his mind three times on this issue.

That is NOT leadership.

At 6:06 PM, John F. said...

This discussion has a certain 'Ick' factor to it. Looks like Harper was close to the mark about the anti-Israeli position developing in the Liberal party. Wondering if the next election will hinge on this Liberal 'Hidden Agenda'?

Suppose Iggy wins? Can any friends of Israel call the Liberal party home? ...-

michelleoliel.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-resignation.html

Here is the acknowledgment from the Liberal Party:

Liberal MP, Denis Coderre, is an "experienced political staffer" working on Iggy's campaign.

Coderre is more than a staffer. Coderre is Iggy's national campaign (Quebec) co-chairman.The other co-chairman, Lib MP Susan Kadis resigned.

Has Iggy replaced Kadis?

Coderre, of course, is a supporter, of Muslim Islamist terrorists, aka Hezbollah. Coderre marched in the "We Are All Hezbollah" parade in Montreal.

Question for Iggy: Do you support Hezbollah? Are Hezbollah supporters helping to finance your campaign? Do you accept $$$$$$$$ from Muslim terrorists?

Iggy, you must know that ex-PM Liberal Paul Martin, Jr., accepted/solicited $$$$$$$ from the terrorist Tamil Tigers.

Tell us, Iggy. Do not do as Dithers did. $$$$$$$$$$

Commenter at calgary grit blogspot said the following:

Put the Party first said...

iggy choosing to go to Israel now tells me one thing very clearly:

He is taking his own counsel and his on counsel only.
Any experienced political staffer/MP- and Iggy has some on his team (Senator Smith, Denis Coderre, Tenio, others) - knows that when a negative story hits you try to change the channel fast. and you never, NEVER, do anything to drag the story out.

Iggy going on a junket to Israel now will make this a three week story instead of a three day story on a break week and will make his foreign policy risks and judgement THE talk on the campaign floor. SO dumb.

If he just went to ground on this now and took his medicine, the House returning next week would mean the focus would go back on Harper and his shit environment plan and Rona he ridiculous environment Minister and her Neo-con chief of staff. The spotlight on Inept management of a major file and the Ekos poll that shows Harper's negatives on the direction he is taking the country way up.

Instead, Iggy thinks that his tour of Israel will make him look prime ministerial. Possibily but it also might and probably will explode on him. CBC, CTV and others are probably making arrangments right now to send their middle eastern reporters to follow him everywhere. No slips will go unreported. ...-

Ignatieff's agenda is clear. Win Quebec. Why? Because we in Canada have set up a constitutional impasse where we have given one province privileged control over the entire country. Quebec, no matter its population constitutionally has 75 seats in parl't. The West now has a larger population than Quebec but its seat count is 10 less than that of Quebec and won't change until redistribution in future years takes place.

Igantieff can say anything he wants to Quebecers; he can promise them 'nationhood' and later blame others for the failure to achieve it. This goes along with another problem we have set up in Canada with regard to Quebec. As others have pointed out, Quebec is cocooned within Canada and Canada is cocooned within the US. What this means is that Quebec can do anything without direct accountability.

It can set up universal daycare; the fact that it can't pay for it is irrelevant; the rest of Canada must pay for it; that's called 'equalization'. It sets up a bloated bureaucracy, stifles industrial dev't with its massive unionization of all workers, has the lowest university tuition fees in the country - all of which are essentially funded by the rest of Canada.

Quebec lives on a cloud, a socialist dreamlike cloud, supported by the rest of Canada. Therefore, all that any political powerhungry individual has to do, is talk to these clouds. Ignatieff has done this, with his talk about 'nation' - ignoring that it can't be done for after all, he can always claim Evil Others prevented his Desire. Talking about the evils of war and the Israeli situation. After all, when you live on a cloud, reality such as war never affects you. And a large Lebanese citizenship - remember them - the Hotel Canada ones we removed from Lebanon, of which more than half have returned to Lebanon-Home from Hotel Canada - is against Israel.

My point is that Ignatieff wants to win in Quebec. So, he speaks to the Quebec cloud.

Consider Chantal Hebert, an intelligent Quebecois Liberal, who writes in the Star that Harper has effectively lost Quebec because he has rejected the gun registry, the Court Challenges, the Literacy Commission, Kyoto.

What is fascinating about these is that they are all Cloud Issues. None of them work pragmatically; none of them are grounded. The gun registry doesn't work, but the Cloud Dwellers want it. Why? Because it provides jobs? The Literacy Commission, like SOW, has nothing to do with pragmatic tasks of helping people to read, or helping women in need; it's all about jobs for middle class people who 'advocate' these agendas but don't 'activate' them.

What we have in Canada set up is a population living on a cloud, the Cloud Dwellers, and we have given them an inordinate power in our governance. That's what Ignatieff is appealing to - the clouds. And since he's speaking to Cloud Dwellers, then, they'll hear him and they'll want him.

Hey, ET. Great comment on "the Cloud Dwellers."

I'm tempted to see them as monkeys in banana palms. Canada's become a Banana Republic under the Librano$' do-nothing, photo-op, favour-Quebec, to H*ll with everyone else, to H*ll with reality dictatorship, aided and abetted by a corrupt MSM, not to mention Taliban Jack's band of hyenas and the Bloc's entitled ostriches.

