Good luck to Warren Kinsella and his new venture at Daisy Consulting.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

I hate it when I read this:

Canadian voters gave Stephen Harper a cautious go ahead Monday to form a slim minority Conservative government, handing him groundbreaking support in Quebec and more clout in Ontario as they sent Paul Martin into retirement as Liberal leader and Grit MPs to the benches of the official Opposition.

That quote came from election night, but the notion that Canadians somehow contrived to deliver the Conservatives a "tryout" is nonsense that continues to be repeated. I recall Andrew Coyne making this point in an interview once (perhaps in print as well -- I want credit to go where credit is due). Every Canadian who voted for a Conservative MP on the basis of party affiliation wanted the Conservatives to win a majority. The same goes for voters for other parties. There is no communication or collusion.

There is nothing "cautious" about the vote.

Anthropomorphizing the electorate is poetic nonsense.

The reason I bring it up because another variant of this fallacy comes up often:

That’s why fully 64% of Canadians voted in the last election for parties who supported a national early learning and child care program.

See, the Conservatives won the most votes, but can't implement their program, because when you break down the platforms, the majority of the people votes for various parties that had similar (but not identical) programs.

Again, piffle!

We don't know what each voter was thinking when they voted. Indeed, the fact that the Liberals, who had the actually implemented a nationalized daycare program (sort of), were defeated suggests that nationalized daycare was not the single most important thing on voters minds.

The fact that the programs of these other parties were different from each other as well as different from the Conservative program is conveniently ignored. So is the fact that most people voted for the Conservative variant.

The whole point of having parties is to give the electorate a set of distinct choices. After the vote, the winning party is assumed to have a platform that resonated with the majority of voters. Not a perfect fit, but then what is? And then we have elections regularly so parties can refine their platforms. If you then start to rewrite the winning platform to conform to the losing platform based on some sort of numerical breakdown of voting patterns coupled with assumptions of what that breakdown says about the electorate group-think, then why bother having elections? Just run polls, and hand the results directly to professional full-time bureaucrats to implement.

That is logical conclusion of that sort of thinking.

Or should I say "group-thinking"?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:22 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

1 "The whole point of having parties is to give the electorate a set of distinct choices. After the vote, the winning party is assumed to have a platform that resonated with the majority of voters." Oh yeah, I remember how that worked out for the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway.

Posted by: Locusta emersonia at April 30, 2006 11:34 PM (nnihx)

2 It's OK locusta, you can vote him as a conservative next election

Posted by: RNC at April 30, 2006 11:40 PM (4zSLv)

3 Locusta - your name just says everything about you. Give it a rest already - its over.

Posted by: Alberta Girl at April 30, 2006 11:42 PM (nMd+I)

4 But the horse is still dead!?!! Maybe if Locusta beat the horse some more...

Posted by: Mac at May 01, 2006 01:00 AM (TaDbz)

5 Just because Emerson brought the file over for Harper's signature, doesn't mean that what was done to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway was right. We're not giving up. Also, do you think Emerson will run again in V-K? Or will he be parachuted into what Harper thinks is a bastion of Tory support? Either way, once Emerson has his goals met, e.g., Olympics, Gateway, etc., he'll go back to being mr. non-partisan and live in the corporate world again. I hope you all "know who you are voting for" in the next election Seems like you have to have x-ray eyes because you certainly can't take them on their word. Emerson: "I'm going to be Harper's worst nightmare." I still think he may be. Call me Pollyanna. And place my bet on the "dead horse."

Posted by: Locusta emersonia at May 01, 2006 03:09 AM (nnihx)

6 They use a similar argument to this day when they point out that the combined anti-Liberal/NDP vote was slightly more than that of the Tories in 1988, somehow delegitimizing Free Trade. (Never mind that many candidates, such as Paul Martin, were actually supporters of such a deal.) It's funny that we'd never hear that kind of thing when it cuts the other way: Fully 2/3 of Canadians voted for parties promising tax cuts and increased military funding, for example. It's also funny how nobody ever tried to legitimize other things in the same manner. I never heard anyone say that the Iraq War was a good thing because more Americans voted for Bush than everyone else combined.

Posted by: Jarrett at May 01, 2006 03:13 AM (w5QCs)

7 I forgot to mention... who will decide if Emerson was worth a Billion Dollars American? Not likely his "constituents."

Posted by: Locusta emersonia at May 01, 2006 03:14 AM (nnihx)

8 Give it a break Steve the majority did NOT vote Conservative. And as far as daycare platforms go the three opposition parties came up with similar variations, its the Conservatives who have the most dissimilar platform, and one which is supported by a Minority, hence they are a minority government. No matter how ya spin it.

Posted by: Eugene Plawiuk at May 01, 2006 08:26 AM (K0LvT)

9 When the Conservative do get a majority, the "group think" will change to minority rights. How dare the majority tell the minority what to do. Pollyanna, the majority of people in Vancouver-Kingsway, don't care. Take a look at the small numbers of people protesting and compare it to the actual number of residents in Van-King. Instead of Pollyanna, Don Quixote might be a better choice. Have at it. enough

Posted by: enough at May 01, 2006 08:47 AM (ucHAZ)

10 So let me see if I understand Mr. Janke's point on this. It is wrong to assume Conservative voters wanted a Conservative minority. It is wrong to assume Conservative voters wanted anything but a desire for a Conservative majority and implementation of their full platform. But it is also wrong to assume that voters of the other parties actually wanted the government to implement a key part of the platforms of those parties. It is also wrong to assume that Canadians have given the Conservatives a fettered or limited mandate just because they fall short of a majority by a ton of seats and only got 36% of the vote. Did I get that right? I'm still learning the Conservative Newspeak where: - campaigning for elected-only senators means governing for appointed senators - campaigning for an accountable government means governing for appointed senators who don't have to answer to our elected members during Question Period - campaigning for restrictions on lobbying means governing for the appointment of defence lobbyists to cabinet, the permission of campaign chairpersons and other key party insiders (4 and counting) to become lobbyists within 3 months - only 3 bloody months! - of getting elected - arguing for the lowering of flags to honour dead soldiers in opposition means governing for not lowering of flags to honour dead soldiers ... the new dictionary of political speak from the Conservatives is a very thick book already and I haven't made it all the way through yet. Plus it keeps growing so it's hard to keep up, but at least we know, thanks to Angry in the Great White North, that we have to add: - campaigning for a majority means governing as majority even if you fall a few - meaning 31 - seats short of a majority. Thanks again for clarifying for the rest of us. Ted Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at May 01, 2006 09:29 AM (9l8Vc)

11 Ted, All it seems that Steve is pointing out is how people on the left, regardless of party affiliation, and the media, are full of shit. That's all. Get it? Once again, Liberal values are not Canadian values, they are Liberal values. The media, having not yet adjusted to the new reality, cannot assume that it speaks for any Canadians. As for the Conservative 'newspeak' you made up - Do we really have to go into how criminal the Liberals are again? Or what liars and hypocrites the NDP are?

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 01, 2006 10:30 AM (MkblT)

12 irwin daisy Liars and hypocrits. That reminds me of what Harper got elected on compared to what we are actually seeing. Harper said he would bring accountability to government he has not. He said he would bring transparency he has brought the opposite. Aren't you glad you voted Liberal when you voted Conservative?

Posted by: steve d. at May 01, 2006 04:56 PM (sw5R/)

13 Steve d, Blinded by reality once again. Harper made promises. Harper keeping promises. Simple as that. You and your ilk twist what he said into something else. How's that for effective government? 13 years of do nothing, be everything and 100 days of Conservative leadership. A breath of fresh air. Not even your silly talk can ruin what is happening in Canada. enough

Posted by: enough at May 02, 2006 12:45 AM (6sAMe)

14 steve d, Harper never used the word transparency, once. Prove me wrong. And regardless, how is he not transparent? By not allowing the media to run the government? The Accountability Act: It's in the senate waiting for approval. If on the other hand you're talking about Emerson - everything Harper did was legal, and the action helped solve the softwood dispute. "Aren't you glad you voted Liberal when you voted Conservative?" You're kidding right? (Benefit of the doubt) You're not! (feigned surprise) I'd rather argue with a common house plant. (dismissal)

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 02, 2006 01:22 PM (MkblT)

15 Funny, all the Libreal and left wing outrage about Emerson crossing the floor continues on 2 monthes plus after the act. Did we like it when Belinda crossed? Nope, but as we quickly realized, she would reach the level of her own ambition with that move, and in time, it was nothing but a joke. The crossing of Emerson was legal. It will be something that will irritate those who voted for him and I suppose I don't blame those who thought they were voting for a Libreal. Just like all those in Newmarket who thought they voted for a Conservative with Belinda. I would say neither side can hold the high ground, except the NDP. No one dedicated to the NDP way of thinking could EVER jump ship right?? Oh wait a minute, Robert Rae is a Libreal now...... See, everyone can switch horses. What makes the difference is that Harper is using his time and efforts to carry out the promises he made last election. A novel concept to those on the left, who just say "trust us, we know what is best for you" as they fleece and lie and in one certain case, steal the public purse. Ya, getting lessons on ethics from a party that supports people like David Dingwall, or in the case of the NDP, Svend Robinson just makes me gag....

Posted by: Mark in Bowmanville at May 03, 2006 04:05 PM (3eoLb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Decent bit of political analysis on rabble from Universty of Winnipeg professor John Ryan, but only if you skip the delusional bits:

Jack Layton's latest pronouncements and actions show that he's already partially in bed with Stephen Harper, and it looks as if he wants to co-habit with him for the duration of this Parliament.

Also Layton has made it clear that the NDP is going to have an all-out fight with the Liberals in the next election, in the hopes of replacing the Liberals as the official opposition. This is sheer delusion, and dangerous delusion for both Canada and the NDP.

Of course, I take issue with the notion that something that is dangerous for the NDP is dangerous for Canada. I do that not because of my politics but on the basis of what I see as a poor logical construction. He argues that the NDP is delusional and makes a logical next deduction that being in a delusional state is dangerous to the NDP. But it's his politics, not his reason, that equates something that is dangerous to the NDP as dangerous to Canada. He mixes the eminently logical and the purely partisan in the same sentence.

It's the little things that transform what could be a good bit of political analysis into partisan propoganda. But it's not the only example of Ryan mixing his opinions, or even delusions, with facts or good logic.

A Conservative majority is one outcome, but it could also be destructive to the NDP. If the Liberals should get a reasonably good leader, say Ontario MPP Gerard Kennedy, this NDP strategy could lead them to a repeat of 1993, where from 43 seats the NDP were reduced to nine - and the Conservatives might still get a majority if they capture Quebec.

The NDP federal leadership seems oblivious to the fact that their current strategy is demoralizing to many in the party and to progressive-minded people in the public at large. It should come as no surprise that a continuation of these policies will result in fewer monetary contributions to the party and in a loss of votes. A recent poll has already shown a slide to 14 per cent from their 17.5 per cent share of the vote in the 2006 election.

Interesting that in his analysis, Ryan sees only the Conservatives and the Liberals as rivals to the NDP. I think that if Ryan is right, that NDP supporters are demoralized, that other left-wing parties, in particular the Greens, are in a position to draw the people away. In other words, the danger is really that the NDP is pushing supporters away while simultaneously there are alternative leftist parties that are pulling them away. Being blind to that fact compounds the problems for the NDP, who might be thinking, incorrectly, that they are the default party for leftists.

It seems that the NDP doesn't have any vision for this country or any articulated policy, other than getting additional seats in Parliament - hence the attack on the Liberals. Bluntly, this appears to be a stupid short-sighted policy, with no regard for Canada, or even for themselves.

Having a vision for Canada has not translated into a federal NDP government. Playing the politics game has not translated into a federal NDP government. Now if you were an idealist, which problem would you prefer to discuss? The second, of course. To me, the NDP is chock full of vision -- at least no more or less than the other parties. But for an NDP supporter, admission that the NDP vision is a political dead-end is horrifying. Better to insist that the problem is that the policies have not been explained properly, that there is a lack of vision. Much more comforting.

Another bit of willful blindness.

With most of the corporate elite and the owners of the media behind Harper - carefully grooming his image - and with the NDP fighting the Liberals, it's almost a certainty that the Conservatives will get a majority in the next election.

Of course, it is the standard complaint of the loser that the media was against him. Every party is guilty of that at one time or another, and every party can point to example after example to prove their case. For what it's worth, I've pointed out several occassions during the last election in which the CBC and other traditionally liberal media outlets were particularly supportive of the Conservatives, before it became clear that the Conservatives were going to win. I was taken to task by some readers for doing so, called naive for thinking the media was fairer than most people assumed. But blaming the media is a crutch. It's fine to blame them in a moment of frustration, but when the moment passes, you had better be over it.

Ryan seems to be not quite past the frustration stage.

But seriously, with all the hubbub about Stephen Harper's fight with the national press gallery over access, is it likely that the "corporate elite" is grooming Harper? What media owner trying to run a profitable paper would advise Harper not to talk to his reporters?

So Ryan can assume the NDP is indispensable to Canada's survival, he can ignore the Greens as a threat, he can blame the NDP communication people for not communicating enough vision, he can berate the media for being manifestly pro-Conservative -- but at the end of the day, voters know what the NDP stands for. The vast majority of the time they can guess what the NDP would say about any issue. The trick to do so is easy. Imagine that you work for a living (the NDP is focused on "working families"). Consider the issue and your opinion. Given that at the last election, the NDP garnered 17.5% of the popular vote (and that margin has eroded since then), you can bet whatever you think of that issue, there is a better than 80% chance that the NDP position is different.

OK, that was a bit glib. But the numbers are the numbers.

The lies that Ryan and the NDP tell themselves will not change those numbers, except to drive them lower.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1043 words, total size 6 kb.

It's not too often that Jack Layton and the NDP would have something nice to say about George W Bush. Well, I would have said never. But then it shows the seriousness of the divide between the Liberals and the NDP that is going to help keep the Conservatives in power for years to come:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago the Liberals promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. Instead, they went up by 24% or more. Even George Bush had a better record in dealing with pollution than the previous government.

