# Do We Need a Leader?



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

This topic has been carried over from another thread that got greatly sidetracked from its original question about gun control. At any rate, here's my question:
Do we really need a Prime Minister or does the U.S. really need a President? Can a country or human civilization function without a single leader - the metaphoric "head"? Could this position be eliminated? Do we need one person to look up to? Why do we need them? Inspiration? Great (hu)Man? Hero? Aspiration? Illusion of central control? Scapegoat? What other possibilities are feasible? Does having a leader perpetuate the myth of autonomous individual or is this thought too theoretical? Are a group of leaders a better possibility? Would we really want a group like the Senate "in control"? I have no set positon so please throw out any ideas or examples that come to mind. I'm sure there's more to ask but this is a beginning.

I'd like some suggestions, comments, ideas, rants, diagrams - anything really. Just play friendly!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

How well would a large corporation work if there were no CEO to assemble and oversee the strings of task delegation? Where would the buck stop? Who makes the final decision with respect to vision and objective? Who will be the leader that the others will follow??_?_?_?_?_


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

There are many forms of organisation, from Anarchy (every man for himself) to rule by committee (generally some form of Marxism when it comes to governing).

You have already made some convincing points about why a leader is needed (scapegoat, central control, inspiration, etc). It's very handy to have someone who is ultimately responsible, it prevents stagnation or the inability to actually make a decision in the face of conflicting positions vs an imminent problem (whether the problem is an earthquake or how many roads to build).

Our current system (or the one in any other nominal democracy) is imperfect but most importantly, it allows for sucession.

It is an old political maxim that the very best government is the "Benign Dictator". Basically that means someone who rules by his word alone; has the power to have his bidding implemented and obeyed; and has the honest welfare of his people at the heart of his decision-making.

The trouble is that almost without exception, there is no reasonable means to allow for a sucessor that can insure the next dictator will be equally magnificent. Royal Sucession works better than most, but it only takes one to spoil the record.

For the most part, the sons and daughters of Benign Dictators are spoiled, selfish, and hellish to the citizenry. Other forms of sucession have poor results; because it is a powerful position, evil pretenders can plot their way to the top, revealing thier nefarious plans only when it's too late to stop the granting of ultimate power.

Our system has it's flaws, but it does allow for a certain amount of peer review over time; it is possible to get rid of the guy eventually.

Now, there will always be those who think that as long as [fill in your favorite target] has to go sometime, then today is better than next week; and usually a least a few [even if they may be hard to find] who would prefer an unpopular leader to hang around forever. There are also often calls to make a popular or unpopular leader permanent (see Dictator, above).

But, in order to do his/her job, a leader must be able to compel others to act. This should not be unversal; some things are important enough that he/she may need to convince others to back him rather than simply "making it so". Whatever the actual organisation and rules governing power, most modern democracies have some combination of the above.

You can have too much power (many examples) or too little ( an excellent modern example is the Prime Minister of Japan, who has no earthly use or power * ). How you organise it is the job of the governed, if they're lucky.

As anyone who has ever been in a group situation where a certain emergency arises can attest, if you don't appoint a leader then someone will step up and take the job by default (otherwise it's very likely that serious harm befalls the individuals or the group; the price of anarchy). The idea is that you choose wisely.

* Although we generally refer to Japan as a democracy, elected members are beholden to the Civil Servants, who control every aspect of Japanese administration. Go against the grain and your constituents will notice it immediately; the cash simply disappears.
Since Japan does have real problems and any attempt to solve (read: change) those problems by the Prime Minister offends the buerocracy, Japanese leaders rarely last more than a year, and often are gone in a matter of months.
So, to a large extent, Japan is an example of a nation without a real leader. Change is nearly impossible, and requires a massive crisis to instigate.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Do you see the leader as an extension or mutation of the feudal Monarch? 

Is it possible for a counsel to take over their position and rule? Or will that just lead to a lot of arguments and no action?

Personally, I'm not overly concerned with the power of our Prime Minister as an individual. However, the U.S. President (like many others) has more final say and power, I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Do you prefer more control or less in our leader? If it weren't Jean Chrétien would your answer change? Same goes for if it weren't going to be Paul Martin: would your answer change?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well...where do I start?

Firstly, let me say this:
Gordguide covered a great deal of what I was going to say (even down to his well-thought out comments about Japan and their leaderless system) Gord's mind is, as most of you who are regulars here already know, an especially keen one and I don't believe I could add much to what he has already said.

But here's a thought for everyone to mull over while I'm away for the next few days...

Has anyone heard of "direct democracy"? Switzerland is, I believe, experimenting with this in a few Cantons and I honestly believe that we will all evolve toward this as the electorate matures. It will be quite a while before it is even possible here in Canada...and somewhat longer before we are all sufficiently "grown-up" in our expectations of Government before it can even be considered.

But I find the idea quite intriguing, to say the least. And it would be a truly "leaderless government". 

I am very interested in hearing what everyone has to say about "direct democracy" (sorry, no time to look up any URL's) I'm especially interested in any comments on this subject by gordguide, Cynical Critic and macdoc. CubaMark, as well....if he's not down south right now.

Got to go away for a day or two. See you when I get back.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Intriguing. I'm going to have to do some research before I make any definitive comment. I also will be away for a few days. My initial response is that I think it will be a positive change if we can move towards "Direct Democracy."

Here's a Canadian site about DD. It's overly simplified but it's an okay introduction to the proposed process in Canada: http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Direct Democracy will never work on a large scale... for example how and why on earth would Joe Blow care about whether Paraguay should join some treaty with Canada? Very few have the time to get themselves educated on a subject. For plebiscites (eg. fluoride debate) it works.

My 0.02 on a leader, is yes, we need a leader, even if it is figurative as with a leader, you have a person that the country can rally behind and show that this person is who we chose to represent us (although as seen in Canada, not everyone chose him, and all that) but he/she is someone who is there to represent the wishes of the people in a democracy.

The key to representation by population is that you select someone who will educate themselves in order to make the best decisions for his/her constituents. Unfortunatly the wonderful idea of party solidarity doesn't always support that, especially when passing a new cash cow... err tax law...

We saw communism fail, but then again we never saw true communism even rise. Stalin made a dictatorship of communism, and Lenin was trying to bring a leaderless communist state, that in theory would most likely have worked. Unfortunatly he died before anything could really be implemented.

In theory, we won't need leaders in the future, but in reality, we need the bereaucracy (sp?) and leaders in order to maintain the gov't and give stability to the country. I can never see a leader ever not being chosen, as in any human interaction there is ALWAYS someone more dominant, it may be close but there is always a more dominant force (either in the back benches to play puppet master or front line and running the show like Stalin)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good observations Chealion...I just have to ask...are you really as young as you claim to be? The reason I ask is that I know lots of people who are over thirty (wayyy over thirty) who do not seem to have the same grasp on world history as yourself. My complements.  

A small thing here, but...Lenin did _indeed_ have some grandiose plans for power-sharing and a great set of ideals. Trouble is...he did not just "die"...he was KILLED.

Too bad. The whole face of socialism could have been altered if he had stayed among the living. Who nows...it might have actually _worked_.

On to "direct democracy". I don't think it has a hope in hell right now. At least here in Canada. We are not sufficiently developed in our political views and expectations of Government at this point.

Not by _half_!  

Insituting this advanced system, which requires a lot of knowledge about the decisions at hand and a clear idea of where the money is coming from to fund same, would be somewhat akin to putting a nine year old at the controls of a 747 loaded with nitroglycerin. 

One time out of 900 the little tyke might be able to pull off the flight without a hitch...but there would be a lot of smoking craters all over the landscape in order to get to that one positive result.

We are, quite honestly, not ready for it.

It is the hope for the (distant) future, however. Someday...when we are all a bit "older", we will all be the ones who decide what is being done on a weekly, or monthly basis when it comes to our Government. 

WE will decide what we do with our money, how we want our country to proceed on the world stage, how we want our social programs to be run, what direction we want to go in as a free and soverieign country...or IF we want to remain a free and sovereign country.

We _sure_ don't have that kind of control right now! Our current elected dictator makes those decisions for us....with absoloutely NO input from the people he governs. None at all!

A powerful Elected Senate that shared power with our elected Prime Minister would be a good step in the right direction. They could veto anything that seemed to be totally out of line with what the people were telling them on a daily basis. That's how it works in the USA, and several other countries. They could also REMOVE a PM who was stepping outside of his boundaries or taking the country down a path that we all agreed was the wrong one. 

Or remove a Prime Minister who was obviously involved in massive corruption.(in this case, Jean would have been GONE long ago) 


The problem is...we are not anywhere near to electing a Party or a new PM who is even talking about surrendering this kind of power to the people who elected him. Not even CLOSE!

More's the pity.

Yes...we are a _very_ long way from the ideal of "direct democracy". Too bad that we can't make the very early steps to begin the progression to true self-determination and away from the institutionalised dictatorship that we currently live under. It would be nice, at least, if we could just _start_ the process toward the future....

But we'll probably just elect another corrupt Federal Liberal, instead. He'll promise us a "new beginning" and just viloate our trust in the end. Same as all of the others. And we will all get a little more cynical about the political process here in Canada, and a little less interested in how it all works. And less of us will even bother to vote in each sucessive election.

Too bad. 


We could all move forward to the next step, if we all _wanted_ it enough. Learn to make our own informed decisions. Decide our _own _ fate. Make our own way in this world.

Or...we could all stick with the same old same old....and get more and more pissed off and cynical with each elected dictator we cough up. This is not a path to sucess or self-determination! We could even lose the country to one of these wastrels...and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it all. Until HE decided to call an election. Whenever THAT might be.

Your choice. 

Think about it. Think real hard about it. The fate of Canada...and I really 
_mean_ this...hangs in the balance. We need to start moving in the right direction.