'Talk about an animal farm.

Adam @ daifallah.com/blog
Who lives in Quebec City says this:

“(Qubecers) are constantly bombarded with anti-conservative messaging in the media, in school, and everywhere you look, so it’s tough to make any headway. Most of the time, the other side isn't even presented. I grew up in Ontario and thought it was bad there. But in the last two years have made me realize English Canada is far more advanced in balancing the debate than I thought.”

However, even some conservatives admire Chantal and say she’s really smart and articulate and has Quebec figured out. That may be true. But that could all apply to Marx too. The fact is … she’s wrong. She’s analysed the situation correctly but her solutions are the status quo. She never says, “Quebec needs to get its head out of the sand and join the ROC and the world in trying to build a self-sustaining society without handouts from Ontario and Alberta”.

Instead she says “Quebec is also the only province where a solid majority feels that the government is not moving in the right direction”. Therefore she is essentially telling Harper to forget about the ROC and switch to Quebec emotional policies.

She is part of the MSM problem that Adam mentions.

I was in Edmonton last week. Their infrastructure needs tons of funding .. for the right reason .. growth. They can’t keep shipping money to Quebec for all those emotional programs that Chantal likes.
Ditto Ontario. Even Ontario teachers who always emotionally vote Liberal are beginning to understand their own needs. Some of them are handling 40 dialects with immigrants in downtown Toronto schools and they can’t handle these problems without more money. . even McGuinty is tired of transferring money out of Ontario. Ontario takes in over 150,000 immigrants a year. That’s larger than then Quebec’s third largest city Sherbrooke. These growth problems need funding.

"Cloud dweller" readers of Chantal and the Red Star need to wake-up, they are enabling serious rifts in this country.

LIBERAL BLOGGER MUSES OVER RAE'S B.C. WOES
Bob Rae's top BC organizer signed delegate forms in the name of others and submitted them to the Liberal Party. The Rae campaign realized this and told the party, suggesting that all of those people have their names removed from contention. Meanwhile, they fired the organizer. (via national newswatch)

Commenter at Cherniak's blog says:

"rae...iggyiggyiggy"...love".

.........

rae had a good week (until this)and he has started to show some of the grit, determination and leadership characteristics that will bring him second and third round delegates from other camps.

iggy, iggy, iggy. time to focus on your own campaign and the gaffes and rookie mistakes that have cost both you and the party significant support this past week. leadership material, i think not.

jason, i love the site. keep up the good work!!

That's my point, nomdenet, that we have, constitutionally and culturally, set up a situation in Canada where a group of Cloud Dwellers can dictate our economic, legal and political policies. That's dangerous.

Again, consider Quebec, a protected and isolate community. Now, this situation is not 'by chance' but 'by choice'. Quebec has chosen this situation and the ROC has enabled it to exist.
Essentially, Quebec's behaviour is unaccountable. It ought to be a 'have' province, because of its wealth in resources. But it refuses this status, because it insists on a number of very expensive attributes. These include:

That bloated bureaucracy, where an enormous number of jobs in the province are gov't funded, protected, pensioned, tenured jobs in everything from gov't offices to road workers to teachers to nurses to everything. The majority of employeess in Quebec are paid by the gov't. The Quebec taxpayer, despite being the highest taxed in Canada, can't afford to fund these soft secure jobs. So, the ROC does that.

The unions, which promote these high paying soft jobs and prevent any and all new entrepreneurial businesses from starting up in Quebec. No employer can afford the union wages, pensions, benefits, guarantees. So, industrial dev't is zilch in Quebec - unless the federal gov't steps in and sets up industries. Funded by the ROC.

Their control of immigration means that they take in the fewest immigrants in Canada and many just use it as a step into the ROC. And just take a look at the statistics, and you'll also see that almost all are in Montreal; the Quebec gov't can boast about their 'tolerance' and openness to 'others' but the reality is that this is untrue. Visible minorities stay in Montreal or leave, and non-francophones aren't welcome.

Does Quebec, itself, attempt to deal with its econmoic problems, reduce its employee dependency on Gov't Make Work jobs? No. Reduce its unions? No. Set up its own industries paid for by its own citizens? No. Enable immigrants to set up businesses and move into all parts of the province? No.

Instead, it lives on that Cloud, economically supported by the ROC - arguing about vacuous non-existences, such as The Gun Registry, SSM, Perpetual Peace, Evil Corporations vs the Quebec Socialist Cloud of Peace etc, etc.

They live in a mythic unreality - and our problem as a nation - is that we have given them, legally, an enormous amount of political power. Can you imagine giving such enormous power to a rhetorical group, a group whose reality exists only in words but is never accountable? Hmmm. Compare Iran. I mean that.

Go to MEMRI. Oct 11. Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who informs the world that Iran is a model for all the peoples of the world, a 'perfect model of splendid, humane and divine life' where 'everyday youth, politicians, religious scholars and scientists make requests in various manners, in order to benefit from helpo, guidance and support of the Iranian people...

My point is the dangers of being a Cloud Dweller.