In the throne speech the government has stated:

It will take measures to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

My question for the Prime Minister is simply this. How is cutting the funding for climate change initiatives going to get us toward the commitment that was made in the Speech from the Throne?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was wondering how many questions it would take before the leader of the NDP mentioned George Bush.

In any case, the way we are going to get toward a new climate change program is making sure we have the funds available, that the funds are taken from programs that are not working and not effective and are put toward those that will result in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Well, the president got mentioned, and with some praise! Jack Layton said that the environmentalists are better off living in the United States under George W Bush and the Republicans than in Canada under Paul Martin and the Liberals.

Phrased like that, Stephen Harper doesn't have to say much more than what he did -- we'll be better than the Liberals. Next question.

Actually, the next question just continues with the free-for-all on the Liberals:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Liberal Party, Canada has dropped from leader to environmental delinquent. The OECD considers Canada one of the world's worst polluters. The result is that our children and seniors are suffering from asthma because of year round smog.

Will this government do as little and be as timid as the Liberals?

If not, where is the Prime Minister's plan to ensure families have pure air?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the leader of the NDP that the previous government failed. In fact it did not resolve either the problems of greenhouse gases or those of pollution. This is why we are making policy and financial changes as we develop a new plan.

With all the criticism aimed at the Liberals, Stephen Harper can afford to sound reasonable. You're absolutely right, Jack, in your analysis of the situation. We'll do better. Thanks for asking and for contributing so constructively to Question Period.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:42 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Hey Steve: Cooperative federalism!! Capitalism with heart, what a concept!!!! GO JACK, GO STEPHEN!! Stick a fork in the LIEberals.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 29, 2006 04:47 PM (KKUfG)

2 Steve What Jack has done, apparently without Harper or you noticing, is expose the fact that Harper got elected and only now is developing a plan. I guess he didn't really expect to get elected. Can there be another reason he has no plan regarding the environment?

Posted by: steve d. at April 29, 2006 09:33 PM (sw5R/)

3 You've extrapolated a great deal from very little information, steve d. You must be some kinda genius or something... like Wile E. Coyote... I can't speak for Prime Minister Harper but IMHO, it would not be logical to have fully prepared plan for environmental protection ready to go. At best, a framework plan would be prepared. It would make no sense to try to design a new environmental protection plan without reviewing the status of whatever plans (if any) the outgoing government had put in place and what (if any) surprises were waiting therein. You see, the civil service goes about the business of providing government services whether the politicians are in Ottawa or not. The Liberal environment platform was dubious at best so I'm sure the Honourable Rona Ambrose wanted to know what she had in hand before she made changes. I wonder why Jack & the Dippers addressed their queries to PMSH instead of the Minister responsible?

Posted by: Mac at April 29, 2006 10:32 PM (TaDbz)

4 I wonder why Jack and Olivia didn't do more for the city of Toronto and its terrible pollution problem while they were city councillors? Jack rode a bike....but he and Olivia also lived in rent-geared to income housing (which has a huge waiting list) while they were both pulling salaries as city councillors. Only when they were found out, did they actually move out, and leave a space for someone needier. Can we deport Jack? Anywhere.....would anyone take him?

Posted by: RZ at April 29, 2006 11:09 PM (tyzJl)

5 RZ...France probably would.

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 12:07 AM (ZrYg/)

6 Jack is just accumulating at lot of material to use in the next election. Broken promises on accountability, open government, evironment(he won't do anything), no childcare, long waiting lists in health care, still fighting the Taliban, military costs still rising, oil too expensive, nothing done on funding post secondary education, etc. It should be fun. Its funny wingnuts want small government but Canadians want government to do something besides give up power to America and the Provinces. Canadians want a Federal Government with some ability to hold the country together so it doesn't go spinning off in 12 different directions. It looks like Harper has given the American military to operate freely. They take all the oil they can dredge up and their military gets carte blanche within Canada. They get to decide that if the price of softwood drops the tariff goes back up. Brilliant. So when does he give them our water???

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 01:39 AM (sw5R/)

7 I'm sure you'd be happier with Dippers "Communism Lite" under Dapper Jack, steve d. Hopefully, the rest of us will never have to endure that nightmare. Does the 'd' stand for "deluded" or "demented"?

Posted by: Mac at April 30, 2006 02:14 AM (TaDbz)

8 Expect alot of softballs from the NDP leader. Layton wants to replace the Liberals on the left (fearing this, the Grits talk of "uniting the left) and he'll do whatever it takes to make them look bad. This will include attacking them at every turn, and even playing nice w/ the Tories.

Posted by: sean at April 30, 2006 02:53 AM (z8naz)

9 Jack will say whatever keeps him in business.

Posted by: John at April 30, 2006 05:31 AM (FmPX9)

10 It's all part of the pretty obvious tag-team effort by Harper and Layton to, as Dipper Pat Martin said "remove the Liberals from the game board". One indication that this is working is when Ralph Goodale directs his attacks in question period at the NDP !

Posted by: Political Junkie at April 30, 2006 10:00 AM (sgcO4)

11 I love how leftists scream for the government to do *something* about every percieved problem in their lives. A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.-- Barry Goldwater

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 01:04 PM (ZrYg/)

12 Mac It's perfectly okay to endure Bush Lite but not so good to endure Jack. Perhaps the longer Harper is in the better Jack will look. Harper has already shown he is better at making promises than keeping them. Regis They've got little government in Iraq is that what you long for? Perhaps corporate governance like they have in the U.S.A. is better? How much has oil gone up since Oil took over the White House, 500%? I think that is about right.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 03:03 PM (sw5R/)

13 CPC has no plan? It is Bob Mills and the CPC that have the only plan re a made in Canada Kyoto plan--the Lib/NDP only have spin. We see what the Lib plan has gotten us--33% more emissions since they signed the Kyoto Protocol. Jack is a non-entity--he is only bashing the Liberals to stand up against Buzzsaw Hargrove. The NDP are as dangerous for Canada as were the Liberals. There is a reason that Layton and Lenin look so much alike--they are cut from the same cloth.

Posted by: George at April 30, 2006 03:38 PM (7nc7h)

14 steve d, Continuing to pull feelings out of your ass and call them facts? I worked on the Conservative campaign and believe me they have an environmental plan dealing with all emissions, not just C02. The Liberal plan? The socialist money transfer scheme called Kyoto - never signed in the all the years of being in power. Meanwhile, it was a Conservative that was just named Canada's greenest PM, no? Jack Layton: Criminally sucking up public housing despite he and his wife being paid good sized municipal salaries. Or what about the medical care he paid for at the Sholdice (sic) Clinic? He's a typical socialist hypocrit and liar, as you all are. And who are you and your 2 seat party to speak for 'most' Canadians? Now lets get to Harper. Bush lite? Wow, that's real creative ain't it? Now let's rethink that statement, clear the cobwebs and ask yourself - in all reality, how could that be? And what promises has he not kept? Name one. I'm glad most Canadians don't subscribe to your communist dementia. And I like the fact you post a lot. The more you post the more people will be turned off the NDP and your contaminated and toxic ilk.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 30, 2006 04:49 PM (kkcdf)

15 What I long for is government closer to the size of 19th Century USA. Oil has gone up 500% since 1998. "Big Oil" took over the last two years of Clinton? Wow. Just ignore the fact that prices were lower at that time than any period since 1920. Just ignore the fact that demand has skyrocketed because China's economy has grown more than 60% since then. And India by ~40% and the US by 20%. Just ignore the fact that much of the oil produced in the world is under the control of a cartel called OPEC and not "big business". Nope, that has nothing to do with it at all. You can also ignore the fact that, adjusted for inflation, gas prices are 20% lower NOW than they were in 1981. I guess adjusting for inflation never occurred to you. Must be nice to be able to ignore facts and reach any conclusion you feel is right. Until reality reaches up and smacks you right in the face, of course.

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 05:29 PM (ZrYg/)

16 irwin daisy I can't believe you don't see the folly in offering a public transit user $16 a month and expecting even a single driver to stop driving his car to work. Seriously, $16 a month will be great for the working poor who need every break they can get, but other than that it is a waste of time. It is especially pathetic when you consider this tiny tax break will end up costing a billion dollars a year. That money could have made a real impact on public transit. Instead it is going to be pissed away in dribs and drabs by individuals most of whom will barely notice. A similar criticism can be made of his child care handouts. Conservatives sure are hypocritical when it comes to nanny state issues. They rail against nanny state policies--until they get a chance at governing, then its give a little to this group, give a little to that group--hypocritical by just a little? I think so. Liars? Yes. Too bad. What has it been four months and the jury is in. Item: Harper said he was going to make government accountable and open. Fact: His accountability bill does not cover his government. Everybody will be accountable except Harper and his gang!! Does that add up to accountability?? Even a child can see that this is a joke. Accountability was the single biggest issue for Harper and he has failed to deliver big time. Item: Another big issue was open government, no more secrecy. Fact: Harper has closed government. It is turning out to be the most secretive government in history. When you do the opposite of what you said you were going to do that makes you by definition a lying hypocrit. Like I said, Bush lite. BTW: I am not owned by a party. That way I can see a little more clearly. Some people are such party hacks they have lost all objectivity. I get my philosophy from the New Testament. Remember,Jesus was a champion of the underdog, the little guy, the working man.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 08:07 PM (sw5R/)

17 **Careful what you wish for.** Before we get too happy clapping our hands around the campfire with the damage the [crafty] NDP is inflicting upon the Liberal party, remember, it is not in our interest that the liberals be fully off the map . Who then to dilute the NDP vote next election? The Greens? Greens are better than liberals, but they are too far behind their European numbers in Canada just now. When the Green Party gets a one third standing, then we can forget about the Fiberal liberal party completely. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 08:21 PM (2GVBQ)

18 Regis Sorry, but the fact is that the people weren't upset when Clinton was president. There was no problem with incessantly increasing oil prices. If you are saying "the decider" is a victim you won't be able to convince me or Americans. When Bush decided to go in to Iraq oil prices were bound to go up. The quagmire that he finds himself in along with his lack of political capital left to deal with Iran ensures that prices will continue to go up. If you didn't notice that Big American oil is benefitting hugely, with record profits, because of the oil situation then you must be a space man or something because those of us here on earth think that their profits are obscene and are headed in the direction of being ultra obscene. Don't be naive and blame third world economies. The oil companies reduced their capacity to produce oil by half so that this situation would occur. It reminds me of how the executives at Enron were laughing as they manipulated the energy market to earn windfall profits in the 1990's. It's the same play with different actors.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 08:31 PM (sw5R/)

19 Steve_d, I should know better than to respond, as your arguments are too easily refuted. Ridgid liberals, [that*s you],wear the most frustrating blinders. It was your friend Paul Martin who put a clamp of secrecy on 6,000 plus government munions. The normal term for secrecy in war or emergency condition is from 20 to 50 years. IE: Recent unsealing of WWII documents. A Lifetime ban means the Liberals NEVER want the public to review their executive actions. Harper has no choice but to have some cover in the beginning months if they are to get anything done. The MSM is still sniping at Harper and the CPC. The government is still full of treasonous agents like Ethics [cough!!], commissioner Shapiro, who would plant the dagger if it could be done covertly. Stay alert though, Steve_d. While you may have missed the diversion of 10 $Billion plus by the liberal party, [Yes, Billions with a *B*, a figure undisputed on a national NDP [your friends], brochure]. The NDP & Jack would have been sued to bankruptcy if the figure was one penny over. Let me know when you smell 10$billions of our money being diverted by Harper, OK? Not to be mean to you Steve_d, but you have to get closer to the truth so that you are not such a tempting target. TG [Truth: see, New Testament.] [C*mon, lighten up, I*m just kidding.]

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 08:58 PM (2GVBQ)

20 Steve_d, Oil prices. You could move and live in Venezuala with Hugo, but if all countries provided gas at the pumps for 14 cents a litre, there is a big black canyon at the edge of the cliff about four or five years out where all machienery stops and the lights go out. Besides Hugo has a habit of exterminating thousands who seem like a problem to him. Five years from now, you could seem like part of Hugo*s problem. Ooooh, no thanks, I*ll stay here and pay a dollar plus per litre. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 09:13 PM (2GVBQ)

21 Refineries cost from 5 $Billion to 15 $Billion and up. Refineries were damaged by Katrina and they are THE prime target for Jihadists. Do you think Exxon should steal thousands of Granny pensions like Enron and Conrad Black did, to pay for refineries? At 14 cents a litre, where is Hugo going to find that kind of money? Don't be a grasshopper Steve_d. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 09:24 PM (2GVBQ)

22 TonyGuitar My point with Harper is that he got elected ranting on, and on, and on, and on, about accountability and open government. Harper was like a broken record on the issues. It is why the Liberals were defeated. Then Harper does precisly the opposite of what he said he would do!!! Paul Martin NEVER got elected, or ran, on that line but Harper did, in spades. I guess you didn't speak to my point because really what defense is there? So you gotta change the subject to Lieberals except now its CON-servatives too because the Canadian people were conned into electing what is turning out to be a lying hypocrit. Chavez sells gasoline at 14 cents for his own people because it is their resource, not the oil companys. He sells it to most other countries at world prices so he can afford to sell it to the people that own it at cost. Sounds fair to me. I heard an oil analyst say they take Alberta oil out of the ground for $1.15 a barrel! Chavez would say that Alberta oil belongs to Canadians. Why should Canadians pay world prices for something they own? No Canadians are no different than any other person in the world who buys Canadian oil. So what does "free market" mean? Well, if you look at what the oil companies take it out of the ground for and what they sell it for then you begin to get who it is "free" for. Refineries can be paid for with six months PROFIT. Out of the 5-15 billion, how much do the oil companies actually pay?? I mean every dime they spend is a tax write off. No doubt they will be given land and infrastructure at no cost, to help the struggling oil companies pay the cost. Then they can have generous write downs on taxes too. Really, think about it Tony.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 10:09 PM (sw5R/)

23 You think profits are obscene. I think taxes are obscene. Lets compare, shall we? The Federal gas tax here in the US is 18.5 cents per gallon. State gas taxes average 20 cents a gallon. Plus sales taxes on top of those if your state/county/city/all of the above has one. That's more than 2x per gallon in taxes than what the oil companies make in profit. Lets do some math. As a Marxist I can tell it isn't your strong suit, but I'll keep it simple. Use the windows calculator to keep up and check my numbers. It doesn't take a large amount of profit per dollar of sales to make billions of dollars in profit if you sell 322 Billion gallons of gas a year like our oil companies do (combined). The US currently uses over 21 million barrels of oil per day. There are 42 gallons in one barrel of oil. Multiply 21,000,000 x 42 x 365.25 and you get: 322,150,500,000. At six cents of profit per dollar of sales (Gallons per year x $3 x 0.06) you come out to $57.98 Billion dollars. Exxon-Mobil, by far the largest oil company in the country made 36 Billion dollars in profit all of last year. Looks about right to me. By comparison Americans paid 122.4 Billion in gas taxes alone (without sales taxes). (322,150,500,000 gallons x .385 cents per gallon in taxes) Are we getting gouged? Of course you we are. But its not by the oil companies. Its by the government. PS Don't forget the income tax the company's employees pay, or the corporate taxes they pay too. Or the sales tax on the gas that I didn't include. Governments sure know how to gouge productive companies, don't they my little Marxist friend?