We sure aren't doing that now.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Cynical Critic, you want me out, don't you.   Where would ehMac be without me!


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Down with ehMax! Up with Direct Democracy, we're all moderators!!!!!!
 
Thats absurd, but it brings interesting questions  
Thx for the compliment macnutt, I just am who I am, and that would include my limited 17 years of wisdom and knowledge.
I always thought Lenin died, and macnutt it seems that you are disgruntled with the lack of accountability the government has. The Triple-E Senate as proposed by Preston Manning and his Reform party which was transformed into the Canadian Alliance, I find is a good idea. Looking at the American legislative chain in how laws are passed, seems to be foolproof in that everyone is looking over everyone's shoulder to keep everyone on the level. The Senate in the States, seems to act like an equalizer for all involved as two senators for each state allows equality between states, while the population is represented in the House of Representatives. I find that this in theory and on paper looks and works really well. When the president (eg. Bill Clinton) and the Senate (Largely Republican) don't agree, things can enter gridlock and take their time to pass. Bill Clinton's second term was plauged by that, as there is no party that has complete control over the other. In Canada I like that the PM is accountable to the House of Commons, but out biggest flaw as being pointed out by other countries is we have an utterly useless Senate that is filled with patronage appointments. Hey, who wouldn't want no work, two meetings a year, a hefty paycheck and a whole slew of airplane trips between Ottawa and the Caribbean courtesy of the tax payer?
Unfortunatly, people become power hungry easily when in a place of power for a long period of time (hint, hint Jean) and change is needed. If I could change the government, I would bring around the Triple-E Senate (Equal, Effective, Efficient, where our current Senate is none of these).
I know in Grade 10 Social Studies in Alberta, one unit that lasts a good month is specifically on how the Canadian political system works. A lot of ppl don't seem to get how some things work.
Before someone brings up proportional representation like seen in Sweden, is the flaw with proportional representation is that their is never a majority and very cautious, slow moving minority and coalition governments are made. Majority governments as seen in our Representation by population way of voting can also be seen as a voted in dictatorship in that there is nothing we can really do until the next election, they have free reign. The basic principle is that the people elected are not going to abuse their power. Unfortunatly it gets done. (I do not own this hotel or golf course in Shewinigan!)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gord covered it pretty well.
Democracy arose in Greece (Greece is considered to be the founder of democratic practice) and orginally was a direct democracy with all land holders of a Greek City State eligible to vote on issues.
This was feasible for a City State but until now not feasible on a larger scale.
Representative democracy arose and it has good and bad points.
Certainly California with it's referendum approach to certain issues is probably the furthest along in actually executing some direct democratic actions. I think several states and perhaps parties have a limited form in being able to "recall" their representative.
It's intriguing but open to "campaigning" by special interest groups whom we hope our elected representatives are immune to ( yeah right)








Much of the problem in any proposed direct democracy is in posing the questions as we have seen from the Quebec referendum issue.
If you have to have the courts decide on the question it sort of makes it a very cumbersome method of governing.
The Swiss are likely most setup for it but also it is very likely a limited form like Californias.  

As to leaders - short answer is - we have millions of years of evolution to thank for leader/follower interactions.
Certain characteristics of risk taking, aggression, strength all combine for alpha humans - male or female.
Also in decision and political processes, military and legal processes the buck does stop somewhere and while a court of 9 judges may be generally equal it still has one Chief Justice for tie breaking even there...First among equals. Military is obvious in chain of command.

Yes we need leaders both from a biological imperative and a organizational necessity.

Limiting the time served by these leaders and the power they have serves as a hedge against abuse ( or it's supposed to ).
Truman rose to the challenge then drifted back to his small town in Missouri - the ideal American leader.
Closest these days is Colin Powell.
Worst - the Shrub.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

As for U.S. presidetns I would throw in Jimmy Carter's name as being a great leader.

He got a bit of a raw deal with the hostages magically being freed on the eve of Ronnie's innauguration. but that's another story

I do like the way he has not faded away into a library, building houses, meeting wtih international leaders....

I like him a lot...

After all the guy did finish 2nd year calculus, and not that watered down version for social scientists either. 

He's gotta be one of the good guys.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Like Arnie said, in a very famous quote..

I'm Baaack!  

Great observations, all of you! My complements for your carefully considered thoughts on "direct democracy".

First off...Chealion. My complements, Sir! I have to pretend that someone who is about 35 or 40 years old actually wrote your reply. If not (and I suspect it is NOT) then you have a singularly astute grasp on what is happening around you. 

Outstanding! And I really _mean _ that!

I have no idea where you came from...but I can certainly see where you are _going_. And I suspect that you will be way ahead of your peers, as you are right now....if you continue to observe and disseminate data the way you have done so far. Impressive. To say the least.

Macdoc...I agree that Greece was "the cradle of democracy". Unfortunately, my friends who live in Greece, say that "democracy is STILL in the cradle" in Greece.

Plus....their early version of democracy never included ALL of the population. It was only for the landed gentry....and their slaves and servants never had a say in how things were run.

Nice try....and a good basis for the times they lived in...but not good enough. Not by HALF!

ALL humans in any given area _must_ have a vote in what their Government does with the money that all of them contribute.


Anything less is a dictatorship.

Simple as that.

I agree that California's "Government by Referendum" is a tentative step in the right direction. It also speaks to the will of the people. But it is only an early step. A VERY early step.

One that we are a LONG way away from, here in Canada. 

We would be a lot better served by having a real Elected, Effective, and Equal Senate. We may not be able to get binding referenda in the near future....but we have a good shot at getting a real Senate sometime soon.


If we all make enough noise and say that we all really WANT it.

One party PROMISES this. Others would adopt this party promise, if it seemed like we all wanted it bad enough. (they have, after all, adopted countless other parts of opposing parties policies...without any shame at all. Even after loudly decrying those very same policies in the House of Commons)

Let's make this a prerequisite of all future elected parties!!

Then we wouldn't have an elected dictatorship...and we could actually share in the direction that our country was going. On a daily basis.

A positive step, eh?


Macspectrum....I agree that Jimmy Carter was, and IS, a good man. I diverge from your observation that he was a good leader. Most historians have recorded him as one of the worst Presidents in recent memory. This was not entirely his own fault. He had great ideas and great ideals. Trouble is this....

It doesn't _work_ that way in the real world. At least not in the real world that he presided over in the late seventies.

Example: I was working in Rio de Janeiro in the late seventies/early eighties. I was working for an American company. We were all called down to the company office one day and told to sign a paper that stated that we "would not, in any way shape or form, participate in any form of graft or corruption while in a foreign country"

Noble thoughts.

Trouble is....

Our company Boss showed up with this particular piece of paper and asked us all to sign it. He also told us that he had just had to pay a local "block captain" 25 Cruzieros (a buck and a half) to "watch his car" in the company-owned parking space. Had he not done this then the car would have been stolen or stripped.

Think "mafia protection money" here. Much easier to just pay....and not have any problems. Just the way it is.

Corruption and graft is just a simple way of life in a LOT of places. To deny this is just plain naive. Wish it was some other way...but it is NOT!

In short....Jimmy Carter had the very best of ideas and ideals. They had no real basis in the real world, unfortunately.

Which is why he is regarded widely as one of the worst Presidents....and one of the very BEST Ex-Presidents.

I admire the man...REALLY I do! And I am terribly happy that he is no longer in power.

So, apparently, are the three hundred-odd million people in the USA. This has been proven in fifty or more different polls.

Just the way it is.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah where is CubaMark when I need him.  

MacNutt - Greece is indeed - like that entire area - having a difficult time embracing democratic ideals and who is to say that that form of government is correct for the stage of education and economics that prevail in Greece right now.
Slavery was the norm during the time of the Greek Golden Age so you cannot really take our current ideologies and criticize past efforts at human organization on a large scale.
Rule by the elite and landed property owners with a vested interest in stability has been a viable govermental structure in many empires and is alive and well in the US today.








The Romans had their heyday when the Senate ruled in a body while the military commanders went out and enforced the Senate's wishs yet were subject to the Senate's recall and were a separate body from the civil government. This tension and conflict still exists in many countries today between civil and military power and even in cities like Toronto with the "military" police structure and the civilian oversight board. Add a very militant union plus a very aggressive press in the form of the Toronto Star and you've a monumental brouhaha which goes on right now.
Meritocracies are fine in theory but rarely prove out as interest groups often control key aspects of government to their own benefits. Vested moneyed interests most often prevail until like in France in 1740 they get tossed for being too outrageous ( pretty close in the US right now).
As for your comment on universal suffrage you sounded like something right out of the early socialist manifestos - a pleasant surprise  
I find it interesting that you approve of "pragmatism" in politics - that's exactly why I fear the US so much right now and the fact that 300 million approve scares me even more.
"The best of ideas and ideals" DO have a role to play as the ideas of the NDP have shown and of the right have shown when "co-opted" into a centrist government platform that has enough support to form a government. ( good old Machiavelli eh )
Tossing out a guy for being idealistic speaks poorly of the political system and the populace it supposedly represents.
"Ideals based on fiscal responsibility" is the main theme in politics these days. Choosing the ideals to pursue is the notty issue.
Leaders like Jack Layton have the ability to focus questions and support. Good for the NDP to take a risk and get fresh blood and ideas into the party.
Cynical to answer your question in several ways.
"Leaders" can be those who through their excellence of forward thinking, DaVinci, Galileo, Aristotle, Martin Luther King, Margaret Thrasher, Attila the Hun, Ghenghis Khan, Winston Churchill, Frank Lloyd Wright, Martin Luther King, Picasso, Martin Luther, Trudeau, Shaka Zulu, Lister, Rodin amongst many many others can seriously change the world as it was either through inspiration, dissemination of new ideas or knowledge or through new ways of warfare or inspiring people to greatness (Kennedy and the moon for instance) make a large change in the way the world works or is percieved. Whether for good or ill this is leadership at work.