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 10:51 PM (ZrYg/)

24 I heard an oil analyst say they take Alberta oil out of the ground for $1.15 a barrel! $1.15 a barrel! Whatever you're smoking must be really really good. Alberta's oil is more expensive than conventional oil to produce since it comes from tar sands. It costs about 2x more to produce than a barrel of conventional oil. Last I checked that meant $40 a barrel.

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 11:01 PM (ZrYg/)

25 Seriously, $16 a month will be great for the working poor who need every break they can get, but other than that it is a waste of time. It is especially pathetic when you consider this tiny tax break will end up costing a billion dollars a year. So if it's such a tiny tax break, how will it end up costing a billion dollars a year? BTW: I am not owned by a party. That way I can see a little more clearly. Too bad I was sipping when I read this. I had to clean my keyboard & screen. Hilarious!! You've truly mastered satire... no, wait... you're serious. That's even funnier!!

Posted by: Mac at May 01, 2006 01:12 AM (TaDbz)

26 Steve_d, Any economist would chuckle at you pulling out a calculator to solve policy and political complexities. The US and Canadian deficits run into $trillions. Fossil resources are infinate and are far more valuable as plastic containers than as a burned fuel. The taxes on automotive gas and diesel are the wisest and most fair of all taxes. Don*t use and you don*t pay, yet you reap all the good things taxes pay for. Those revenues are required for North America to run. Those taxes reduce consumption and waste and give incentive for fuel economy,[the hybrid to start with] and incentive to develope alternate sources. [Super Panels=electric cars]. Giving away gas and diesel at 14 cents ignores the future and guarantees a brown-out and a market crash. 14 cent gas saddles kids and their kids with with impossible debt loads. I have a conscience, how about you? Don*t be a grasshopper or we*ll all freeze to death in the dark. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 01, 2006 01:24 AM (2GVBQ)

27 PS. This kind of fun though Steve_d. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 01, 2006 01:27 AM (2GVBQ)

28 PS. This is kind of fun though Steve_d. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 01, 2006 01:27 AM (2GVBQ)

29 Steve D has lost another debate and has moved on to the next one. Why bother? enough

Posted by: enough at May 01, 2006 08:53 AM (ucHAZ)

30 Gentlemen It is simple and simplistic to count only profits as income. The corporations which run government have had their way with the tax system and have so many write-offs, write-downs and deferrals that profits become a meaningless indicator of where they are st financially. I had a small taste of it in my little world. I rented out a property, and while I will tell you I thought I was receiving a fair rate of return it turns out that when I did my taxes that the government owed me!!! I showed no profit on paper because of write-offs and write-downs, all legal thanks to the businessmen before me who set up the tax system to make it all possible. So gentlemen lets not be naive to think there isn't a lot of money being used just the way the companies want, all tax free.

Posted by: steve d. at May 01, 2006 02:18 PM (sw5R/)

31 Ever notice how steve d ignores direct questions which he can't answer without puncturing his bubble of warped ideology? As long as he's safely engaged in debates of philosophical nature, he's got so much to say but as soon as the topic gets "grounded" by common sense, steve d moves quickly onto something else. Like Wile E. Coyote, his genius ideas work great on paper but the translation into the real world keeps dropping the anvil on his own head.

Posted by: Mac at May 01, 2006 03:37 PM (TaDbz)

32 I see it Mac. First the profits are obscene...then its the "tax breaks" and write offs the companies get that are so obscene. Only he doesn't give us any examples to compare. I would say, though, his debates aren't really philosophical so much as arguments from emotional rationalizations. Rationalizing is coming to a conclusion before you look at the facts and attempting to justify your choice. Compound that process with a strident evasion of facts and belief in sociological garbage like class warfare. Just thinking about it is disturbing. That differs quite substantially from reasoning from facts. When personal judgement is inoperative (or forbidden), men's first concern is not how to choose, but how to justify their choice.-- Ayn Rand BTW, I love that Wile E Coyote comment.

Posted by: Regis at May 01, 2006 06:53 PM (ZrYg/)

33 Regis When personal judgement is inoperative(Yep, I learned how to put my judgement asleep from the master, G.W."Fix the Facts" Bush. Or forbidden,Yep, that I just learned last month from Steve "Zip It" Harper. I love this Randie Aynie stuff. This last part is OWNED by Bushie,"men's first concern is not how to choose,but how to justify their choice" Wow! Bush didn't have any trouble deciding to take out Iraq, his biggest concern was trying to figure out how to justify it. Right on, Aynie!

Posted by: steve d. at May 01, 2006 10:02 PM (sw5R/)

34 So it's not just me who sees this, Regis. Good work, steve d, but you're getting predictable. If all else fails, launch an all-out anti-Bush rant, draw flawed comparisons with Harper and then ramble incoherently... like you just did.

Posted by: Mac at May 01, 2006 10:20 PM (TaDbz)

35 Mac You are right, Bush is too easy. But he is soo flawed he is irresistable. Its not just me, its everybody! As I am writing this Jay Leno is telling one Bush joke after the other! There has never been such a president as this! Its only fair though. He uses Iraqis and his troops as fodder to satisfy his power lust. So its only fair that we use him for joke fodder.

Posted by: steve d. at May 01, 2006 10:45 PM (sw5R/)

36 I love it. So you don't like Ayn Rand. Doesn't suprise me one bit. People who use reason are a threat to your beloved ideology and its thoroughly debunked theories. How about Thomas Sowell? It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else's opinion.-- Thomas Sowell Still waiting for any scrap of evidence that shows Socialism is working. The 6 year long worldwide "Progressive" fallback position: If all else fails (and it usually does) blame Bush! You can make Bush jokes all you want. He's not a very good president. He is, however, better than any leftist nutjob out there.

Posted by: Regis at May 01, 2006 11:06 PM (ZrYg/)

37 Regis That Sowell quote is another perfect Bush descriptor, "believing things without evidence", thats our Bushie. "no conception of evidence" again,Bush. Its uncanny the way you nail these perfect Bush descriptions. Socialism works well at humanizing capitalism. Lots of examples of that. Temporarily of course, until the American foreign policy cleans em up. When they finish with the middle east they will have to go back, again, to South America and re-privatize their natural resources,after overthrowing those socialist governments, who had the audacity to nationalize. Ah yes, Capitalism is irresistible when coupled with military might,the CIA and all that bribe money. In a free world socialism might have a chance, but, alas, the reality is we must wait until the new Rome crumbles from the inside.

Posted by: steve d. at May 01, 2006 11:28 PM (sw5R/)

38 Since you mentioned the New Testiment thing, steve d... "Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition." ~Ann Coulter And I can't resist this one... "If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" ~ Ann Coulter

Posted by: Mac at May 02, 2006 12:13 AM (TaDbz)

39 lol! Give Socialism a chance! That's a good one. I bet you sit in your room crying for the good old days when the USSR stood up to us "evil" American capitalists. Damn I love this country. Its far from perfect, but still the best one on earth. Our success continues to rub salt in your gaping wounds. First during the Cold War and now as your beloved European and Swedish "Social Models" fall farther and farther behind. May we forever be the beacon that shines the light of truth on your degenerate socialist dreams.

Posted by: Regis at May 02, 2006 12:23 AM (ZrYg/)

40 the "social models" are falling behind? how so? according to the United Nations 2005 Human Development Index (HDI), Norway and Iceland, both countries that have adopted the so called European social model are ranked 1 and 2. Sweden is 6th, right behind Canada. The US is 10th. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf According to Reporters without borders, many of these European social model countries are tied for first in terms of freedom of press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders Iceland, for example, even ranks higher than the US in terms of economic freedom, as does Denmark. Both of which, as it happens, fall into this European social model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom Now, to be clear, i'm not saying this as an attack on the US, or capitalism at all. I'm not even saying give socialism a chance. I just disagree with your statement about how these countries are falling further and further behind. In fact, I see no evidence of this whatsoever.

Posted by: Matticus at May 02, 2006 05:06 AM (47yqz)

41 Matticus, "In fact, I see no evidence of this whatsoever." Well, what can I say, you're absolutely right. When your source is Wikipedia, you won't see any evidence, let alone facts. And what is the 'UN's Human Development Index' measuring? Let me guess. Who is more socialist? Who has higher taxes? Who has more welfare recipients? Who has more muslims? And the UN? You're not quoting from the same organisation that has appointed Libya and Syria to the Human Rights commission are you? The same organisation that has made Iran a watchdog on nuclear proliferation? The oil for food scandalistas? That UN?

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 02, 2006 01:54 PM (MkblT)

42 Matticus, what I said was all about economic growth. That's what matters most to me, because that's how progress in almost every other area is made. The Heitage study is good, but the factors are incorrectly weighted IMO. Government intervention is far more harmful to economic growth than debt. Debt is only harmful past a certain point. Whether that would put the US higher than Denmark and/or Iceland is debatable. Furthermore, Denmark and Iceland are the two nordic countries that have moved furthest away from socialist "Nordic Model" policies. I expect them to fall behind considerably less over time relative to the other countries of Europe who have not made free market reforms. See Here for a discussion of that: http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/perspectives/perspectives-2006/issue75.pdf The HDI study makes some ridiculous assumptions about public spending on education and the like that, IMO, cause a bit of skewing. Higher spending equals a better score. That's a flawed assumption. The US probably also gets hurt by massive legal and illegal immigration of poor non-english speakers. Though I don't know that for a fact. Now that those things are out of the way, let me reiterate that when I said "falling behind" I meant economically. Here are some of my sources. http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040425-102740-9436r.htm Does the Swedish model work as advertised? According to a new paper by the highly regarded Swedish economist, Nils Karlson, the "model has become quite different from what was intended and to what many people still believe to be the case." The extent of the failure of the Swedish model are both shocking and little known. For example, no new net jobs have been produced in the Swedish private sector since 1950. (By contrast, the U.S. created more than 60 million new private-sector jobs during the same period, from 52 million in 1950 to about 115 million in 2002.) "None of top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock exchange has been started since 1970." Again, contrast this with the U.S. where many of our biggest companies had not been born or known of in 1970, such as Microsoft, Intel, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Cisco, etc., Mr. Karlson's litany of failures of the Swedish model include: "Sweden has dropped from fourth to 14th place in 2002 among the OECD countries (i.e., affluent industrialized countries) in terms of GDP per capita since 1970." In addition, "well over 1 million people out of a work force of around four million did not work in 2003 but lived on various kinds of public welfare programs, such as, pre-pension schemes, unemployment benefits, sick-leave programs, etc." Finally, "a majority of the adult population are either employed by the state or clients of the state in a sense that they have a majority of the income coming from public subsidies." Here is the paper itself: http://swopec.hhs.se/ratioi/abs/ratioi0034.htm http://www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm Notice the decline in income relative to the US, particularly since 1980. Norway is the only country closing the gap. The Heritage Foundation report you cited had this to say about that: Norwegians enjoy high living standards because of the wealth derived from the oil industry. The country's large welfare state provides many welfare programs that are subsidized by high taxes and oil revenues. You don't even want to compare France and Germany...or the last 2 1/2 years with a booming American economy. Here's what the blogger where I found the first link said: I'm willing to take the Swedish model seriously. I've been to Stockholm several times and loved it. That being said, how attractive will this model remain when it offers only half of the per capita income of the United States? That might not take as long as you think at this rate.

Posted by: Regis at May 02, 2006 02:33 PM (ZrYg/)

43 Regis If economic growth was all that mattered to you then you would have to agree that China is kicking ass. Yes, China is a model of socialism controlling capitalism, thats why its kicking American ass in, YOUR most important area, economic growth. Several other countries mentioned by Matticus also compare quite well in economic growth when you consider only a portion of Americans are benefiting from this growth, whereas, these other countries would rather sacrifice a little growth in order to bring everybody along for the economic benefits.

Posted by: steve d. at May 02, 2006 07:18 PM (sw5R/)

44 Steve, percentage wise, yes China did increase faster than the US last year. (9.3% vs 3.5%). But once again you have to look at the whole picture. The US added 800 Billion to its economy in that one year. The entire Chinese economy is 1.8 Trillion. So what does that mean they added? 17 Billion. Its way easier to increase by 10% when you've got 7 times less. Its not an accurate comparison to throw any developing country up against an already developed one. Lets see them 10% growth in 30 years and I might agree with you. But it won't happen. Growth rates naturally slow down as an economy gets larger until it reaches a sustainable pace. I think its more like Socialist policies leeching off of capitalism's increasing prosperity rather than socialism controlling capitalism. Guess what, the Chinese think it too and will tell you that. A new poll conducted in 20 countries around the world made a striking finding: The country with the highest level of support for free-market capitalism is communist China, while the part of the world most critical of it is Latin America. Furthermore, contrary to daily claims by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuba's dictator Fidel Castro that world capitalism is on its death throes, the opposite seems to be taking place. The poll of nearly 21,000 conducted by GlobeScan, a firm that does much of its work for the BBC, and by the Program of International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland, asked respondents around the world whether they agree with the statement that ``the free market economy is the best system.'' A record 74 percent of those polled in China said yes, followed by 73 percent in the Philippines, 71 percent in the United States, 70 percent in India and South Korea, 66 percent in Great Britain and Nigeria, 65 percent in Germany and 63 percent in Poland. Together, the pro-free-trade countries listed in the poll account for about 70 percent of the world population and for the bulk of its economic output. They also happen to be the ones with the most dramatic successes in the reduction of poverty. Since China started its opening to the world in the late 1970s, world poverty has been reduced by nearly half, according to World Bank figures. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/13792741.htm PS Europe has been sacraficing growth for 30 years now. Here's a little tidbit of truth: Economic growth compounds like interest. Little sacrafices over long periods of time add up. If they keep doing it long enough some average income Europeans might start wishing they were poor Americans.

Posted by: Regis at May 02, 2006 10:56 PM (ZrYg/)

45 Regis I think upon close inspection the "leeching" that you speak of is compared to the "preying" that goes on when capitalism hooks up with the foreign policy and indeed dominates the foreign policy aims of America. "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. " Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US president 1801-1809 We all know what has happened since Jefferson. As Ralph Nader said."Corporations have taken over the government and turned it against its own people". I would add corporations are leading the CIA and military into every corner of the world. Economic domination and control is the goal at the expense of local control. Capitalism is predatory in the worst sense of the word. Iraq is only the latest example. Iran was a democracy in 1952. Then they decided to nationalize their own oil industry. the USA overturned the democratic government and installed the Shah, who of course, allowed US corporations to continue their free reign on Irans oil. A few decades later he was overthrown by Mullah's and they have been in charge ever since. It is ironic and pathetic that the first democracy in the Middle East was taken out by America. They now are reaping what they sowed. As they will continue to do as long as they are a predatory empire.

Posted by: steve d. at May 03, 2006 04:06 PM (sw5R/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The "Stephen Harper Eats Babies" incident might seem amusing, and if you're not sure what I'm talking about, read the details and consider getting in touch with the people involved to demand some action.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:30 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

A strange experience for riders of the GO train out of Toronto. Vandalism goes high-tech.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 4 kb.

Being a member of the governing party is not a disqualification.

Read that again.

Being a member of the governing party is not a disqualification.

One more time.

Being a member of the governing party is not a disqualification.

There is a problem when membership in the governing party is the only qualification.

See the difference? If not, we have an example to study that helps highlight the difference.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:07 PM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 928 words, total size 7 kb.

An odious comment from Canada's far left on the death of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, posted on the message board of Canada's premier leftie website, rabble.ca:

Well I got news for you--4 dead and 2200 to go--

and I hope 'they die and die like flies' as Nina Simone might say...

Not a unique comment -- there are several people on this thread hoping for the deaths of Canadian soldiers, either as a way of ending the mission in Afghanistan, or to punish them for being part of the imperial war machine, or for Iraq, or Vietnam, or something.

Well, hoping for Canadian soldiers to die has earned these people the sternest response possible from a fellow leftie and board moderator:

What appeared to start off as a link to a news article has turned into a stupid and offensive slugfest. Neither Wilfred Owen, nor Horace from whom he borrowed would be impressed.

This has come up before, and I am NOT comfortable with the suggestion that harm coming to soldiers from Canada or anyone else would be a desireable thing.

As an interem [sic] moderator, I'm reluctant to start suspending people, so I'm closing this thread as it's going nowhere good, and will consult with my colleague on policy regarding wishing for soldiers to come to harm.

You can tell the moderator is angry because he capitalized "NOT" when describing his discomfort at people wishing for Canadian deaths. That indicates a great deal of discomfort. Like being forced to sit on a really lumpy couch, I suppose. You know, really uncomfortable.

But now the hammer comes down. Maybe. Once he discusses the issue with a colleague. To check on policy. I mean, there must be a policy to justify suspending people who hope Canadian soldiers die. It's not like common sense applies. Maybe they'll have to sit down and study the policy manuals very carefully to see if there is a rule against Canadian leftists hoping for Canadian deaths, even if those deaths promote a neo-Marxist transnational progressive position.

Let's hope he's not forced to sit on a lumpy couch while having this debate. He's uncomfortable enough as it is.

By the way, if you're curious about the "interem [sic] moderator" thing, it is because the long-time moderator, Audra Williams, was canned by the rabble management committee because of a delinquent timesheet. Needless to say, Williams is not happy, nor are many babblers. Senior rabble contributers like Scott Piatkowski are pulling away from their association with rabble.ca. Some people are so upset with Judy Rebick's heavy-handedness that they started a new babble-like leftist forum as a strike action, which is draining traffic away from rabble. One fan went as far as to create this virtual shrine to Williams. As far as I know, no virtual shrines have gone up for Rebick.

It's all very amusing.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:50 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Verily, "policy regarding wishing for soldiers to come to harm" forsooth. Could this moderator find his backside with both hands and a map, and would he even attempt it without a memo giving permission for the search? And people wonder why Leftist social policy crashes and burns every time.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 25, 2006 08:58 AM (nAMT1)

2 Good grief. True Leninists live. Mark Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins at April 25, 2006 12:17 PM (HJKZ/)

3 Well you've hit the gutter.

Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 25, 2006 12:37 PM (Akj8G)

4 Lefties are scum, who support "them". I bet if I drew the same analogy to winnipeg or Indian Reserves they would be turf me in one post.

Posted by: DrWright at April 25, 2006 01:16 PM (3F9dd)

5 The lefties who comment so lightly on such serious matters should refrain from saying anything if it's going to sound this bad. I recently visited a Canadian military base (the public was invited) and I spoke with our fellow militaries. I examined the kind of shielding they use on the field and which weapons they have for offensive manoeuvers. I have to tell you honestly, I wouldn't do what they're doing for our country, right now in Afghanistan. Even if our government can't exactly pinpoint the exact reason why it's so important that Canada be "the one" doing this work half-way across the planet, it's not the fault of our military men and women who risk their lives daily to save the largely innocent Afghan population.

Posted by: Claude Gelinas at April 25, 2006 02:00 PM (m9DIr)

6 Its important because Canada needs a foreign policy that foreigners can respect. An excellent analogy of this, is the Canadian journalist who was killed in Iran. The Iranian government has zero respect for the Canadian government, because the Canadian government doesnt have the tools to earn that respect. Id like to see what would happen if a Brit or an American journalist gets killed in Iran. It would be instructive to the Canadian government because they did nothing. I wouldnt travel with a canadian passport, the canadian government wont be riding to your rescue should there be trouble, so whats the point?

Posted by: Curtis at April 25, 2006 02:19 PM (heo8b)

7 I've read similar comments here about "wanting" Canadian deaths, be they Canadian soldiers or Canadian Muslims. If the ridiculous rabble crowd deserves further ridicule for not immediately stamping out and banning said ridiculous comments, may I ask you Steve: how many of the ridiculous left and right hotheads have you banned/censored? Ted Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at April 25, 2006 03:22 PM (9l8Vc)

8 I don't recall those, Ted. Care to enlighten us? Or perhaps your talking our your bottom to make a disgusting theme from the peace-loving lefties a little more palatable?

Posted by: Yukon Gold at April 25, 2006 03:51 PM (I2WRZ)

9 You're, not your. I hate it when I hit post instead of preview.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at April 25, 2006 03:52 PM (I2WRZ)

10 And, it's precisely because of Canadian (and other) soldiers who fought (and still fight) for our freedoms, that we have the right to express our thoughts freely. However....perhaps some on the rabble website would do better to go to Afghanistan and express their right to free speech there. Then, they might grow up. Then, again, maybe not. Perhaps, if one can't grow up, the least they could do, is shut up.

Posted by: RZ at April 25, 2006 08:01 PM (tyzJl)

11 Judy Rebick - American born leftist. Angry, bitter and sad. Remember her in your prayers.

Posted by: Canadian Conservative at April 25, 2006 11:10 PM (WbMys)

12 Another thing that Canada and America have in common: Utterly vile, sick swine in the Left, who wish and cheer for the deaths of American and Canadian soldiers. It's disgusting beyond words. A thought did occur to me, wouldn't it be nice if some of these wretched creatures were actually stupid enough to say that to some US Marines or Canadian JTF2 Commandos!? (Of course, they wouldn't, being cowards as well as despicable swine, abusing the very freedom that soldiers, past and present, have fought and died to give them.)

Posted by: Dave at April 25, 2006 11:25 PM (PE/Va)

13 Is Rebick an American? Doesn't she know that the left wants Americans to shut up and mind their own business.

Posted by: phil at April 25, 2006 11:55 PM (Lvekz)

14 Steve: are you trying to imply that everyone who opposes the Afghanistan effort wants Canadian soldiers to die.. or are you only inferring everyone on the "left" wants soldiers to die? Either way, its wrong and its only a very small minority of people. I can also go to many right wing blogs and see pretty stupid comments nowadays about Natives (or Muslims as Ted has said), yet I dont automatically associate that with everyone on the right wing.

Posted by: Scott Tribe at April 26, 2006 04:39 AM (6JQF6)

15 I've read similar comments here about "wanting" Canadian deaths, be they Canadian soldiers or Canadian Muslims. If the ridiculous rabble crowd deserves further ridicule for not immediately stamping out and banning said ridiculous comments, may I ask you Steve: how many of the ridiculous left and right hotheads have you banned/censored? Ted, Steven was forced to banned far less offensive comments by myself over my reference to Belinda Stronach's actions of crossing the floor, being similar to the Latrodectus mactans around this time last year.

Posted by: WarHammer at April 26, 2006 08:26 AM (LsgvR)

16 Muslims are at war with us. They just killed four more Canadian soldiers. Some of the most vile on the left have publicly stated they would like them to kill all our soldiers. That points the direction the left will go as they become lost to their mind eating disease. Rather than morally disagreeing with his fellow travellers, the comment McClelland made, "Well, you've hit the gutter." Only proves a lending hand for their slide into toxic slime and irrelevance. To these twisted creeps, good is evil and freedom is slavery.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 26, 2006 11:24 AM (MkblT)

17 Irwin Daisy, You are a shill for the system. You're no better!

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 12:52 PM (X6p7A)

18 These soldier signed up to defend us ,meaning our borders, not to go play nanny for some corrupt and ungovernable land. You statist shill make me sick!

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 12:54 PM (X6p7A)

19 Replace with 'soldiers' and 'shills'..

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 12:55 PM (X6p7A)

20 Comrade of the GWN, You fit the profile (! screamers at the end of most sentences is a dead giveaway). So I'm correct in saying your feeble brain is chock full of conspiracy theories, no? Conservatives aren't statists, you should check the definition. It is entertaining watching you have a three post meltdown. As long as you don't take it out on the wife and kids.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 26, 2006 03:15 PM (MkblT)

21 "Citizen of the Great White North": I signed up in defense of this nation regardless of whether or not I would be deployed overseas or here at home within Canada's borders. I also support Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Many of my fellow soldiers feel the same as I do, and also support the mission. Granted, some may not agree with the mission (they are few), but are nonetheless comitted to it. We all realized what we were getting ourselves into when we swore an oath to defend this country. My issue is not with your disagreement of the government's military policies; I take issue with your attempt to speak for me and for my fellow servicemen/women as to our reasoning for signing up. (I do not believe either that you can read our collective minds.) We would appreciate it if you would please refrain from trying to speak for us, especially when you are not conveying the message we would wish to be conveyed. Regards, A Reservist in the Canadian Forces

Posted by: CanForce 101 at April 26, 2006 11:18 PM (3smJS)

22 Irwin: "Muslims are at war with us. They just killed four more Canadian soldiers" Um, who are we protecting then? Who did we just help get elected? Who is it we are trying to engage with and help re-build? Muslims. Are they all at war with us? Give me a break. Did Christians bomb the federal building in Oklahoma? Did Christians advocate racial genocide in the Balkans under Milosovic? Did Christians advocate racial genocide by lynching blacks in the US? I'd be appalled and insulted if someone made that statement. These are fundamentalist Muslim terrorists and they are the enemy of more (even only barely slightly more) non-fundamentalist Muslims just as much as western civilization. Ted Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at April 26, 2006 11:26 PM (9l8Vc)

23 No, I don't agree with suspending poaters who have, lets just say, um-m-m, distasteful comments. Leave them be and WE will deal with them!!! Surely well phrased rebuttal is called for. There's punnishment enough for these mental midgets. To paraphrase Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat shit (the fucks!)

Posted by: eastern paul at April 27, 2006 12:31 AM (Ks37Q)

24 Heh. Audra williams? Banned me for posting a sensible (and I emphasize sensible - it was well written and respectful) pro-life post on a radically 'pro-choice' activist forum. It was something about trying to prevent pro-lifers from marching. You know. Because that would allow free speech. Anyways, she canned my account; banned my ip from ever posting at rabble.ca, which, now that i think about it, is a GOOD thing. I'm glad the b*tch got canned. Good riddance. Let the babblers rot.

Posted by: Mark at April 27, 2006 12:48 AM (r63g0)

25 Oh...by the way. Check out their new protest forum. They already have a huge 'Ban List'. It's nice to know that the left can tolerate free speech so readily. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Posted by: Mark at April 27, 2006 01:01 AM (r63g0)

26 You ahould have called for the murder of fellow Canadian citizens in Afghanistan, Mark. All she would have done then is close the thread.

Posted by: Dante at April 27, 2006 05:16 AM (r63g0)

27 You should have called for the murder of fellow Canadian citizens in Afghanistan, Mark. All she would have done then is close the thread.

Posted by: Dante at April 27, 2006 05:17 AM (r63g0)

28 Ted, Ahh yes, the "everybody does it" defence. Tell me Ted, as another enquired above, have any examples? Also, would you say the left is anti war or the right? Do conservatives in the U.S. camp outside army hospitals to protest wars, while family members have to wade through hecklers in order to see thier injured loved ones? Is it the conservatives in Canada that particularily espouse the view that Canada is a U.S. lapdog, fighting in Afghanistan for not other reason then at the behest of our "American masters"? Was it a conservative group that staged an anti war protest in the University Santa Cruz, whereby military recruiters had to be escorted out for their own safety? Is it conservatives that are holding repugnant signs at protests defaming soldiers? Come now Ted. Your side of the spectrum possesses an extremely hatefilled, angry approach to war generally, and to soldiers specifically. The differences among the folks on the left are a matter of degree not kind.