On a smaller scale community leaders can may changes to the way their community works - daycare, new tourist attractions from Guilani in New York changing a city immensely to the local mom organizing a much needed drop in center for abused women or a daycare facility....this is leadership - one person making a difference. Conceiving change, having the courage to organize change, and the willingness to suffer ( Galileo and Frank Lloyd Wright for two ) social approbation when the change is resisted or outright denied are all hallmarks of leadership at any level.
The kid in the playground making the rules for hide and seek exhibits leadership.
Is it necessary - you bet.
Iis it often abused...sadly so.
The answer - leadership with limits, rules beyond the day and time and place ( Parliamentary procedure for instance ). An educated populace and a willingness to be tolerant of differing opinions and embrace differences as enriching rather than "my way or the highway".
Leaders often arise out of the conditions they face Churchill, Truman, Luther and so act as focal points/expression points for the tensions and issues of the day and are thrown up by a combination of the circumstances and their individual talents.
Some leaders are truly ground breaking and institute dramatic change from their own insight and drive. Frank Lloyd Wright's vision of architecture. Picasso and Rodin forever changing art. Shaka Zulu, Ghenghis Khan and Napoleon, Alexander the Great, completely reorganizing their societies into military powerhouses in their drive to empire. Henry Ford taking the car from elite status symbol to the transportation for everybody and in the process creating mass production that underlies so much of what we take for granted now.
Whether we want them or not leaders are certainly a major part of human progress and the drive to greater wonders.  

Now where is the leader that will finally get the planet on a safe ecological path


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

ehMax, you've figured out my devious plan. Dang! I was planning to implement a counsel that would share in all the decisions but, of course, I would be corrupt and remove all the other members in time. Then I'd take over your website. I'd be the new leader and these actions would be wonderfully hypocritical but that's okay because I'd be an evil, evil dictator. Then I'd use the ehMac empire to dominate the world. Mwah ha ha! 







 
I need sleep now. I'll post something more intelligent tomorrow.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

As soon as the large multi-nationals figure out a way to make "the environment" pay big bucks, you can bet they will support an environmental leader.

As long as their is oil in the ground, I am afraid Exxon et al will not need to change their foucs nor their support for a candidate.

Now if only Ralph Nader can live long enough to get 20% or so of the popular vote....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Where the heck do I start?

 







 

I shall try for brevity here, and pray that macdoc, et al, suss out the basic direction of my reply...

(hey..you are all very intelligent individuals, after all. You have proven that fact with your previous posts...)

And...where the HECK is CubaMark? We could use his input here! He is, after all, the most unrepentant lefty in this group. Unless I've missed someone....(???)

Greece and Rome had their day, and they were pivotal societies for their time. They have given us so much of our modern world, after all. 

Trouble is.....

Those societies died out more than a THOUSAND years ago!

The Greece of today is not even remotely related to what was going on back then and Rome is a scuzzy Euro-slum on the edge of the third world. (Northern Italy is great art, good wines, Ferraris and fashion trends...Southern Italy [Rome etc.] is Mafia, Pizza and spaghetti)

Time to move into the present.

ALL people...of ALL colours and ALL races, and ALL social levels, MUST have an equal say in what their Government does. Preferably on a daily, or weeklly basis. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Anything less is just _not_ a true democracy. End of story.

Canada...by the way...is NOT a true democracy at this point. We are a free people in a largely capitalist society, and are terribly wealthy by world standards...but we do NOT live in a real democracy. 

This is one of the many reasons that George W. does not care to deal with...or entertain at his ranch...our tin-pot leader, King Jean. 

He meets with third world dictators all of the time...but he can't quite grasp why we (a Western Democracy) have a notoriously corrupt long-term"supreme leader" with such total power and no set term of office.

It bugs him something fierce.

It bugs me too.

He's waiting for us all to see the light and come up with a real Head of State. A head of state who is not terribly corrupt, who answers to the will of the people, does not try to "name his own sucessor" and who at least TRIES to keep the promises that he made in order to convince us to elect him. It would also be nice if he wasn't in power for a decade or two.

And, it would be awfully sporting of him if he at least made an attempt to share power with the people who put him in office in the first place.

King Jean is, after all...at the end of the day....like many of the most reviled third-world despots. He has wayyyy more power over the country that he "governs" than the US President. Has NO second body to answer to...has no set term of office...no set election date...and seems, to those on the outside of this great land...to be immune to any sort of scandal (no matter HOW much money he steals). We couldn't get rid of him if we WANTED to....unless HE calls an election. 

Sounds a bit like the "Third World".. doesn't it?

No wonder much of the world doesn't take our political system very seriously.

(Hey...they're rich because they trade everything they've got with the Americans....but their Government is like, stuck in the Third World, or a different era or something)

I can't TELL you how many times I've heard those words when I was working in South and Central America. My buddies in Asia and Europe say the very SAME thing.

On to other things....

Jimmy Carter wasn't tossed out because of his "ideals". He was tossed out because his ideals, when translated into actions...didn't _work_! Everything he touched, with a very few exceptions, turned to sh*t. 

The very best ideals in the world don't translate into good policies or programs when the assumptions they are based upon are wrong. Such was the problem with President Jimmy.

And such is (was) the problem with just about every NDP government that Canada has ever elected to power. Because these policies were based on the same flawed logic.

(BTW-If you happen to have any examples of fine leftist ideals that translated into great...and _sustainable_ programs that are still working well...then I am very interested in hearing about them. I am NOT locked into any particular ideology....show me the facts and I WILL believe! I promise!)

I am not sure what you mean when you say that you are disturbed by "pragmatism when it is expressed by three hundred million people" (in the USA)

The USA, after all, is the greatest military power that the world has ever known (by a LONG shot!!) and it is the greatest technical society that the world has ever known (by a LONG shot!!) and it is the most free society that the world has ever known (by a VERY LONG shot!!). It is also the one place on this green earth that most of the world's people would like to live. they are clamoring to get into the States. When has THIS ever happened in the past?

Now...on to the rest.....

First off....LOTS of people in the States don't agree with the direction that their President is going. And they are quite vocal about it, as well! I have as many leftist friends down there as I have up here. Every SINGLE ONE of them has a guaranteed right to express this distaste for their current Government. And they KNOW when the next election will be. It's never more than TWO YEARS AWAY !! They can materially affect the direction of their Governing body on a daily basis and have only two short years to decide who is running the show, overall.

Compare this to OUR experience!

Thing about all of this is...

The United States of America is NOT ruled by a supreme leader...like it is in some African Nations, the Arab world, or here in Canada.

They have TWO equal...and equally elected... bodies running the show. The Administration (the President and his staff) and the Congress (elected Representatives, Senators, etc, from all of the individual States).

One of them can do precious little without the other. One of them can initiate a bill or law and the other can shut it down. One can send a policy through the system and the other can add little goodies to it that will guarantee that it will be shut down. 

BTW-this is why Carter....and Clinton (in his later years) couldn't get anything done that he wanted to get done. He couldn't get it through Congress.

The people who make up the Congress in the US are getting e-mails, letters and phone calls on a daily basis from the people who elected them. If they DON'T follow what they are hearing from their own people...then they are OUT OF THERE!

Contrast that with our own Senate. They are appointed by the sitting Prime Minister. Pretty much ALL of them are retired Liberals. Many don't even bother to attend Senate sittings. They simply collect a fat paycheck from their holiday homes in the tropics.

Doesn't matter anyway. They can't actually DO anything! They can't initiate a bill or even STOP one. They can only slow it down as it goes past their desks. If they even choose to do that.... 

And why would they WANT to do that? The supreme leader might punch their ticket and send them home if they did!

What a _JOKE_!!

We need a REAL democracy here in Canada. We sure don't have one now!

Finally, macdoc.....

I applaud and admire your eloquence and , as I may have mentioned before, I am consistently in awe of your philosophical views on almost any subject that you care to comment upon.

However.....

I take issue with some of the people you mentioned who "changed the world".

Hitler...well, he DID show us how we do NOT want to be...Thatcher was a great example of how we DO want to be (note how many countries are currently following her example...not the least of which is the British Labour Party)...Rodin, I don't particularly like his work and don't see how it has influenced anyone towards the positive (feel free to provide an example or two...I'm listening. Really)

Henry Moore? Junk art.

Lister...who the heck is he? Never heard of him...feel free to enlighten me. Frank Lloyd Wright? A great visionary, to be sure. (my house was designed by Hank Schubart...one of Frank Wright's best students) However, his execution was somewhat flawed. There are several architectural firms in the USA that specialise in repairing Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings so they don't fall down.

Two of these companies (along with a huge crew of gifted contracters) have been working on "Falling Water"...his masterpiece...for the last fifteen years, just to keep it from becoming "Falling Down". He had great ideas...but he knew little about how to keep those great ideas from collapsing, in the long run. Everything he built is in danger of collapsing. Sort of like everything the left has built.....

Because, sometimes....and this is _really IMPORTANT_...the very BEST of ideas, and the most beautiful of visions, have no real basis in fact. They are pretty, and wonderful and we all want them to be real and succeed....

Trouble is this......without a LOT of help from pragmatic and practical individuals...they WILL fall down and fail.

Then all you have left is a pile of rubble and some broken dreams.

Know what I mean?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry Macnutt but I'll have to echo Michael's dear mother this time.
 
Take a week and re-read your post and I think you'll understand why.  
You may also want to re-read the question posed.

Happy now - senior moment eh


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

David,

Why do you keep calling me Peter?


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*
Democracy arose in Greece (Greece is considered to be the founder of democratic practice) and orginally was a direct democracy with all land holders of a Greek City State eligible to vote on issues.
This was feasible for a City State but until now not feasible on a larger scale.
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We must also remember why it was so feasible in the City State. While the privileged sat around in the Agora, playing with the ostraca and perfecting their oratory, the slaves and the non-citizen untermensch toiled away in the fields and the olive groves.