Posted by: Biff at April 27, 2006 05:46 AM (Y1ykG)

29 Mark, banned from Rabblebabble? For posting a contrary opinion? How surprizing. I'm shocked, simply shocked I tell you. The Left: doomed to the manure-pile of history by their own hand. Bwaha! Looks good on them.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 27, 2006 08:39 AM (nAMT1)

30 Ted, I stand corrected. You're right. They're not Muslims, they are Islamofascist-terrorist-taliban-wahhabiist's, of course. Or perhaps 'freedom fighters' would be more correct. Definitely not Muslims, though. Forgive my error.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 27, 2006 02:02 PM (MkblT)

31 You guys are a hoot. The thread starts off with a loud whine to the effect that an idiot posted a "death to Canadians" message on Babble, and that he hadn't been immediately censored. Somehow the discussion then morphed into its opposite: complaints about censorship on Babble. What do you guys want, anyway? Incidentally, it's unfair, Angry, to put the Audra firing all on Judy Rebick. Judy Rebick - American born leftist. Angry, bitter and sad. So I'd say--maybe they're evenly matched?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at April 27, 2006 02:11 PM (tCLJu)

32 Steve J, after your jaunt over on the rabble side, I hope you washed your hands before you typed up this post.

Posted by: Mac at April 28, 2006 02:13 AM (TaDbz)

33 I would have to say that what happened over on the Rabble site is typical of the left. They cannot recognize one of the great evils they yell at the right about, that is HATE. A Canadian who hates his own nations military to the point they want them to come home in coffins is probably as hateful a human being as anyone who is in a KKK or radical islamic group. No, the Left always see's evil and racism in others, but cant see it when it comes from a fellow traveller. Sad. The real irony? The people who are fighting the Canadian Army in Afghanistan would despise and find the majority of those on our left as the most ignorant, repugnant and corrupt. Taliban terrorists hate Gays, hate abortion, hate woman's rights, hate the socially libreal ways of the West in General, and hate any one who tells them they are the radicals. IN short, out of all Canadians who are of the Left wing persuasion who HATE the military, they would be the first ones the Taliban would line up against the wall and shoot. The Canadian Military has been screwed over equipment wise, morale wise and manpower wise by the Libreal Party and political left in general; and yet they do their jobs without complaining. This country does NOT deserve the quality of men and women we have over there, and it is sad only those of us with a ounce of reality on the right who can see this. God Bless Canada and the Men and Women who are willing to DIE to defend our freedoms. Even the freedom to be morons who think Rabble is the higher place of being. Oh ya, Rebick is a blowhard with no intellectual honesty so why would we expect her site to have it??

Posted by: Mark in Bowmanville at April 28, 2006 02:39 AM (U3x6y)

34 I would have to say that what happened over on the Rabble site is typical of the left. They cannot recognize one of the great evils they yell at the right about, that is HATE. And we're supposed to ignore the silence on the Right about those commenters over at Dust My Broom who are urging the use of white phosporus and napalm against the Native protesters in Caledonia. Fairly selective you people are. One might go so far as to say intellectually dishonest. Babblers piled on the idiot who made the "Death to Canadians" comment. But no one had the grace to utter one goddam word of criticism of the racist yahoos at the DMB site, or anywhere else. Oh ya, Rebick is a blowhard with no intellectual honesty so why would we expect her site to have it?? You have, of course, no basis for that smear. Neither, in fact, does Steve. But smears and moral hypocrisy are all I really expect of the Right. One of these days one of you might surprise me with an actual argument.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at April 28, 2006 07:14 AM (tCLJu)

35 Dave, you said.. **Another thing that Canada and America have in common: Utterly vile, sick swine in the Left, who wish and cheer for the deaths of American and Canadian soldiers. It's disgusting beyond words.** Partly true, but many come to that way of thinking because they are not informed as you and I may be. It takes time and effort to get the whole picture. The left may be left because it they had the time and motivation to read as you and I have, they would quietly become right of center. Europe has the same problem with leftist attitudes. They better stop pulling punches and put their shoulder to it, because our very survival depends on it! Stong view, you say? Better see what a German Buisness CEO says. Too long to put here.. It really is worth checking, and no I am not just trying to get hits. I*m not even in the running. http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com It*s a letter sent to a US Naval officer friend who in turn Emailed me a copy. The German CEO has no axe to grind so you can tell he is 100% real. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 29, 2006 12:07 AM (2GVBQ)

36 Morons like those who populate rabble on a regular basis share a common theme: they hate pretty much anything that smacks of Western values, democracy, property rights, free speech, whatever. There's really no point in getting your back up over these useless snots who'd actively hope for Canadian soldiers to die, truly. It's like fighting the wind; no matter how hard you push back, the breeze keeps going. You can't even describe these people as "useful idiots", in the Leninist sense, because it's only half-true: they're not really "useful" at all. mhb23re (email is above username at Google webmail service)

Posted by: MHB at April 29, 2006 08:26 AM (2/Us5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thanks to a reader for the heads up on this story in the Ottawa Citizen:

Ex-MP's firm was a conduit for federal hiring report

An audit report shows how a company founded by former Liberal MP David Smith was paid to serve as a middleman in 13 government contracts, even though the company had "no relationship" with the government departments issuing the contracts and "little knowledge" of the consultants hired to do the work.

The December 2005 report by the international auditing firm KPMG found evidence that Mr. Smith's company, Abotech, was used as a conduit through which government departments hired the consultants they wanted for contracts, effectively circumventing the competitive bidding process.

David Smith represented the Quebec riding of Pontiac for the Liberal Party until January 23 (on election night, he finished third behind following the Conservative candidate Lawrence Cannon, now Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and the Bloc candidate Christine emond Lapointe).

Followers of this blog know that I spent a great deal of time researching the Abotech affair. It was here where it was first revealed that the two ends of this conduit, David Smith of Abotech and Frank Brazeau of Public Works, were first cousins, a fact since confirmed and now part of the story:

All 13 contracts -- as well as two more discussed in the report -- were awarded to Abotech by a single government contracting officer. The officer's name is blanked out in the KPMG document, released through Access to Information, but Mr. Smith has previously confirmed the contracts were awarded to him through his cousin, Frank Brazeau. Mr. Brazeau and Smith grew up together in Maniwaki.

So what does David Smith have to say about this? David Smith seems to have disappeared, but Kate Jaimet got this quote back in December during the election:

Mr. Smith could not be reached for comment yesterday, but has previously said he did nothing wrong.

"I respected the procedures. If there was some things which were done in non-conformity, me, I don't know," he said in December.

The KPMG Report suggests that David Smith knew much more than he has admitted. In the National Post, there is an extended version of the story in which we learn that Abotech was a favoured firm:

Two of the the 31 contracts were awarded to Abotech, but the KPMG auditors questioned the scoring method that allowed Abotech to win over its competitors, stating that nothing in Abotech's file "suggests procurement or contracting experience."

What actually happens is that a Consulting and Audit Canada (CAC) officer would enter search terms into a database to pull up firms likely to be able to do the work. In some of the cases checked by KPMG, Abotech beat out better firms, or worse, appeared on the list despite not matching the search terms.

The KPMG report describes how the government agency Mr. Brazeau worked for, Consulting and Audit Canada (CAC), would manipulate the bidding process to "facilitate contracts to a desired resource."

The KPMG audit began as a review of 31 contracts, all handled by the same CAC employee and all involving work for the RCMP pension plan. The employee's name is blanked out in the document, but Frank Koziol, a consultant who won some of the contracts and was interviewed by KPMG for the audit, confirmed yesterday that Mr. Brazeau was the person who handled the contracts.

There is that RCMP Pension Plan again.

Now this favoured treatment of Abotech doesn't prove David Smith knew anything. You could argue that he was blissfully ignorant of why his firm was doing so well. But then there's this:

The report describes how consultants, "typically former public servants," would be referred to Abotech by CAC. "The consultant would indicate they wished to contract through Abotech and that a contract would be forthcoming." Abotech, agreeing to the arrangement, would add the consultant's resume to its entry in the CAC database. Soon, CAC would send Abotech a request for proposal and Abotech would bid on the contract, offering the services of the original consultant.

So David Smith and Abotech would work the scam in both directions. Abotech would act as a referral service for former public servants (connected Liberals, I would not be surprised to learn). Remember, these people already have work lined up from their friends in government. They just need a means by which to bypass the checks built into the CAC process. Abotech was part of that means. David Smith is contacted by a contractor telling him the work is ready to be awarded. David Smith would use Abotech to enter the contractor into the database. David Smith's cousin Frank Brazeau, working on behalf of the government department trying to direct work to their favoured contractor, would fake a search and award process knowing full well that the work would go to that contractor. The contract would be structured so as to require the services of Abotech to manage it, so David Smith would get his cut. The contractor gets the work, the paper trail looks legitimate (at first glance, anyway), and all the palms are greased.

What did Frank Brazeau get out of this? That's still an unanswered question. One possibility is a kickback from David Smith and Abotech, but to find out would require examination of bank records, and for that you need a warrant. Another possibility is favoured treatment and promotions inside of CAC, but that would would implicate his supervisors. In that scenario, how far up would the trail go? To David Marshall, the Deputy Minister? To his former boss and Liberal leadership hopeful, Scott Brison? Would they involved in the scam, or if not, a subsequent coverup? We might never know.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:09 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 959 words, total size 6 kb.

Go to small dead animals and read this story concerning a photo of Stephen Harper that might have been altered.

Here's the picture that is used in the CBC story:

Cute. Manages to line things up to have the crown right on top of Stephen Harper's head.

Now Kate suggests that there was some hanky-panky here because other photos of the event (like this one from TVA) show the background significantly higher:

Kate makes a convincing argument that the photo might have been altered.

But there might be another explanation. The CBC story running the "crown picture" is dated 21-April-2006.

Now check out this CTV story from 8-November-2005:

Same photographer, Aaron Harris. Same line-up of the shot to get the crown on Stephen Harper's head.

Coincidence? Or another explanation?

1. One or both photos were altered to get the curious alignment
2. The CBC story was recycling an older Harper photo, perhaps from the November 8 event, to achieve the desired effect. But then Stephen Harper's hair seems much lighter and the background less in focus. Of course, that doesn't prove anything in this Photoshop world.
3. Aaron Harris just likes to take photos like that.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:05 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

Taliban killers got lucky today, and four Canadian soldiers paid the price.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families and comrades, and to the chain of command that must deal with the consequences of the decisions they are forced to make in pursuit of security and freedom.

Meanwhile, among Canada's far left, a fight has broken out over when it is appropriate to demand that the surviving Canadian soldiers and their commanders all the way up through to the Prime Minister be dragged in front of the International Court of Justice to be found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to long prison terms.

I guess freedom isn't really freedom if it doesn't cover fools as well. Too bad.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:10 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Since Cindy Sheehan seems to have come into focus yet again, I'm going to take some time to look at her latest missive, and then indulge in a bit of unsubstantiated rumour-mongering. Why? Because I've been accused of doing that all along.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 2272 words, total size 14 kb.

I've been taken to task over Cindy Sheehan. Now there's a blast from the past.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:09 PM | Comments (56) | Add Comment
Post contains 1609 words, total size 10 kb.

1 I think the Prof has called you a spineless piece of shit. Relax. Anyone who attacks an (admittedly confused) mother who has buried a son must surely be one. No?

Posted by: anonymous at April 20, 2006 11:18 PM (aQ7Zn)

2 Hey... 'Anonymous'... there's a word I'm searching for here... IRONY. Today it's defined as "Calling someone spineless in an anonymous blog comment."

Posted by: Heather Cook at April 20, 2006 11:34 PM (4SQNC)

3 Right you are Heather Cook. However, I do not wish to be on the receiving end of AGWN's never-ending obsessions, or indeed, that of the other knuckle dragging trolls who may find his Sheehan-related POVs appealing. I do not need to reveal my identity to make my point: Janke does not know the grief of a mother who has buried a son. I hope he never finds out. Therefore, he should NOT be using Sheehan's grief - or her confused ramblings - as his personal trampoline in order to get a few extra google hits. Irony or not, it is a point worth making.

Posted by: Still_Anonymous at April 21, 2006 12:01 AM (oX/Je)

4 So let's just hypothetically say that I have lost a son. Do I get to criticize Cindy Sheehan carte blanche? Would you say, "Oh, Heather Cook, now she's credible, she lost a son so it's ok for her to say these things about Cindy Sheehan." Does this mean that I have to run the country before I can criticize the government? Or should I have an abortion so that I can be credible when I say I'm pro-choice? Personally I'm in favour of sleeping with Tom Cruise so that my long-held opinion that he's a wack-job can finally be validated because I've 'been there, done that'.

Posted by: Heather Cook at April 21, 2006 12:09 AM (4SQNC)

5 Hmmm.. no.. just irony. sorry Anonymous. Your screen must have had a reflective property about it while you were writing your comment.

Posted by: David at April 21, 2006 02:23 AM (oKVna)

6 Hey Steve, Great post. Some tough language. Love it. You used the name "Cindy Sheehan" so many times that I thought Google must love you. So I Googled "Cindy Sheenah" to see if you would come up. By page 7, I quit. I guess she's more famous than either you or I. Blog on.

Posted by: Bowie at April 21, 2006 03:29 AM (iHoa6)

7 My favorite line from her (and the one that proved her insanity, if there was any doubt) is still her demand that Bush withdraw the troops from "occupied New Orleans".

Posted by: Jay at April 21, 2006 05:58 AM (u8cBL)

8 Heather Cook: No. Steve Janke a.k.a. AGWN does not just attack Cindy Sheehan's views - he attacks her personally, bringing here family &c into his diatribes. I find that repugnant. I would find it equally repulsive if folks on the left would attack Charles Krauthammer's disability (or Stephen Harper's girth) because they disagree with their views.