While it may be not so transparent these days, we are still divided into Eloi and Morlocks. ;_)

G/<


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We may all be eloi and morlocks these days....but at least we all have a vote!

Too bad we can't use it ,here in Canada, until the head morlock says we can.  

Macdoc....a rather short reply from one so well-read. Surely you can come up with some examples of sucessful and sustainable socialism for me to contemplate. No?

Then I rest my case.

Direct Democracy is, indeed, subject to campaigning by special interest groups. As I mentioned before, we would all have to be far more aware of the issues...and far more aware of "where the money is coming from"...before Direct Democracy could become a reality.

For the near term, at least, we will all have to vote for a Leader....and then hope that this person takes us in the direction we wish to go.

Too bad we don't have term limits or a second voice in our Government like the Americans do.

It wouldn't be direct democracy...but it _would_ mean that all of the power wasn't locked up in the hands of one old corrupt man.

Or...if it were...then we wouldn't have to wait forever to change that situation.

Jean...if you recall...wasn't planning on leaving at all, until his own party started to push him out the door.

Too bad we couldn't have a say in that sort of thing. It does, after all, affect ALL of us.

We, here in Canada, are a LOT farther away from Direct Democracy...and a true leaderless society...than many other countries. 

More's the pity.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*We may all be eloi and morlocks these days....but at least we all have a vote! [...]
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of us do, and some of us don't.

I'm one of the non-citizen untermensch Morlocks,
hence I cannot vote for the Rhino or Lobster parties.

If someone can convince me that my vote really, really counts, I will reapply for citizenship. Maybe this time around I will even get it.

Clickety click,

G/<


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Good Old Mr. Jean Chrietien may have to call the election, but it is required that it is called at least every 5 years... Just clarifying a point you made macnutt.
Maybe Canada will adopt more of an electoral set-up like the States but I doubt that will happen as leaders will call an election only when it looks like they are going to win, but the good thing will be that when JC steps down, another election will be held and I'll be there to vote


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macspectrum wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>David,

Why do you keep calling me Peter? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
????????????? Someone clarify this for me!
DING !!.....DING!! ...challengers to their corners for a cooling off! All other armchair ploticians stay tuned for the next round of the proletarianizing pugilists.
I hereby pronounce macnutt as having the longest single posts and has forfeited the right to question anyone else's use of the bandwidth on ehMac. I wish you would all run for politics and actually fix the mess we're in.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

For about a year now David (macdoc) has intermittently called me Peter. When I ask him why, he shakes his head and I just figure it's becasue he is so busy.

(Actually I am hoping this "Peter" may be a good friend and maybe I will get a better deal so I usually just go with the flow....)



Not exactly ran for politicts but;

i was vice-president of my Liberal riding association

i was a delegate to the national Liberal leadership convention when John Turner got elected leader

at that convention, myself and a few friends formed the "Multiciultural Coalition" where we lobbied the delegates to make Min. of Multi-Cult a full ministry as opposed to being a junior ministry

before the night of the final speeches only 2 of the 7 (if memory serves) delegates mentioned multi-cult. That last nite of the speeches 5 of 7 delegates mentioned multi-cult in their speeches.

We met all the delegates save for one Jean Chretien, whose people only allowed us to meet with him on the morning of the vote and after dodging us for days we finally told his people where to go.


Sort of politics - it was then i realized what a truly messy and dirty business it is...


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macspectrum wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For about a year now David (macdoc) has intermittently called me Peter. When I ask him why, he shakes his head <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Consider it a compliment!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt
The 12th largest economy in the world is busily swinging to the centre from the right. Mr. Eves just MIGHT stay in power if he spends enough on education, kills the Hydro deal ( which he did ), and gets the right deal on national health care with the Feds. All good and wanted and responsible societal policies. He is likely to skip scheduled tax cuts to keep the budget balanced.
Layton is renewing the NDP and will unite social democrats - especially in Quebec WITHOUT being under the thumb of Big Labour who he simply ignored and still won on first ballot. Watch for very interesting changes in the national political scene with Layton and Martin especially with regards to Quebec starting to correctly balance Ontario.
Layton and Martin should make for some very interesting and creative legislation in 2004. They should both engender some much needed government restructuring - a better deal for cities and perhaps a change in the structure of the political system...Martin is on record for change.

Blair swung the deal for power in Britain from the left by moving to the center. But the populace voted for a leftist government.
With fiscal responsibility looking more and more like a centrist policy - the" tax cuts" right look increasingly irresponsible and/or greedy .....especially in the US.

In the US the government is and I quote the Shrub tonight "increasingly hold corporate criminals responsible for their misdeeds" - hmmmmm government intervention. Sounds distinctly like a left leaning move.
The Shrub wants a National Health Care policy ...oh my...such a different tune we are singing. Senator Kennedy stood and applauded this vigorously.







Pretty central and left to me. Cutting back the right to sue the medical system. Government intervention AGAIN from the Shrub on the "free market".
PLUS an environmental messge too!! Governments mandating a 70% cut in emissions -realllly - the government is certainly getting very involved these days for such a swing to the right.
Here's a leader that WANTS a second term and knows which way the wind is blowing. And it's not to the right.
 Machiavelli would be proud.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As to leaders. It is of little consequence except to you what you THINK of any of those listed - you'll simply put your own right wing spin on it anyway. The indeniably fact is that they were leaders and changed our world for good or ill. This was what pertinent to the thread.

Lister developed the theory of germs and disinfecting to prevent spread of disease. Just grab that Listerine and gargle as penance.

Rodin renewed the concept of truly accurate anatomical sculpting that was realistic in 3 dimensions - generally abandoned or lost as a technique since Michelangelo. He was tossed from the French art establishment after being accused of using molds of actual humans in is art. His contemporaries could not conceive of sculpting to the level of accuracy in 3 dimensions and anatomy yet with outstanding emotion ( The Kiss ) in the figures.

As to Frank Lloyd Wright - Falling Water IS the most famous house in the world and yes it needs maintenance... it was built in 1934 and looks like it was designed and built 50 years later.
His use of cantilevers and reinforced concrete changed architecture forever. No he did not have the benefit of current materials. It's built over a waterfall - of course it is subject to unusual stresses.
Like it or not Falling Water is an archtectural icon - far ahead of it's time designed by a leader with his own unique vision. http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/5220/modern/fall.html 
Look at this and remember it was built in 1934!!!!! That's leadership and vision.

BTW pragmatism by the US = serious loss of personal freedoms that you seem to think exist there. 1 in 10 in the US is involved in law enforcement and legal work - wonderful society...NOT







No wonder it does not rank near the top in the "Best country" lists.
The US has always skated close to a police state and never more so than now. 
A country that can tolerate North Side Chicago and South Side Chicago co-existing within 30 miles of each other is NOT a country we should emulate or admire in its policies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion - yes the checks and balances in the US system and lack of party rigidity in voting all offer a better system.
I also like the staggered lower house elections and the mandatory two term limit for the President.
Both good ideas.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Bush's speech put me to sleep last night.

I always did fall asleep after having a fairy tale read to me.

 

Health care reform, economic recovery, new fuel sources and a war?
Just who is he kidding?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Some of the theory behind how the United States Government works is much better then here, but unfortnatly things don't always work out right... The seperation of powers and the better Senate, I like... The crime and choas that happens in the States is not because of that...

My 0.02


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Leaders? We don't need no stinking leaders. Why should we have people with vision, ideas and ideals to lead us?

As long as I am armed to the teeth, we don't need leaders.

As long as we don't need an infrastructure, we don't need leaders.

As long as we don't have to depend upon our fellow man/woman, we don't need leaders.

As long as...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You _did_ watch it though, didn't you?  

There may be hope for you yet, Michael.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Britnell:
*Leaders? We don't need no stinking leaders. Why should we have people with vision, ideas and ideals to lead us? [...]
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And are any such people anywhere within a 1000 mile radius?

Oh, dang... I didn't realize that the question didn't include a qualifier "good".

And "good" is always so subjective! Dang, Dang!

OK, I guess we are back to being lead by Darth Chretien, and can't complain.

G/< "Just which side of the Force are you on!?"


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
*Bush's speech put me to sleep last night.

I always did fall asleep after having a fairy tale read to me.
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could only stomach about 10 minutes of it.

After which I turned on the escapism mode and
switched to the Kung-Fu Channel.

Besides, I was afraid that the incessant clapping
after each sound bite would ruin my eardrums.

Clappity clap,

G/<


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

of course i watched it.

one always has to monitor what the enemy is thinking and saying

i did almost puke when the female CNN host said; "... and that presidential stern jaw."

Homeland Defence
10 year economic plans
thunderous standing ovations at 2nd sentence
foreign policy via military
military tribunals without due process

now what ex Union of Soviet Republics does this reming you of?

I was waiting for Bush to take off his shoe and start slamming it on the lecturn.

Orwell, we hear ya and we're sorry we didn't heed your advice.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
*
now what ex Union of Soviet Republics does this reming you of?

I was waiting for Bush to take off his shoe and start slamming it on the lecturn. [...]
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Krushchev at least had some panache, and he was NOT a dumbass! ;_)

However, I was indeed reminded of the lectern thumping speeches of many 1st Secretaries,
and I could definitely do without speech applause, which is really sort of like the laugh track.

"Yes, yes, this REALLY is FUNNY! Now look at the swinging pendulum!"


Cheers,

G/<


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and now we know why 83% of Europeans concluded that Bush was the most dangerous man in the world.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

USa - USsr

coincidence?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I guess the best way to tell them apart is this...

Everyone was always trying to _escape from_ one of them and _escape to_ the other.

Does this clear up the confusion?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh...and the last time I checked, no one had to line up for two hours just to buy a single roll of toilet paper in the USA.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*I guess the best way to tell them apart is this...