Posted by: Anonymous_Again at April 21, 2006 07:57 AM (muSXC)

9 I believe "Steve Janke a.k.a. AGWN" only comments on what Cindy Sheehan herself brings into the news. Now if Stephen Harper wants to open up a debate by bringing his girth (am I missing something? is he fat?) into the news, well then fair game. No one can expect to keep their personal life private and contained if they are using it to make the nightly news. Sorry.

Posted by: Heather Cook at April 21, 2006 10:51 AM (4t1ne)

10 Any coverage of Sheehan is unfortunate, but I appreciate your clarity, AGWN. The MSM pours on the emotion while ignoring or distorting the facts that provide context for her actions. I'd say her choice of a car over the headstone is certainly a valid line of reasoning worth some contemplation.

Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at April 21, 2006 10:59 AM (0p4xh)

11 Steve Janke is a rarity up here in the Great White North. He can only be explained as a knuckle dragging sasquatch, devoid of facts, intellect and any semblance of humanity. Picture a scarecrow with straws for gray matter and you get the idea of what you're dealing with. He is a neocon wannabe. Next time send him a point by point questionaire and ask him to provide answers, backed by facts, and watch him squirm. Your 15 seconds of fame is over you phoney.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 11:36 AM (X6p7A)

12 Amazing! This phrase "mental sludge pit" which he used is a first for me. I have a seen and heard million derogatory phrases in my time. I have been on the receiving end of many such phrases so to discover a new one that is so descriptive while unique is quite something. If I were you Steve, I would e-mail him and congratulate him on that phrase alone.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 01:02 PM (sw5R/)

13 Why should she pay for a headstone. Why is your favourite cabal, that sent him to die, not providing a headstone? Or may be they're waiting for congress to provide some funds so that Haliburton can get into the headstone business. Or better yet you should provide him with one. Afterall "he died defending your freedom".

Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 01:03 PM (X6p7A)

14 Pay for the headstone because he is her goddam son. enough

Posted by: enough at April 21, 2006 01:31 PM (ucHAZ)

15 Mr. Sheehan is taking care of the headstone. One is provided free of charge IF asked for. The money the soon-to-be-ex-Mrs. Sheehan received for her son's death would have equalled up to US$256k (upper limit) - depending on how Specialist Sheehan allotted the money. She could have bought a better marker had she wanted to, but given her schedule, who has time for children?

Posted by: DaveO at April 21, 2006 01:49 PM (ocRrH)

16 So Steve, When are you going to sue Samuel Bostaph for libel and defamation? You obviously have your facts straight, and he doesn't. And he accuses you of lying. Sue the guy.

Posted by: dino at April 21, 2006 02:43 PM (b8I0n)

17 Steve, Good job luring the gaggle of trolls out of their 'mental sludge pits.' Seems you struck a major chord in their dissonant brains. Wonder what the Vegas bookie odds would have been back on September 12 that the US would not suffer another terrorist attack on its soil in four and a half years? Bet $1000, you'd probably be a millionaire. Stick that in your craw Citizen of the great white north, Anonymous, Striker.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 02:49 PM (MkblT)

18 Enough, You are right. He is her godamned son. Not yours! Not Uncle Sams! And definitely not Steve SKD Janke's! Only Cindy Sheenan can mourn her son. In any goddamn way she pleases. She's earned it. Including confronting those who sent him to die. So why the attacks from Sasquatch Janke and his minions?

Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 02:59 PM (X6p7A)

19 Irwin Daisy, Good word 'dissonance'. Now define it! You and your Furher are the ones suffering from cognitive dissonance. To a point where you insult a grieving mother so you can continue to wallow in your filth and grunge.

Posted by: at April 21, 2006 03:03 PM (X6p7A)

20 Hear Hear! Couldn't have said it better. Wallow in their 'mental sludge pits'

Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 03:05 PM (X6p7A)

21 Citizen of the Great White North: That's a lot of vitriol you have unloaded. Seeing that AGWN has managed to successfully and lucidly present his arguments thus far, why not pose some of those "tough" questions you have instead of making nebulous references to them? Until we see some of your "gotcha" questions, we know who the real phoney is... I'm with Steve D - although the rest of the Professor's musings are fishwrap - the whole sludge pit thing should be commended as a clever insult.

Posted by: steve a at April 21, 2006 03:18 PM (x4k8S)

22 steve a, I don't speak Sasquatch-ese. Perhaps you can serve as an "objective" translator and pose all the questions that Cindy Sheenan raised to him, in point form, and let him answer them without resorting to 'headstone', 'insurance money' and 'Hugo Chavez' charges.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 03:26 PM (X6p7A)

23 Steve a, I'm going to help you help yourself. Here are Cindy's questions. Translate them for the so called AGWN; "Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to "complete the mission" when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is?" I hope you can really speak sasquatch-ese. Best of luck

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 03:32 PM (X6p7A)

24 Whoever: Discordant, incongruous. By the way, nice hissy fit screamer on the end of 'it!' Furher - leader of a socialist party and a vegetarian. Perhaps like you? Insult a grieving mother? When did I do that? "...so you can continue to wallow in your..." That place is on your side of the park. Fortunately for the rest of us, there's a big sign saying 'Toxic Waste. Keep Out.'

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 03:33 PM (MkblT)

25 Irwin Daisy, Good job finding the definition. I take it I have wikipedia to thank for the sudden jolt of energy into the moldy quarters of you brain? Well done. Now spell it! PS:Hitler was no socialist. So I'm afraid your definition of furher doesn't work. Much like your thought process.

Posted by: at April 21, 2006 03:44 PM (X6p7A)

26 Whoever, It's difficult to argue with a blank (in so many ways). or, Never argue with an idiot. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience. National Socialist Party ring a bell?

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 04:00 PM (MkblT)

27 Citizen of the Great White North: There is the matter of the following: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 or http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1 For your reading pleasure, I have gone to great pains to give you links that are not in Sasquatch-ese...

Posted by: steve a at April 21, 2006 04:03 PM (x4k8S)

28 Political life should be like the gong show, when someone has embarrassed themselves enough, there should be a giant hook coming from stage left, to yank them away to obscurity. The hook is overdue for Cindy. I think she wants to ride her dead son, into a seat in congress. So unfortunately for her, she wont go away.

Posted by: Curtis at April 21, 2006 04:04 PM (heo8b)

29 What a stunning level of righteous sanctimony coming from some of the commenters here. Cindy Sheehan has been using her son's death to draw attention to herself. The anti-Bush crowd can use prurient and appropriating references to "a mother's grief" all they want, but the fact is it's not all about her. Her son voluntarily fought for a cause he believed in. His choice, not hers.

Posted by: EBD at April 21, 2006 10:32 PM (QSHz9)

30 Whomever: First, it's "Fuhrer". If you're going to call someone a Nazi, at least get it right. Second, the way you lefties bandy about references to Nazism, it's no wonder nobody takes your histrionics seriously. You guys call anybody to the right of Ted Kennedy a Nazi at the drop of a hat. Third, and last, the claim that National Socialism was not really actual socialism is a lie that has been propogated by the left because Nazism was a public relations disaster for them. While industry in wartime Germany wasn't government-owned, there was a command economy in place - defy the government by producing refrigerators instead of tanks like they want, & see what happens to you. So it was de facto socialism, & called itself as such.

Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 21, 2006 11:41 PM (fobbb)

31

--Code Pinko-- the Cindy Sheehan affair-

Posted by: backhoe at April 22, 2006 03:18 AM (+Zuxe)

32 Who instead of whomever. Furher instead of fuhrer. See what happens when you have discourse with weasels? Mouth breathing is a disease.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 22, 2006 07:36 AM (pofY2)

33 A left! And a right! A left! And a right! This is so cool watching you guys go at it. No matter what, before anyone continues, you should stop right now and truly thank God that we live in a society where this type of discussion(?)can go on. Citizen and Anonymous: Your views are simplistic and hysterical. They would be one of those "left"s. OKay....back to it!

Posted by: Cameron at April 22, 2006 11:56 AM (YxmJg)

34 Steve a, I see you did not answer my posting. Should have known that. Instead you posted a link to stories that have nothing to do with the questions I posted. You'd make Goebbels proud! For the rest of you brownshirts here who believe National Socialist Party was actually a socialist, as in a left wing party, read a history book. If the Nazis were left wing, I'm the pope! OR better yet I have a bridge in Bostwana to sell. As for the numbskulls calling me a left wing/vegetarian etc, you make me laugh. I believe all you statist pricks(both left and right wing shills) deserve to be sent on a collision course with the sun along with your "fuhrers", limbaugher,oreilly and the rest of the loudmouth twats.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 22, 2006 12:44 PM (/9t2R)

35 Citizen: What a thoughtful, lucid, well put together argument you present. Clearly, you are the intellectual superior of us all. So, please, explain to me why National Socialism wasn't really socialism. Apart from the say-so of lefties who don't want Nazism giving the socialist cause a bad name, I mean. Socialism is essentially statism. Statism is the hallmark of socialism. You allude to statists on both the left and right, but that's a fallacy. There aren't really any right-wing statists. We right-wingers are actually rather opposed to state intervention and control - haven't you noticed? The Nazi party was most definitely statist. Ergo, National Socialism was a form of socialism. If you're still on this thread, I'm clearly in for an outpouring of vitriol. But, a reasoned refutation would help allay my suspicions that you're really just a kneejerk crank. I just don't think you have it upstairs to construct one.

Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 22, 2006 07:39 PM (fobbb)

36 Citizen of the Great White North: "Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't?" That was cut and pasted directly from your post. My first link is to a headline titled "Tapes Show Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception". You didn't even have to read the rest of the article to get the gist of the story. I know there is no WMD smoking gun, but it shows that your "Bush is a liar" contention is at best a simplistic analysis of what likely transpired leading up to the Iraq quagmire. In the second link I provided, part of the article read "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq - A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein." Do I have to explain who Osama is and how he ties in with Al Qaeda or can you stop your histrionic ranting long enough to connect those dots on your own? I know you equate the personal attack as a form of reason worthy of Voltaire or Payne, but why not read first read my links prior to pontificating over their relevance? It is ironic that with all of the "statist pricks" in this forum, it is you the "moderate" that is the most belligerent and unhinged...

Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:13 PM (q9Y4Z)

37 Citizen of the Great White North: "Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't?" That was cut and pasted directly from your post. My first link was to a headline titled "Tapes Show Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception". You didn't even have to read the rest of the article to get the gist of the story. I know there is no WMD smoking gun, but it shows that your "Bush is a liar" contention is at best a simplistic analysis of what likely transpired leading up to the Iraq quagmire. In the second link I provided, part of the article read "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq - A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein." Do I have to explain who Osama is and how he ties in with Al Qaeda or can you stop your histrionic ranting long enough to connect those dots on your own? I know you equate the personal attack to a higher form of reason worthy of Voltaire or Payne, but why not read first read my links prior to pontificating over their relevance? It is ironic that with all of the "statist pricks" in this forum, it is you the "moderate" that is the most belligerent and unhinged...

Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:16 PM (q9Y4Z)

38 Sorry for the double post everyone - computer troubles.

Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:18 PM (q9Y4Z)

39 Citizen of th GWN and Sriker, Where is your calm intelligent logic? Children call others names when they are confused, miffed and petulant. Take a look at this site: http://www.ReligionOfPeace.com Tell me you want the troops withdrawn as Sheenan demands and this to spread to North America. If you say yes, then would that not be a public declaration of idiocy? TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 23, 2006 11:35 PM (2GVBQ)

40 Ian and the rest of you jokers, Is that what "el Drugo' limbaugh is saying these days? That the nazis were socialist? Lookup "sozi" and the "nazism" on the web. Find the difference then perhaps you'll understand that the nazis were statists right wingers just like the present occupants of washington. Musollini and his fascist party were also right wing statists. Labels are cheap. Just like Pat Robertson calls himself a "christian". Or bush calls himself a "conservative". Your deeds determine what you are. And you my simple minded ditto head,like the rest of the jokers here, are no right winger. You are a statist who believes in using the state apparatus to force your objectives on others. A true right winger believes in no government, individual rights and the markets. He/she believes the government's only function should be collecting garbage,postal service and defending our borders(which they failed miserably on Sept 11th). The problem with you wannabes is that in your zeal to score an ideological point you've become what you claim to oppose; the lefties. You've become shills for the state. Ignoring the fact that the state is the problem. That it is the state that spying,detaining and torturing people. The irony,Irwin Daisy pay attention, in this is that a group of so called right wingers, you jokers here, have become apologists for a state whose ideological leanings is not from Edmund Burke but rather from the shenanihans of Wilson, Trosky and Strauss. Stick that in your pipes and smoke it!

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 09:29 AM (X6p7A)

41 To "Ian in cowtown" and the rest of you jokers: Is that what "el Drugo' limbaugh is saying these days? That the nazis were socialist? Lookup "sozi" and the "nazism" on the web. Find the difference then perhaps you'll understand that the nazis were statists right wingers just like the present occupants of washington and Musollini and his fascist party. Just like Pat Robertson calls himself a "christian". Or bush calls himself a "conservative". Labels or monikers are cheap. Your deeds determine what you are. And you my simple minded ditto head, like the rest of the jokers here, are no right winger. You are a statist who believes in using the state apparatus to force your objectives on others. A true right winger believes in no government, individual rights and the markets. He/she believes the government's only function should be collecting garbage,postal service and defending our borders(which they failed miserably on Sept 11th). The problem with you wannabes is that in your zeal to score an ideological point you've become what you claim to oppose; the lefties. You've become shills for the state. Ignoring the fact that the state is the problem. That it is the state that spies,detains and tortures. The irony,Irwin Daisy pay attention, in this is that a group of so called right wingers, you jokers here, have become apologists for a state whose ideological leanings is not from Edmund Burke but rather from the shenanihans of Wilson, Trosky and Strauss. Stick that in your pipes and smoke it! PS Ian: Here is a link for your viewing pleasure http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0859884.html

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 09:45 AM (X6p7A)

42 Steve A, Tsk tsk. You bad boy. Trying to pull fast one. You're a good cherry picker of facts. But lets recap; Do you remember these; 1) Iraq intelligence officer met with Attah(sept 11th hijacker) in Prague. 2) Iraq bought yellow cake in Niger 3) Mobile WMD stations 4) Tubes for centrifuges 5) Iraqi UMV 6) 45 seconds launch capability 7) Ahmed Chalabi Judith Miller 9) Mylorie Lauren 10) Oreilly 11) Hannity 12) Kerry 13) Liberman 14) Hillary Clinton etc etc. What do they have in common? They were all lies and liars. Remember the following people? 1) Scott Ritter 2) Hans Blix 3) Richard Clark 4) Treasury Secretary Oneill 5) David Kay 6) Karen Kwaitowski etc etc They were the truth tellers. And they did so at a great cost to their lives and reputation. And no decent person, let a alone a right winger, will take the word of Saddam Husseins son-in-law over any of these experts. So you see your links were a diversion as I believe you are already in possession of these facts but threw in those links in an attempt of obfuscate.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 10:15 AM (X6p7A)

43 TonyGuitar, Lookup "Non Sequitur"! Or "Fallacy: Confusing Cause and Effect "

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 10:56 AM (X6p7A)

44 And before you use the spelling of "Trotsky" as a diversion.. Its TROTSKY!

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 12:54 PM (X6p7A)

45 Citizen: I guess I don't really know what Limbaugh is saying, as I have never listened to his show. My point is my own insofar as I have never heard it argued before. It comes from combining the following: a) a true right-winger believes in limited government, which you appear to agree with; & b) what the Nazis provided can hardly be considered limited government. Which leads me to the conclusion that Nazis were not right-wing. This is contrary to the apparently deeply-held view of the far left, which seems to go something like: Nazis were right-wing, therefore, all right-wingers are Nazis. Seriously, I know what "socialism" & "Nazism" are. I just don't agree with the conventional wisdom that the Nazis were right-wingers, for the reason I have stated. Their statism is evidence that they were more left-wing than right-wing. That is the one & only point I addressed in my post. But you have taken it upon yourself to attribute a whole range of opinions to me, when in fact you have no idea how I feel about those issues. I don't know what hypocrisy you think you've caught me in. I do feel it's rather hyperbolic to equate the Bush administration with the Hitler & Mussolini dictatorships. It indicates that you really have no sense of either history or perspective. And, I guess it's better than being called a Nazi, but "simple-minded dittohead" is still rather rude, I think. Oh well, perhaps it's the best you can do. But one shudders to think of the parents who would raise a child to be so ill-mannered. You must be a charming & lovable individual, with many friends, I'm sure.

Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 25, 2006 07:46 PM (fobbb)

46 Great posting. Every time I read something new about Cindy Sheehan she seems to slip an extra rung on the crazy meter. Is Cindy really crazy though, or just very very ambitious. Rather than a "Peace Mom" Cindy is pimping out the memory of of son in order to buy the things she wants in life. Money, power, respect, relevance. She has dishonoured the memory of her son by hijacking his legacy. Rather than being remembered as the fine young man he was, he will be remembered as 'the son of that nut, who died in Iraq for no good reason'. If Cindy had ANY shame, she would simply apologise and go away.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 25, 2006 07:55 PM (wKVLQ)

47 Ian, "Ill mannered"? Considering the raison de etre of this blog(i.e.: to attack a grieving mother), I'll wear that "ill mannered" badge with honour. Do you see any semblance of 'conservative' ideals in the present government in Washington? Have they reduced the government? Are they not running huge deficits? What of the spying, unlawful searches and detention? Are you in the future going to say this government (republican controlled houses) was leftwing? Hitler and his Nazis were just like the present government in many ways. See "Germany from 1939 onwards" and compare it to atmosphere in America today. Power politics, deliberate misinformation and the use of the aristocracy as a tool to dominate the masses, militarism, propaganda(fair and balanced) and crushing of dissent(see Valerie Plame,Richard Clark, Treasury Secretary OÂ’Neill and General Anthony Zinni). Here is quote from the man himself that will put your "the Nazis were left" to sleep; "The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4) Did you check the link? The 'Socialist' label was a trick to get the disillusioned workers to support them. And soon as they got the country they purged the socialists/Marxists, see Strasser, and sent the communists to concentration camps and abolished unions and workers rights. See "charter of labor". Their nationalistic, racist, economic (Capitalism) and pre-emptive warmongering ideals were in line with the far right. And the fact they harnessed the power of the state to do this is what makes them statists. The problem with the so called "right wing" these days is that they are just like the "lefties". They believe they are entitled to ride the bull, i.e. the state, as oppose to shooting it and having steaks for dinner. And since historically the "right wing" and the "left wings" have proven incapable of safeguarding the rights of individuals (see Stalin and Hitler) or modern times (Blair and Bush), they cannot be entrusted with "societal contract". PS: Look up Lysander Spooner, my favourite rascal H.L Mencken and Old Tom Sawyer himself Mark Twain.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 10:59 AM (X6p7A)

48 Cindy Sheenan is looking for fame, money and publicity just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving(MADD) are just fishing for huge settlements from the courts. I know since the inception of "American Idol" and "Reality TV" the level of stupidity is at an all time low in most people but does the above statement seem sensible to anyone?

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 11:06 AM (X6p7A)

49 If Cindy isn't looking for fame, money, and publicity then she isnt looking for it in the weirdest way possible. She is a pimp and an opportunist and a liar. Her own family has disassociated themselves from her because of what she is doing. She pimps her sons memory as the currency for her cause (A cause may I note that Casey was adamantly opposed to). Its disgusting and Casey deserved better. I don't doubt that Cindy is firmly committed to her beliefs (to the point of fanaticism) and that in that sense, she is sincere...but she is dishonest as to her motivation. She wants to pretend she is the "Peace Mom" when in fact she is a committed partisan to her extreme left wing causes. She is using the memory of her son to buy herself credibility, and that is what is wrong, because deep down...she knows what she is doing, but to her the ends justify the means. Also a Citizen of the Great White North and glad I found this blog.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 26, 2006 11:46 AM (wKVLQ)

50 Donald Walker, Ditto MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Drivers)? Are they opportunistic liars? How about John Walsh of American Most Wanted? Is he on a vendetta against criminals?

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 01:12 PM (X6p7A)

51 I have no evidence or reason to believe that MADD or John Walsh are opportunistic liars. Same goes for the Salvation Army and the Canadian Cancer Society if that is the direction you plan to go. If you have evidence that MADD or John Walsh are opportunistic liars, then please present it, but if not then I dont see how they are relevant to the question of Cindy Sheehan since there IS evidence based on her statements and actions, that SHE IS an opportunistic liar. Namely her lies.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 26, 2006 03:33 PM (wKVLQ)

52 Donald Walker, You missed the point.Canadian Cancer society may be but Salvation Army? What have they lost? The point is Cindy Sheenan, like John Walsh, MADD et al have lost loved ones and have channelled their grief into preventing others from similar loss and suffering. List some of Cindy Sheenan's lies. I doubt it very much that you'll be this cavalier if you lost a brother, son, mother, father in a god forsaken land through no fault of theirs. Her son signed up to defend his country, when attacked, no to be sent as an occupational army. His superiors, namely the government, failed him.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 27, 2006 10:58 AM (X6p7A)

53 Casey reenlisted knowing he would be part of an occupying army. Losing a son is terrible. But it doesnt give one the right to lie, even if they feel the ends justify the lies. Detailed lists of Cindy's lies are posted all over the place including here. You can google them yourself. Cindy is a liar and is far more interested in her own future, than her son's past.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 27, 2006 08:10 PM (wKVLQ)

54 Good design! My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Lori at May 08, 2006 12:52 AM (suzER)

55 Shop Authentic And Cheap NFL Jerseys! Enjoy Worldwide Express Delivery!

Posted by: Raiders jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:06 AM (wmdzq)

56 There is some nuance in this debate being lost due to national aggregation. Most of the really bad housing situations are really confined to specific areas of the country.

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 11:47 AM (HE+QC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When one of my kids wants something, they've been taught to ask us directly. What they learn quickly is that if they want to annoy us, they should tell other people what they expect to get without coming to us first.

I bring this up in the context of the relationship between Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, and the Prime Minister's Office:

Canada's Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier has been asked to submit advance copies of his public remarks to the Minister of Defence before delivering them, The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday.

Liberal critics are jumping on this:

"That is highly inappropriate," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said. "(General Hillier) is not a member of the cabinet. His role is to be a strong voice for our military and in that sense he's independent, so he can speak about the needs of the military."

Dosanjh pointed out that Hillier has recently said that tactical, short-haul aircraft to replace the military's ancient C-130 Hercules transports are his priority.

Fair enough. But Gen. Hillier should not, and would not, announce the priorities via a speech, blindsiding the government -- this government or any other. If anything is inappropriate, it is Dosanjh's suggestion otherwise.

Weirder still is the suggestion that this is the way it should be.

Should the General's comments be vetted through the PMO? Just because this hasn't been the custom in the past doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Consider it instead a recognition of the importance of the CDS as a means of delivering signals. Frankly, that the Liberals have always ignored the CDS and his speeches is the real insult. Instead, the CDS is recognized now as a a person whose comments on national and international issues carry real weight. As such, those comments need to reflect government policy, and to have people skilled in understanding how words can be represented and misrepresented by the media look over a speech doesn't sound like a bad thing.

Funny, isn't it? Gen. Hillier calls terrorists "murderers and scumbags", and all we hear about is the loose cannon we have for CDS. On the other hand, a minority government tries hard to make sure there is unity of purpose and of message in order to avoid the scandal-ridden rudderless nightmare of the previous minority government, and the Liberals, who managed that nightmare, are first in line to complain.

Aren't these the same Liberals who claimed during the election that the Conservatives were planning to unleash the goose-stepping ranks of our military into our major cities to crush our freedoms? You'd think the Liberals would be eager to keep the dangerous anti-democratic forces of the military under tight control. I'm confused.

This government is trying to make this minority situation work, and to do that, some things are going to have to change compared to Paul Martin's management style:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has slapped a muzzle on the Canadian military, forbidding brass from speaking for fear of detracting attention from his government's top priorities.

A top military officer said the Prime Minister's Office recently reeled in Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier to tell him that all of his speaking engagements had to be approved and his speeches would be vetted by Harper's staff.

Harper has kept his government focused strictly on his top five priorities, starting with the tabling last Tuesday of his accountability act meant to clean up the way Ottawa does business.

If Stephen Harper and his people allow other people to start driving the agenda every which way, it is the surest means of making sure nothing gets accomplished. General Hillier is no fool -- I'm sure he gets it, even if the media seems eager to spin this in a bad way ("reeled in"?). He might want to talk about some issues important to the military, but now is not the time. Give Stephen Harper the time he needs to accomplish the goals he has laid out, to prove to Canadians that the Conservative Party can be trusted. The General and the Canadian Forces have not been forgotten. Quite the opposite. The Conservatives understand just what an important part of the team the military is, and with that understanding comes the realization that the military has to work with the rest of the team to get things done.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:28 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 738 words, total size 5 kb.

The ongoing bleating about David Emerson is pretty tiring. Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in Burnaby, BC, making a speech about child care. In the CTV piece on the story, there is a picture of a person carrying a pair of signs with the standard accusation of hypocrisy. The caption is as follows:

Alexander Lamb, a constituent of David Emerson's, carries signs as he arrives at the Willingdon Heights Community Centre to greet Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Burnaby B.C. Tuesday, April 18, 2006.

Is he a constituent? The picture was provided by Chuck Stoody of CP. Did Stoody ask Lamb where he was from? Did he do any follow up? Or is Stoody assuming that Lmab is a constituent?

Or did the people at CTV provide the caption themselves? And if so, the question stands: how was it established that Lamb was a constituent?

Why do I ask? Because I checked every "A Lamb" in the phone book (and I managed to get the postal code for the one "A Lamb" of the ten without a postal code listed in the phone book), and not one of these people is a constituent in David Emerson's riding.

There is a business called "Alexander Lamb Antiques" in the riding. It is a commercial building on Main Street, just three buildings south of East 16th Avenue. Alexander Lamb might have a room in the back and live on the premises, but with all the folks from outside of Emerson's riding making trouble, I tend to be suspicious. But then maybe I'm the one guilty of beating a dead horse here, constantly checking on where these protesters are from.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:50 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

The left in this country has, not unreasonably, pointed to the popular vote in the last election as indicating that, without vote splitting between the three left-of-centre parties (the Liberals, the NDP, and in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois), the Conservatives would not have won. As it is, the Conservatives were only able to get a minority. They argue that the majority of Canadians really want a "progresssive" government, and that this current Conservative government is an electoral aberration.

But the latest Angus Reid Poll suggests something different:

How do the Conservatives’ priorities compare to your own?

Identical: 9%
Similar: 56%
Different: 20%
Very different: 10%
Don’t know: 5%

Is this a case of the Conservatives masking themselves as some sort of Liberal-lite? But 65% of Canadians in the poll say the Conservative priorities are their priorities. So what are the Conservative priorities?

Thanks to the 5-priority list, we know what those priorities are:

• Clean up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act;
• Provide real tax relief to working families by cutting the GST;
• Make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime;
• Help parents with the cost of raising their children; and
• Work with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee.

No hiding the conservative agenda here. Lower taxes. More choices (and responsibilities) for parents. Tough on crime. Push the provinces to meet their obligations in health care. Clean up government and eliminate the culture of entitlement.

What about the environment? What about world peace? What about being different from the US? What about more laws to protect workers? What about higher taxes on corporations and wealthy Canadians?

What about those things that make Canada Canadian, at least according to the NDP and the Liberals and their fellow travellers?

Maybe those left-of-centre parties had better do some serious reconsideration about what Canadians really want. They might not like the answer. So far the answer seems to be that they really want Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:33 AM | Comments (140) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The Liberal party has attracted votes from both sides of the political spectrum for years. As they try to appeal to the left NDP voters, they will find that a significant portion of their support on the right will go to the Conservatives. To suggest that everyone that voted Liberal has leftist leanings is disingenuous at best. I believe that many people who have voted Liberal in the past like what they see and, as long as the Conservatives avoid scandal and deception, will support them in the next election.