Everyone was always trying to escape from one of them and escape to the other.

Does this clear up the confusion?









 *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were you watching CNN tonight? Apparently Muslims ARE lining up to escape to the Great White North from the soon-to-be-fascist US. CNN went to a "shelter" in Buffalo that had originally been set up to help those from Centra America get into Canada in the 80's, and the place was full of those running to Canada and claiming refugee status. Apparently, they fear that they might be next to be detained without charge for up to a year. 

Canadian officials have downplayed the reports, saying that there are only a few more than usual refugees from the US. CNN claims that some border crossings are seeing more refugee claims in the past 2 months, than in the past 2 years.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Do muslims count as _everyone_? Seems to me that, for every individual muslim trying to escape from the US, there are probably several hundred people from other countries...including Canada...trying to get _into_ the States.

It was certainly that way the last time I went there to work. Even in the tiny prairie border crossings between Alberta and Montana, there was quite a long line of non-Americans trying to apply for entry status (live and work). I know this because I stood in line along side them. They were all hoping and praying to be let into the USA. The look in their eyes was was something that a person would remember...trust me.

These folks were from every country on earth, and they were all looking for a better life. 

I don't recall any long lineups of opressed people waiting to get into the Soviet Union. Or China. Or Cuba. Or Vietnam. Or East Germany. Or Yugoslavia. Or Poland. Or North Korea.

Despite the fact that _all_ of the above promised a totally equal society... a workers paradise, a good education,free and universal medical care, affordable housing, and none of that horrid capitalism with its evil profiteers....etc. etc.

To me, at least, the difference between these places and the US is pretty obvious.

It would seem to be pretty obvious to most of the other people on this planet as well. The muslim population notwithstanding.

Or, at least, a small part of the muslim population of the US. Perhaps the part that is there illegally in the first place. I suspect that there will be a similar exodus of muslims from Canada once we get our refugee policies and immigration systems straightened out. We are, after all, harboring quite a lot of islamic refugees right now. Most are here illegally, as well. Some are closely associated with known terrorist groups. At least according to our own RCMP, CSIS, and even the immigration officials.

If there is another major terrorist attack on North America, then you can expect that "straightening-out of immigration and refugee policies" to happen about two days later. We will expect it and the US will demand it. 

And you will see a lot of human beings of the islamic faith....especially ones with sparse documentation or ties to certain organisations...lining up to flee this country as well.

Not my particular choice for an outcome. Just the way it is.

Such is life, in the early years of the twenty-first century.

Accept it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

And I guess that the Africans brought over in slave ships were just looking for a better life?

What ever happened to their 40 acres and a mule? Oh yeah, the next president rescinded the offer.

Please.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I certainly don't want to get into a discussion of the slave trade with you, Michael. but I just have to say this...

The African slave trade went on for a long time before any Americans or Europeans got into it. It goes on to this day. People are bought and sold in Africa as we speak. Malawi is manned by people who have been bought for money. So are many more countries in sub-saharan Africa, to a greater or lesser degree. This is well documented and has been the subject of numerous magazine articles and even a "Sixty Minutes" segment or two. African activists have tried...in vain..to get Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to comment on this in their speeches. They won't.

And the slavery...mostly children and young adults...continues. To this very day.

This is a terrible thing...but it goes on anyway. Personally I hate the very idea of it...but there is precious little I can do about it. It's something that Africans have to straighten out on their own.

They're working on it.

I have worked all over Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. I have known, and worked alongside, LOTS of displaced Africans. None of them are as well off as the ones who are in the US.

Despite all of the sh*t they've had to take, and all of the suffering they've had to endure, African Americans today are way better off and FAR richer than all of their clansmen in ALL of the other countries...including Africa itself. I saw a recent statistic that stated that there were more African American millionaires in the USA than there were PEOPLE in Canada.


That's probably why we aren't seeing any mass-migration movements back to Africa. Mostly they don't even visit the place, either. Even on vacation. No matter HOW rich they are. And lots of them are very rich indeed.

Does that tell you something?

It should.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*and now we know why 83% of Europeans concluded that Bush was the most dangerous man in the world. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Teeehee!

Don't mistake me for a fan of Nikita. [not even La Femme Nikita] 

I don't even think that Georgie Jr. is the most dangerous man on the planet, just that he should not be where he is.

I'm certainly not sentimental about my years behind the rusty Iron Curtain. Worker's paradise it wasn't. More like worker's purgatory. However if anyone seriously believes that this "Free World" we live in is the way things SHOULD be, they got some serious blindfolds on.

Cheers,

G/<


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

MacNutt, your comments about slavery carry over to the people of Iraq. In both situations, their own people have or are horribly abusing each other. This doesn't justify these people being sold as slaves or being bombed (respectively); however, it greatly complicates matters. I'm no fan of Dubya but something more does need to be done to help the Iraqi people who are being oppressed and kept in ignorance. I don't know what the solution is but it seems to me that sitting idly by is a harmful act. By not acting, you also make a political action. I just don't know what action should be made. I think if I were in charge it would involve education and no missiles.

I'm interested to know if anyone feels that the removal of Saddam and his government is a bad idea? Or, rather, if they could be removed without harming innocent people would this be an improvement?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yep, u're right macnutt, rodney king is a whole lot happier now that he has been 'straightened out' - only took 5 white cops?

why don't you call Spike Lee, Bill Cosby, and what the hell, Shaquille O'Neale and ask them to lunch and let them know how lucky Africans were to be dragged from their home land over to the land of the free and the home of the brave

tell them how lucky they are to finally ride in the front of the bus after say oh 400 years?

tell them how lucky they are that they can own property and not just be property

tell them how lucky they are down in those states where the KKK still has a strong presence.

oh, and to make it really good, choose Denny's for lunch

make sure you keep your back to the door.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The greatest lesson the U.S. military learned from Viet Nam is "control the media."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Pretty simplistic. Do you suppose that the the Gulf War was won because the US "controlled the media"? 

How about the more recent action in Afghanistan? Almost ALL of the media predicted a long and bloody war with lots of bodybags and the eventual defeat of the US. Just as Afghanistan had defeated pretty much everyone else who had dared to invade that desolate land.

Instead..we got a quick and decisive victory. And the people of that land cheered. Women are no longer being beaten or killed in public for wearing the wrong clothes. They can also attend schools and learn to read without fear of being killed for doing this.

Oddly enough...this big change happened just after the Americans moved in...

Go figure.

BTW- 
_control of the media had nothing to do with this particular victory_

Just thought you'd like to know.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

And the media was controlled.

The attack by U.S. bombers on an Afghan wedding was poorly covered. 

Why?

The U.S. didn't want another MyLai on its hands.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

"... I'm certainly not sentimental about my years behind the rusty Iron Curtain. Worker's paradise it wasn't. More like worker's purgatory. However if anyone seriously believes that this "Free World" we live in is the way things SHOULD be, they got some serious blindfolds on. ..."

Very wise words.

It looks like we pretty much agree that we need leaders. What kind of leaders, or more precisely, what power do we grant our leaders, what controls do we put on that power, and what means do we use to find out what the people want?

Keep in mind that even an autocratic dictator needs the consent of his subjects to maintain his position. Opressive sytems are good at postponing the when, but even if it takes generations, it will fall sometime.

Where do we stand on Political Elitism? What I mean by that, is do you believe that a leader should be strong or do you believe that every action should be the direct will of the people? Do you want a Churchill or do you prefer California's direct democracy (ballot initiatives) ?

Some of the issues that affected Canadians with regard to this would be the hugely unpopular GST (Brian Mulroney), a political act that may still prove to be a key turning point leading to the end of the Proressive Conservative party itself (Federally).

I hate the GST. I also probably would have voted for it; me and about 6 others probably. But the reason I support it is because I know about the system it replaced; and it is a major improvement over the old Federal Sales Tax. I would have preferred to see the FST abolished outright, but assuming I could be convinced that the government had to find replacement revenue from somewhere (which I'm not) then the GST is a preferred alternative.

But I know for a fact that no direct poll of Canadians would have supported it. Are ordinary people too easily swayed by advocacy, television, or just plain too lazy or indifferent to take control of our democracy? Would it be possible to tax anything at all, if we had to consent first? Or do we all have the right to control our nation even to the point of destroying it?

If there is direct democracy, what form should it take? Do we adopt the system used in California (and a few other states), right down to the point where only 20% of the citizens actually bother to participate? What happens if you have a ballot initiative, and nobody shows up (or so few people do, that the country is run by less than half it's citizens, as in the US)?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I have been following the events in the Middle East rather closely. I suspect that we are only a few weeks away from a resoloution of the "Saddam problem".

Here is how I think it will proceed....

The US learned a lot of very hard lessons in Vietnam. They learned that "you do NOT fight an enemy on his own terms". Huge tank battles and big clashes by massed infantry are exacly what will _not_ happen in the upcoming military action. Not by a long shot.

The US has, at this very moment, operatives and special forces on the ground inside Iraq. They are following Saddam and his closest military commanders and documenting their every move. When George W. hits the loud pedal these guys will spring into action and Saddam & Co. will be killed or captured within hours. Probably at night. 

The next thing that will happen is this....

The US will detonate a weapon in the atmosphere over Baghdad (and several other key cities) that will produce an EMP (electromagnetic pulse). This will shut down all electronic communications and leave what little is left of the Iraqi command structure totally out of touch with their own forces.

Chaos will ensue.

A few more quick surprises by the US military (watch and see) and the rest will be history. 

The huge military machine that now surrounds Iraq is mostly to assist in the mopping up action. There will...after all...be tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering all at once. 

There has to be _someone_ there for all of these Iraqis to surrender _to_, after all.

I do NOT believe that there will be "a long and bloody battle"...nor do I believe that there will be any "house by house, street by street fighting" either. 

The very best military minds have looked at this and figured every angle. They have some wild tech gear that we have not even heard about at their fingertips. The Iraqis will not be able to mount a defence...and they won't want to. Just as they didn't want to during the Gulf War a decade ago.

They will be overwhelmed...before they even realise that it has started, it will be over.

Hopefully without much killing...on either side. That's the plan.

The Americans have this planned out very well. I think they'll pull it off.

Then...when the smoke clears...the US will step in and help with schools and medical care for the Iraqi people (just as they have done in Afghanistan etc.) Life in Iraq will become signifigantly better in the following months. Free elections (real elections!) will allow them to determine their own fate...for the first time in recent memory. And for the first time in the Arab world.

The oil will begin to flow from Iraq...the profits from same will be paid out to the people in Iraq who hold the contracts. The US will stay there, at great cost, and monitor all of this. Just as they did in Japan and Germany after the last World War. Eventually they will leave.

And the naysayers and the predictors of doom will simply stop speaking about this, and turn their attention to some other signifigant situation that the US is involved in. They will pretend that history doesn't exist, they will ignore all that has gone before, and try their very best to convince the whole world that the US is a bloodthirsty bunch who are bent upon world domination. They will, most certainly, never admit that they were wrong.

They never do.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Gordguide, for someone who was around 5 years old when GST was implemented can you explain to me how the GST was better then the FST which I've been told was a 12% tax on any manufactured product when it was sold from the factory or where it was produced.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion very briefly.
The GST is pass through meaning it is paid finally at the end of the sale path - and is neutral within that path. Much better than the FST and also much better than the PST system.
IF you have to have a tax structure on purchases and services then the GST system is reasonable.
Having PST paid over and over and over on large goods ( cars and boats ) is ridiculous.

There were all sorts of exemptions and different rates for FST making the calculation enormously tedious.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good thoughts, Gordguide.

This speaks to my earlier observations that "we are not ready for direct democracy yet". Not here in Canada.

Not by a long shot.

In the meantime, I would like to see us move toward a system with less opportunities for corruption, set terms of no more than four years between general elections, term limits and two governing bodies with equal power. A real Senate would solve a lot of the ills that we currently have in our system. Especially if, like the Americans, we staggered the elections so that every two years we would be voting for either a Provincial Senator or a Prime Minister and his party.

This is a system with a lot more checks and balances than the one we now have.

The Power in Ottawa is far to concentrated in one house right now. Nobody seems very happy with this, and it's not working very well.

Even some of the Federal Liberals who are riding the big gravy train are making unhappy noises about it.

Time for some sort of a change.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Despite all of the sh*t they've had to take, and all of the suffering they've had to endure, African Americans today are way better off and FAR richer than all of their clansmen in ALL of the other countries...including Africa itself. I saw a recent statistic that stated that there were more African American millionaires in the USA than there were PEOPLE in Canada.<HR></blockquote>

If you're going to make ridiculous claims like this, I think you should give a source.

According to U.S. census figures, the U.S. is home to about 35 million African Americans, about 14 per cent of the population. Canada has a population of about 30 million.

Wow, being dragged to North America as slaves has paid off hasn't it? Almost every Black in the U.S. must be a millionaire, right?

Except the U.S. census bureau says about 26 per cent of African Americans live in poverty. That's twice the national average.

Gee, something doesn't add up.

What's your source Macnutt -- the KKK Weekly?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

oooooh, MacNutt









An EMP detonated over Baghdad would do far more than just snuffing out Iraqi military communications - it would fry every electrical device for miles around. That includes vehicle ignitions, pacemakers, and medical equipment (whatever might still be operating after the destruction of Gulf War I). How many people would be, at least, injured in that case? How would hospitals function with their equipment toasted? And it's not like you just wait awhile and it all "cools off" and works again - no, once it's fried, it's fried. Will the U.S. drop in millions of dollars worth of medical equipment like they dropped ration packs over Afghanistan?

Speaking of Afghanistan, anyone who has been spending any time reading (not only the "leftie" version of) the various media accounts knows that all over Afghanistan there is a resurgence of the pre-war dominant cultural roles, including the repression of Afghani women. Afghanistan is off western radar insofar as reconstruction is concerned... they have a nice new highway and have begun construction of the new pipeline from Tajikistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India... that's all that ever really mattered.

And your belief (almost a religious one) in the U.S. support for "free elections" is ... well, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad 

Nicaragua: After funding & training terrorists who blew up the countryside, killed thousands, and mining the harbour in contravention of international law (as the World Court at the Hague agreed), the U.S. then threw money at Violetta Chamorro, showing the war-weary Nicaraguans (a) an excessively-funded (rich) campaign and (b) false promises of future prosperity if they went the way the U.S. wanted... which of course they did. How "free" are free elections if the U.S. plays Sugar Daddy to the candidate they want in power? Remember the brouhahah when there was even a hint that a Chinese businessman may have made campaign contributions to Clinton? Christ, the hypocrisy!

Did Afghanis elect Kharzai? Is he "governing" in their interests, or laying the groundwork for eventual western ownership of the economy (just like the IMF forces third world countries to do in order to stave off bankruptcy for a few more years). AAAAGGGGHHHH! It drives me NUTS how people cannot see the U.S.' complete lack of interest in doing what's right in the world, rather than what's profitable. Are people just so unwilling to see reality that they wrap Yankee Imperialism within a cloak of piousness? 

Gotta stop now before I blurt out things that should not be said aloud. 

M

(edited for typos)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The EMP device I mentioned has been the subject of several magazine articles about the upcoming military action in Iraq (sorry, no URL's) and is, I believe, also called a "microwave bomb". It is a specifically targetted device designed to disrupt and _not_ destroy all forms of electronic communications. I have no idea how it is supposed to work...but the plan is to render the command structure of the enemy useless.

I believe that this is what they will do, rather early on.

Anybody else out there want to agree with me that Afghanistan is better off since the US led coalition stepped in? Anybody else think that it is all an evil plot by the US to run a pipeline through the place?

I am not even going to comment on Nicaragua. I've been there Mark.... have you?


Finally....my point in a previous post about how African Americans are largely better off than people of African descent elsewhere was, perhaps, misunderstood.

The figure I heard about how many wealthy African Americans there were in the US (I think it was on Sixty Minutes) was obviously in error. My apologies.

Still...anyone who has travelled throughout Central and South America can tell you that the people of African origin who live in those areas do NOT live anywhere near as well as the vast majority of them do in the US. Same goes for most of Africa tself. The poorest people in the States are way better off than most people in Africa, Central America or South America...no matter _what_ color or creed they are.

Go and see for yourself.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW- can we get back to the original subject of this thread? 

Do we need a leader? Can we function without one? What system would all of you like to see replace our current system? Or...are you pretty happy with it the way it is?

Comments?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

One final comment before this threads gets directed back to its origins . . . Afghanis may be better off politically now than they were under the Taliban, thought I suspect it is of scant degrees, I thought it interesting to note though what former foreign affairs minister Flora Macdonald said this morning on CBC Radio. Namely that the West spent $10 billion on the war there but has since spent less than half a billion on rebuilding (after promising $5 billion). Aren't we swell?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
*Afghanistan is off western radar insofar as reconstruction is concerned... they have a nice new highway and have begun construction of the new pipeline from Tajikistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India... that's all that ever really mattered.*

Can you provide a reference re: oil pipeline?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm not convinced we need a single leader. No argument has convinced me of such a need. Perhaps, I was looking for thoughts on the human condition as opposed to the development of and current state of human politics and goverment. 

I do not have a definite suggestion. However, I feel that a counsel of leaders could fill the same role as a single figurehead. I guess we're obsessed with the single great man. We want to believe that one person can be somehow better, more noble and so forth. It seems to be a humanist ideal and I don't know that losing that would help anything. I'm just thinking aloud here.

It seems that a group of leaders could be just as accountable as a single leader. However, I base this on my own thoughts not on any concrete examples (of which I'd like to hear of). Why one person over many? Why not 3 or 4 or . . . ?

Anyone?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

To quote a Confucious joke: "man with one watch always know exactly what time it is....man with many watches, never quite sure!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A single strong leader would seem to be the best way, judging from history. But I also think that a seperately elected body should share power with that single strong leader. And if they all agree that the leader is taking us down a road that we don't want to go, or has become corrupt etc. then they must have the power to remove him or call a new election.

A single strong leader, and an equally strong Senate that answers directly to the people...not the leader.

Personally...I think it would work just fine.

Comments?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Briefly,

1/ re: EMP bomb:

Very interesting-but-scary article:
http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml 

(oh, man, I can't post the URL to a site I just found - shows you how to build an EMP device with stuff found laying around your home.  )

Here's everything you ever wanted to know, published on the U.S. military's website:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/kopp/apjemp.html 

MacNutt, if you have referenced articles which discuss ways to limit the destructive power of these puppies, please forward asap to the U.S. gov't (and post a link or two here, ok?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is a specifically targetted device designed to disrupt and not destroy all forms of electronic communications. I have no idea how it is supposed to work...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um.. yup. Doesn't look like EMP and "targetted" belong in the same sentence...

2/ Nicaragua:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not even going to comment on Nicaragua. I've been there Mark.... have you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. But I haven't been to Vietnam, but I know what the Americans did to that country. One does not need to go to Nicaragua to learn about U.S. support for the Contras, nor the $$ they funneled to Chamorro, nor the felony that Poindexter was convicted of for his part in that whole mess (the same guy they tapped for the "proposed" Total Info Awareness System that will track every American citizen, and beyond). Anyway, you and I have been over this one before ad nauseum in another thread...

3/ Leadership.

Yes, we need leadership. Not the old leadership, where one fella stood up and said, "Follow me boys!", but the leadership that comes from encouraging others to stand up, to strive for the greater good, to pursue dreams and build coalitions to achieve mutally-agreed-upon goals. Leadership has many meanings...

M


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

jfpoole, 

re: the oil pipeline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm 

Not a big surprise that most people missed it... the news came out on Dec. 27th, when western audiences are snoozing from leftover turkey and hangovers...

PS: I mis-remembered. It was Turkmenistan, not Tajikistan.

(this was also posted in the Mandela thread, and I posted it somewhere in here back in December, but darned if a search of EhMac turns anything up. How far back to the archives go, Mr. Mayor?)


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm*

Thanks for the link. I still don't see how this supports the idea that the war in Afghanistan was fought for oil, though.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

jfpoole,

A few items, some of which support the war-oil connection, at least one of which refutes it (but even that one examines the interplay between geopolitics and oil in the hemisphere):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm 

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/10/13/stories/05132524.htm 

http://www.counterpunch.org/monbiot2.html 

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q.html 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml 

(that'll keep MacNutt up all night...  )

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I read the articles you provided _very thoroughly_ and they confirm my earlier assertion that there is both "hard 
" and "soft" EMP weapons. The actual delivery of those weapons also affects how much damage they do.

I'm not quite sure why you think that any EMP weapon will instantly fry all circuits for miles around. Neither article says that. The US military has been working on this stuff for some time and have said so openly. They are quite aware of the effects and the area of damage. Thay are also very fond of "precision munitions" and "smart bombs' these days.

They will utilise these things to neutralise all command communications, probably in the opening moments of the battle. Want to bet that the EMP weapons won't be very carefully tagetted and designed to disable, rather than destroy?

Watch and see.

I have no reason to think that the US plans to "drop thousands of tons of bombs" on the Iraqi people. I honestly think that the whole thing will be over very quickly and Saddam will be the target. Not the people he controls at gunpoint.

George W. has said as much, repeatedly, in the last few weeks.

Of course, if a person is ...how shall I put this...rather incensed at the Americans, and is searching for conspiracies under every stationary object in the room...then nothing I can say will ever reassure that person.


BTW-note to jfpoole...Mark is rather fond of posting links to some pretty radical left/conspiracy/anti-American websites. I honestly think he gets a lot of his "hard data" from these. Some of that stuff is decades old and totally without foundation, but I usually have a look anyway.

I find them good for a chuckle or two.

Each to their own.......


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Cubamark, I concur with you. I'm for leadership and obviously a good leader should encourage strong leadership in others. However, I still feel that multiple leaders could encourage this type of leadership. I'm not necessarily opposed to a single leader in a moderated and responsible role (as has been suggested to various degrees so far). Nevertheless, none of the arguments here convince me that a single leader - at least on the national level - is essential. I'd have to agree on a personal level that having people in roles of leadership and taking the role of leadership is essential to developing strong character and a sense of community.

I'm not sure where to go with this chain of thought. 

Here's a thought: What leadership role do movie stars play?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
*A few items, some of which support the war-oil connection, at least one of which refutes it (but even that one examines the interplay between geopolitics and oil in the hemisphere)*

I posted an article a couple of days ago that supported the fact that the moon was a hoax; does that mean the moon is a hoax? Aside from the BBC, I recognize _none_ of these sources and hence can't judge their validity. Could you either post your own analysis or some alternate sources that are a bit more, um, credible?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

For those that asked, the FST was applied to the wholesale price of manufactured goods in Canada. The rate varied over time, generally from about 9 to 14% depending on what year we're talking about. If you imported an item, the FST applied to the price it was imported at by commercial interests.

Although consumers didn't pay that price (FST is not a retail tax) if they ordered something from (for example) the US, duty provisons took care of those savings pretty quick. These duties and tariffs were designed to keep end users from avoiding the FST.

The GST was supposed to be revenue neutral (ie money from the GST should equal revenue lost from the FST) and more or less was.

As a consumer, it raised a few issues. A tax on the wholesale price is inevitably passed on to the consumer, but it also increased the money any reseller had to borrow to sell a given item. Using wholly fictitous numbers, but based on the way it really worked, might go like this:

Washing machine, wholesale: $300
FST on washing machine: $30 (at 10% for illustration)
Wholesale price: $330
Distributor markup at 10% $33
Price to reseller: $363
Reseller markup at 33% $119.79
Retail price: $ 482.79

Washing machine, wholesale: $300
Wholesale price: $300
Distibutor markup at 10% $30
Price to reseller: $330
Reseller markup at 33% $110
Retail price: $440.00
GST @ 7% $30.80
Price paid: $470.80

Note that everybody involved in selling the washing machine needs to borrow less money to support it's business with the GST, and that the retail price has fallen, while everybody makes the same money as a % of input costs. It is also significant to note that the government didn't get any extra tax revenue (about $30 in my example) but the system raised prices and hurt competiveness nonetheless.

The FST was also hurting Canada's competitiveness with regard to exports & imports; this is the primary reason it was replaced. For Ontario's manufacturing sector, it lowered the cost of doing business significantly. If you think about it, it is obvious there could be no FTA agreement without elimination of the FST either.

The above is a simplified example, which does not take into account that both the FST and GST come with provisions to deduct what had been paid before. Nor does it take into account the GST paid along the way from bolts and labour to retail. For example, if you buy steel to make the washing machine, you can have the tax paid for the steel refunded once you send it on it's way. Still, the government still ended up with it's $30 sooner or later.

However, with the FST only the manufacturer could do so, while with the GST everyone except the consumer can do so.

Rest assured, however, that the GST is better from a business perspective and it has lowered costs for consumers over the old model. No studies dispute this.

With the FST my example is generous; prices were usually higher than I suggested. In practise there would be about a 15 to 20% higher cost for a new Mac from the Apple store, for example, when compared to US prices. Today, we generally see similar prices in relation to the US price x the exchange rate.

If you bought a Mac for business purposes, you would be able to recover the GST paid by deducting it from what you owe the Government for the sales of whatever you do. To go back to our example, the washing machine would end up costing you $440 instead of $482.79.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I have had some time to look up some valid (..take note Mark) links to real info on E-bombs. There was some question, a little earlier, about my prediction that these EMP weapons will be used in the opening moments of the upcoming battle.

Perhaps this will clarify things a bit...

EMP weapon

Microwave weapon

And, finally...I stated earlier that the US already had special forces and CIA operatives deep inside Iraq. They will be instrumental in removing the butcher of Baghdad from power by helping to target the above weapons more accurately.

Check it out...
"Secret Army inside Iraq"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As I have stated before...this will be a military action designed to remove Saddam...NOT an excuse to bomb the hell out of a bunch of innocent Iraqis.

They, after all, have already suffered enough.

With the help of the weapons and special operatives I have mentioned above, I believe that the whole thing will be over almost before it has started. While nothing can be taken for certain at this point, I honestly think that Saddam will either be in custody or headed for paradise within the first few hours of this "war". And his remaining commanders will be unable to order their troops to do anything, because they will be out of contact with them.

Total chaos among the already demoralised and poorly equipped Iraqi Army. Mass surrenders will be the order of the day.

Ever since the first Gulf War, the Americans have demonstrated an ability to keep their own casualties to a bare minimum. I suspect that they will also keep innocent Iraqis from being killed this time out. Mostly....

Also, if they can prevent any major fire-fights from happening, then there will be less chances of "friendly-fire" incidents....which, by the way, happen in EVERY war.

Lets all hope and pray for the best outcome. The only thing that could stop this right now is if Saddam suddenly decided to go into exile, or if one of his entourage decided to snuff him and solve the problem for us.

Hope springs eternal.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The first Gulf war was not conducted in a city  
A decision to go to war should NOT be dictated by the war machine timing and this is being conducted that way.
Right now the US is coming across as a slavering dog straining at his leash.
This image simply feeds into the proganda machine of those who detest or out right hate the US.....and often with good reason.
This NEEDS to be a world effort not a US effort.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*The first Gulf war was not conducted in a city*

Actually, it was, if only partially. There were a considerable number of sorties flown over Baghdad and Kuwait City, not to mention the ground war that liberated Kuwait City.

If there is a second Gulf War, I'd imagine the amount of fighting (especially out in the desert) is going to be minimal at best. I doubt many of the Iraqi troops have much love for Saddam, and given the choice of being slaughtered by American air power or surrendering, I doubt many will have to think twice about that!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Testing, testing 1, 2, 3. Is this thing on!?

I realize the US and its inevitable war with Iraq is a hot topic but could we keep this debate focused on its original goal. Do you we need a leader? If so what kind of leader and why?

Please refer to my earlier posts so we can perhaps get back on track.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

We need leaders with visions of peace and not just pay lip service to that vision.

That is the kind of leaders we need !

Enough of war and sabre rattling, military tensions, growing military stockpiles.

We need leaders that have a vision for the long term future. So that there is a planet to pass along to the next generations.

Peace! Pass it on.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Thank you Michael!  

I'll take it you were inferring that Dubya is not what you're looking for in a leader. Perhaps this is my own bias leaking into the mix here, but I'd use the term short-sighted or narrow-view with our Southern pal. I feel like a bit of a hypocrite after my last post but I couldn't resist contextualizing the comment. Je m'excuse.

How long has it been since we've had a truly inspiring leader? There were aspects of Ralph Nader that intrigued me but it's not realistic that he could be president. However, he might have made a damn fine opposition. 

My problem with leaders is (and perhaps I'm too jaded) that people (or at least politicians) do not seem reliable enough these days. I just don't feel I can trust one person. That's probably a reflection of current leadership though.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I think (as I've said earlier) that we do; in fact I believe that having no leader simply is an unsustainable conditon. Sooner or later, one will simply assume the role, and I prefer to have some say in whom that person may be.

Anyone who has played team sports will tell you that sucessful teams have a coach who is able to lead (there are a wide variety of styles). Autocratic is one option, but many have led in other ways.

Most sucessful teams also will have a player who takes on a leadership role in the locker room; this works well unless the coach can't abide the guy for some reason. In that case, they get rid of him (trade, whatever). But, they cannot trade the role itself away; it will be there once more, with a new face, long after the individual in question goes to the minors or to the next champion's team.

The locker room player is an example of the leader who evolves without any formal system in place to create the position. Again, this is inevitable, especially in the case where the coach fails to actually perform the leadership role; it may be worthwhile to note that excellent coaches cannot stop it from happening. It is not dependant on coaching skill.

Since military matters occasionally come up in this discussion, we can take a look at modern military structure.

Virtually every competent nation today uses a leadership model that is very much an endorsement of the leadership prinicple. It was created quite by accident, at the end of the first world war.

Germany had been prevented from creating a large standing army by the Armstice of 1918. Their solution was to create an advanced, highly trained group of soldiers. Key to this was a small sized army (in terms of numbers of personnel). When the time came to challenge those whom had created the condtion in the first place, a ready-made officer corps was available in these peacetime troops.

This is exactly the model used today by Canada, the US, Britain the old USSR, and virtually everybody else. it has become such a tenet of military doctrine, that to fail to follow it leads your enemies to conclude you are weak, without regard to the size of your standing army.

Saddam's forces are viewed exactly this way; the only trepidation with regard to the Gulf War amongst Western military planners was the Republican Guard, whom were seen to follow the WWII German model and this were assumed to be inherently more competent and dangerous than Iraq's huge constripted recruits.

As things turned out, the Guards were not as well trained as had been feared. Still, if any of us remember the talk in the fall of 1990 it's what they were most worried about, and the proof is in the fact that they did fight harder and maintained their positions with more disipline than conscripts did, albiet inefectively.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Okay on topic then.
I don't really think the question is phrased in such a way as to be relevant.
NOT having leaders implies it might be a possible state of human affairs and I don't believe that is in any way possible.

So perhaps the question might be better phrased "What kind of leaders do we need for various endeavours and what should be the nature of the relationship between the leader and the led"
Awkward but it covers things like recall, term of office if applicable, nature of leadership - ie a military leader often has different qualities ( and undesirable ones too which is why a civilian government is the norm) than a civilian leader.
Hockey Team captain versus coach
Elected versus appointed.
Lots of aspects of leadership to discuss but discussing having no leaders I believe is pointless.  
Somebody want to lead off on this


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

A very good clarification, Macdoc. 

Nevertheless, given these new parameters I still want to know if it's possible to eliminate the role of a _single_ leader? Specifically, do we need a Prime Minister or President? I'm not suggesting the total absence of a leader but I want to know if people think mutliple leaders (i.e., a counsel) is feasible? In my opinion it's too idealistic and would be too inefficient. 

My new question is: Should leaders have more or less control in their roles? I'm thinking of Premiers, Prime Ministers and/or Presidents; however, I'd invite any inspection of the leadership role. This obviously would have to be context dependent but I'm intrigued to know what people think and what examples they'll bring to this post.

Sorry for not offering any examples at this point. Politics and history aren't my strong points presently but I'm trying to improve my knowledge base.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Canadian Prime Minister, if he has a clear majority, has far more sweeping powers than an American President. The PM we have now has increased his powers and holds almost all of his fellow MP's in thrall...therefore ensuring his total control over this country. 

He doesn't have to answer to the Senate, because he _appoints_ the Senators. 

He doesn't have to answer to the Supreme Court Justices because he _appoints_ them too. 

He certainly doesn't have to worry about an "Ethics Commissioner" because...you guessed it..he _appoints_ that position as well. And the "Ethics Commissioner" answers to..and reports to, the PM's office _only_, not the people. (this is practically an invitation to massive corruption...think about it)

Yep...King Jean's got it pretty good, for the leader of a _democracy_. Arf arf arf.

The US President has sweeping powers once the War Measures Act has been approved by Congress. But that doesn't happen very often. Until that time, he has to get all of his decisions through Congress. They can say yes or no to the bills put before them. And even when the sitting President has a Congress that's largely on his side, like right now, that's no easy task. Congress can also initiate new bills and laws without consulting the President. Then HE can say yes or no.

The elected Congress can also remove a sitting President, if he has screwed up royally or been found to be totally corrupt.

Bill Clinton is the only President in modern history to have even come close to this disgrace. He did get impeached though...only the second President in history to suffer this ultimate humiliation. But Congress decided not to go the extra step and remove him from office. He dodged it by a whisker. Nixon also came close to impeachment, but resigned long before the process got really started.

We, here in Canada, need a sober second body that answers to the people...not the Prime Minister...and who can temper his decisions and oversee all of his moves.

Then we will have good leadership that follows the will of the people. We sure don't have it now. 

This "dual leadership" is probably the best system available right now for running a country according to the will of the people. It has checks and balances that ensure some sort of accountability.

We need to move toward this ideal. We are a LONG way from it, right now.

Or do you like living in a dictatorship.... do you like being ruled by a man with total power...and do you like only having a real say in Government for two days out of every 
_ten_ years?

I don't. Lots of other Canadians don't either. Think about it for awhile and I bet you won't either.

We need a real fundamental change in the way this country is run. A change that will let ALL of us have a say...ALL of the time.

I'm not talking about revoloution...I'm talking about 
_evoloution..._to a better way of doing things.

We are long overdue for this.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macnutt, revolution and evolution don't have an extra "o." Just keeping you on your toes.

That aside, I agree with your analysis. Overall, I want a leader to be fully accountable. (For instance, our Ministers - Sheila!!!  ) 

Do you ever feel that as Canadians we are too passive, too forgiving and too accepting of government policy/corruption/screw-ups? (That's a mouthful.)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We are FAR too passive a people! That's why we have ended up with a government who have no real desire to follow the will of the people....except for a short period leading up to each election. After the election they drop this pretense and go back about their business. In the case of the Federal Liberals, that would seem to be self-enrichment.

Re:spelling....I think I have been spelling "revoloution" that way all of my life. And it is quite likely that I was wrong all of this time. Good catch!

BTW- do NOT get me started on Sheila Copps. I could write a thousand pages about the Hag from Hamilton without even breaking a sweat.

She is a severe waste of skin.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Good to hear that I'm not alone for my hatred of the hag. Oh alliteration. However, (he he he) hate is something I reserve for special people. It's more accurate to say that she disgusts me - as does our Prime Minister.

Anyway, I only wish people would put as much energy into protesting the incompetency and corruption of our Federal government as they do the antiwar marches. This isn't to devalue the antiwar demonstrations but simply to point out energies should also be invested locally. 

Sadly, it almost seems easier to protest something distant to us than to face problems in our own country. Of course the U.S. is guilty of this offense even more so. It strikes me as funny that people go to great lengths to organize things like marches and fundraisers when each of those participants could have better invested that time into helping out at a homeless shelter or volunteering at an elderly home. This is not to diminish foreign concerns and good energy spent fighting what we believe in. The public does need a voice. However, I'm just sceptical (from what I've experienced) that the people who get excited about the energy and crowds of a public demonstrations will carry their concerns and energy into individual time spent helping their community.

To return to the topic, I wish that people would be instilled with enough leadership to act responsibly on their own (with or without a group). Perhaps, it's only a leader who can really fill this role. If that's the case, then I wish our leadership models could instill more of a sense of leadership, accountability and civic responsibility. 

I'm definitely cynical but I've heard or read one to many "Mission Statements" that are the sickest kind of humour because they are never effectively put into practice.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... It strikes me as funny that people go to great lengths to organize things like marches and fundraisers when each of those participants could have better invested that time into helping out at a homeless shelter or volunteering at an elderly home ..."

Yes, it does at first seem counter-productive, or a poor allocation of energy. The march is just the act that a cause revolves around; it is literally a "demonstration" of an action, not the action itself.

The true value of the process is that you get people (who are by nature far more likely to be joiners than initiators) to do something, and you meet like minded people, where you may be able to get them to do something, and you publicise the cause so others who may be inclined may do something. It's a call to action, not to be confused with the action itself.

If you have the resources, the volunteers, and the public profile, you don't need to go on a march.

When a group exists only to protest and then goes home, they are manipulating the media and public opinion, not doing any valuable "works".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sounds a bit like Greenpeace, et al. 









Whoops....that's not right...Greenpeace and some of the other "environmental" protest groups only stage public demonstrations when the bank account gets a bit too low. Lear Jets and offices that cost 60,000$US per month to rent (Sierra Club) are rather pricey items to support, after all.

See...I can be cynical too.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Good work on the cynicism Macnutt.

Your clarification is great G.G. 

I don't trust a lot of fundraising groups because they have too much entrenched and paid management. If I donate money, I want the majority of it to go to that cause - not some wasteful management types who are often next to useless. My personal philosophy is that donating money to charity needs to be done very cautiously. And overall it's better to volunteer your time than your money. I suppose that's an action that a leader should be taking. Although my feelings are ironic too because I have some distrust for leaders of charities. Nevertheless, this irony stems from a reality of monetary abuse in certain charities.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Thanks Macnutt! Us Scots have to stick together, eh. However, my "I'm a broke student with good ideas" platform probably won't fly at this point in Canadian politics.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You are wise beyond your years CC!   

Let me know if you ever decide to run for public office....you've got _my_ vote.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

True. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.









I guess this post is coming to an end. I don't feel that much was resolved but lots of great points were raised. At any rate, I didn't expect any ultimate answers because I'm not one for the Truth. It makes me wonder what people are selling. (Geez this is starting to sound like a philosophic Jerry Springer closing thought - that's sure an oxymoron.) 

I'm not convinced that one leader is the natural way of things or "natural" to human affairs. But I am a cynic after all. Thanks everyone for your contributions!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Look at it this way...there's nowhere to go from here, except _UP!_


----------