Posted by: georgev at April 18, 2006 11:55 AM (QjZid)

2 Ah, all those nice progressive people with their correct progressive ideas that all nice people adhere to. What is progressive about an ideology that has been in power for the past 50 years? Note the French riots by progressive people calling for a continuation of the status quo; nothing progressive their. Perhaps "progressively out of touch" is the intent of the phrase. I think people are tired of being progressively penned-in and talked-down-to by the socialist elites and they are beginning to see that there is indeed an alternative to progressive statism and progressive decline.

Posted by: WImpy Canadian at April 18, 2006 12:19 PM (T7dgX)

3 I think the French are anti-progressive. They're Luddites. Times have changed, and they're refusing to change with them, they'll be left behind. Its funny how the leftists identify Canadian values with government programs. What happened to Honesty, hard work, and courtesy as Canadian values? I don't think welfare, medicare and taxation are values of anyone I know.

Posted by: Curtis at April 18, 2006 12:38 PM (heo8b)

4 Steve The reason so many people like the agenda listed is because the Conservatives reached to the Left to get them. Those are Left issues. Not far Left but moderate Left which is where most of us are. 1. Is there one Canadian that doesn't want a clean, accountable government. This legislation almost gives us that(he is studying(shelving?)the part where his government is accountable. 2.One percent off the GST will add up over the years. Why do I get the feeling he is inviting the provinces to raise their taxes by 1%. Again as in all tax reductions the rich end up saving thousands and the poor a hundred or two. Why not cut everyones income taxes by $1,000??? Like the Left love crime. It's only the Conservatives who hate crime. Duh. This tired old chestnut keeps being dragged out for resale every ten years or so. A few jails, a few laws. ho hum. The Left hates these social programs! like helping families and reducing wait times. ugh! When the platform is full of apple pie and social programs whats not to like? Is this the real Conservative agenda? Is Harper a wolf in sheeps clothing? Stay tuned. If the real Harper governs from the centre to centre left, and does it well, I might even vote for him. He could be in for years.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 12:57 PM (sw5R/)

5 The political right in this country was divided just long enough to let leftists (and media members) assume it'd always be that way. Stephen Harper is not the aberation; the past 12 years of a one-sided national polity was the aberation. With a more normal left/right balance in this country, Canada is much more politically healthy and the Liberals have to actually compete for voters now instead of hoping they'd hold their noses and look past the scandals.

Posted by: cynical joe at April 18, 2006 01:26 PM (/En1W)

6 Steve D., you think those priorities sound left-wing?? I see: Accountability, tax reduction, getting tough on crime and personal choice for the individual. I'd say those are pretty much the staples of conservatism.

Posted by: Jeff at April 18, 2006 01:40 PM (1k2og)

7 Steve D... your arguments are as weak as ever. If accountability was a "left" (read: Liberal) value, where has it been for 13 years? If open government spending was a "left" value, where has it been for 13 years? Crime? You want to talk about combatting crime as a "left" value? I think you are mistaking combatting with coddling. Why is it that we have the so called Faint Hope clause? Why is it that we have time and a half for people awaiting trial while in prison because bail was denied? Yeah, great "left" values there. You're right about a few jails, a few laws... but you're looking in the mirror. It's a few jails closed and a few laws weakened by the "left" my friend. That's where combatting crime is clearly a conservative value. The "left" view of combatting crime is basically giving drug-running, city punks free access to basketball courts while giving fines and prison sentences to duck hunters who don't license their rifles. Yeah... the brilliant example of concern over crime that is the left. 1% lower on the GST right away, and 2% lower sometime in the near future? We could call that a "left" (read: Liberal/NDP) value except for the fact that when they kept calling to repeal the GST or lower it, the "left" never followed through. Actions speak louder than words my friend. Give it up man. Your arguments here are weaker than your "McJob" post. But keep on revisiting that "hidden agenda". Is that the smell of desperation in the air? Hmm...

Posted by: Surecure at April 18, 2006 01:41 PM (uyqvH)

8 The lefties love to claim the Conservatives all but stole government from them. The "popular vote" is all but meaningless when nearly 40% of people don't bother to cast ballots. Why? I'm sure it's because the Liberal provided such good government... NOT!! Politicians rank right down there with used car salesmen. steve d, you seriously believe the Conservatives stole their platform from the left? I must admit- I laughed out loud when I read that! The left haven't had a good idea, let alone a new idea, in decades!! Nice work in for the "hidden agenda" routine by the way but don't you get tired of pulling out that old chestnut? Here's a question for you, steve d... if the left loves to help families and reduce wait times so much, why didn't they do anything about either in the past 13 years? Too busy setting up AdScam? Too busy creating dysfunctional, useless Gun Registries that cost 100 times more than estimated? Too busy building the culture of entitlement? Too busy stabbing each other in the back? I'll be waiting patiently for a straight answer... strangely, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Mac at April 18, 2006 01:43 PM (TaDbz)

9 And talking about "left" VS "right" values, how about the supposed lark concerning the "right" being cozy to corporations and the "left" being the voice of the average citizen. If that is true, then how is it that only the Conservatives have eliminated corporate and union donations and lowered personal donations to $1000, making every person in this country a whole lot closer together in terms of political influence? If it is the Conservatives who rely so heavily on corporate support, why is it that they are the only ones to eliminate corporate support. We all know why: the Liberals are the only ones who have been blowing/blackmailing corporations for their money for decades. Yeah Steve. Let's talk about SUPPOSED left and right values. HA!

Posted by: Surecure at April 18, 2006 01:46 PM (uyqvH)

10 >Those are Left issues. Not far Left but moderate Left which is where most of us are. Well, the moderate lefties (according to those who believe in the vote-splitting fairy tale) had 13 years to effect change on those issues and failed not only to do anything, but pretty much failed to even talk seriously about being tough on crime, reducing GST, being accountable, or giving economic power back to families. I'll grant they talked a lot about fixing health care, but it doesn't seem they were serious. But please, tell us more about how those issues - as phrased by the Conservatives - are issues of the moderate. I will agree the subjects may be issues of the moderate left, but not seen from the direction you would have us believe.

Posted by: lrC at April 18, 2006 02:47 PM (XDL9B)

11 Although it would be fun to have at the statistics, I would like to ask what I believe to be a more pertinent question: How conservative are the Conservative's priorities? With so much of the current rhetoric being tied to partisan loyalties, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the Conservative platform, especially described as above, is centrist if not quite centre-left. Take the promised GST cut, for example. A progressive economist should (which is not to say that they are, especially if they are tied up in partisan politics) be quick to support the measure because it is step towards eliminating the most regressive aspect of the Canadian tax system. In fact, a progressive economist should support the Conservative platform of lowering the GST and reinstating the Liberal income tax cuts precisely because these measures will, in the long term, disproportionately benefit the middle class and the poor while having a neutral effect on the rich. As for 'helping parents with the cost of raising children' and the 'patient wait times guarantee,' I would ask what progessives don't support those initiatives? To be sure, there is typically some disagreement between classical liberals and reform liberals (notice the lower case letters) with regard to appropriate policies to achieve these goals manifested, perhaps, in the differences between the Conservative and Liberal/NDP platforms on child care (tax incentives vs. program delivery), but the difference is one of means not ends. I would further suggest that the accountability act is ideologically neutral, at least on the surface. Again to be sure, the Conservative's Accountability Act does have an underlying ideological foundation. Its motivation, however, is more consistent with classical liberalism than conservatism, as it assumes a deep distrust of the average politician's/citizen's capacity to act with responsiblity and restraint in working on behalf of the people. This lies in sharp contrast with the assumptions of conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke and Adam Smith. The Safe Communities plan is the lone sop to more traditional conservative values, but it is pretty watered down. There is, for example, no explicit reference to the threat crime poses to an inherently unstable and precarious social order. In short, it emphasizes the need to make individuals responsibile for their crimes and the individual benefits (to one's self and family) that will accrue as a result. There is certainly no sense that all crimes are threats to the very existence of the community and need to be treated accordingly. In other words, I am not surprised by the poll results, as I see very little to disagree with in the Conservative platform when thought outside of the box of partisan politics and within a societal horizon that long ago shucked off the weight of traditional conservatism and embraced the fundamentals of liberalism. Of course, before I am criticized on this count, this also speaks to its genious. My question to those of you who might be quick to argue with me, I see a more pressing issue: what do think the 10% who identified as 'very different' are thinking?

Posted by: cbodnar at April 18, 2006 03:05 PM (rESOo)

12 Gentlemen It is wrong to think of Liberals as Left. They talk Left but act Right. Recalling their ACTIONS: squeezing out workers(42%) from eligibility for Employment Insurance. Cutting corporate taxes two or three times. Allowing private health care to expand Not bringing in universal daycare until they absolutely needed the Left vote. There is nothing Left about them. They are owned by the corporate sector.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 03:40 PM (sw5R/)

13 squeezing out workers(42%) from eligibility for Employment Insurance. Yes this is the one that burns me the most. Ive paid into UIC for nearly 20 years. Ive never ever collected a penny - ever. Not to say that Ive never been unemployed, but Ive never had a claim they would accept. In my mind, this is a high water mark in 'insurance' fraud. This isnt a left/right issue this is an honesty issue, its a fairness issue. (living in Alberta makes it harder to get your claim approved)

Posted by: Curtis at April 18, 2006 03:56 PM (heo8b)

14 Sorry Steve D. No matter how many hairs you split, so long as they demonize the "right", they can't be the "right".

Posted by: Surecure at April 18, 2006 04:05 PM (uyqvH)

15 Surecure Your stuck on their rhetoric. Look past that to their actions. Look what they do. Especially since the decline of the Conservatives post Mulroney. It has been all Right.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 04:13 PM (sw5R/)

16 Last I heard, Layton was bragging about RAISING our taxes to support even more social spending. Doesn't sound too "right-wing" to me.... Here are some great quotes to ponder: A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Wendy Kaminer A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake, at the moment. Willis Player I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat. Will Rogers

Posted by: Concerned Conservaitve at April 18, 2006 04:55 PM (Rww+E)

17 "It is wrong to think of Liberals as Left. They talk Left but act Right." You mean they aren't good bleeding-heart pacifist, anti-western, anti-reason, anti-individual rights Socialists? HA! If only that were so.

Posted by: Regis at April 18, 2006 05:43 PM (ZrYg/)

18 regis Like I said its what they do, not what they say.I don't see any Left legislation before Martins deal with the NDP.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 06:16 PM (sw5R/)

19 cbodnar I agree with most of what you said. I just want to pick a few bones. Tax cuts: If they are a flat percentage then the well off get the larger amount. As you said, the amount the well off get is largely inconsequential to them while always significant to those on the other end of the tax system. Over time however, if this same process is followed cut after cut then the amounts begin to add up. Particularly when you add the benefits of added on tax cuts. In the end you have significant amounts of income redistribution in reverse. Instead of taxes being used to redistribute wealth so that the less fortunate can benefit you have the reverse. To claim that the difference in daycare policy is a difference of means not ends is to miss the enourmous difference between the NDP policy of fully funded universal daycare to a "tip of the hat" acknowledgement of childcare by the Conservative policy. The NDP policy is serious and actual while the Conservative policy is more tokenism, particularly when its noted that a considerable portion of the $1200 is taxed back. Another non-starter part of the same platform is the tax incentives for opening new spaces in daycare centres. This has been tried before and is known not to be effective so the seriousness of the policy has to be in question. The differences therefore are profound. The NDP policy would actually lead to daycare while the Conservative policy is one of virtual status quo.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 06:46 PM (sw5R/)

20 Of course the Liberals are right-wing... it all makes sense!! Isn't it great being able to move the goalposts, steve d? Don't worry about little things like... truth... reality... humanity... Don't let that kinda stuff mess up your warped vision of society. Anyone with money in their pockets is oppressors. The poor are all slaves. Every government is evil except that non-existent non-functional model in your head. I think you should talk to your doctor about upping your meds.

Posted by: Mac at April 18, 2006 07:59 PM (TaDbz)

21 The Liberals are a classic 'centre' party, who steal ideas from both left and right to maintan the balance at all cost. They have been very successful for so long that success became arrogance. Voters hate arrogance, especially the 'beer and popcorn' sort. Now that the Conservatives have moved from the right wing fringe to the centre, they are pushing the Liberals to the NDP territory where they now cannibalize each other in the same manner that the old PC's and Reform demontrated. Harper may pull policies from the left more than he would like to keep the minority goverment alive. Conversely, the centrist leadership candidates, Manley, Stronach, McKenna, et al, have all taken a pass on the Liberal party (cannot compete with Harper in the immediate future?) which leaves all the remaining voices to lead from the left. The Liberals will be alienating their centre if they are not careful. Well actually, they have lost the centre and have become the Liberal Party of Toronto. Layton must be having bad dreams.

Posted by: john at April 18, 2006 08:10 PM (lhVve)

22 Mac okay,Mac educate me. What part of truth, reality and humanity am I missing????

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 08:48 PM (sw5R/)

23 Steve d: "Tax cuts: If they are a flat percentage then the well off get the larger amount. As you said, the amount the well off get is largely inconsequential to them while always significant to those on the other end of the tax system. Over time however, if this same process is followed cut after cut then the amounts begin to add up. Particularly when you add the benefits of added on tax cuts. In the end you have significant amounts of income redistribution in reverse. Instead of taxes being used to redistribute wealth so that the less fortunate can benefit you have the reverse." You cannot redistribute income from the poor to the wealthy by cutting income tax rates: the poor do not pay income tax. Why do the wealthy 'benefit' more from cuts in income tax? Here is a story that demonstrates the answer. Ten men with various degrees of wealth go out together for dinner every week; they go to the same restaurant, eating and drinking the same things - as a result the bill is always $100. How do they divide it? When the bill arrived on the first night the ten men discussed how they would pay the bill. One suggested that they each pay an equal share: $10. Another objected, saying that he could not afford $10, and that if they were to have dinner together every week and were to split the bill equally they would have to go to a much less expensive restaurant, otherwise he could no longer attend. After hearing this objection, another suggested that they pay the bill as they would pay their income taxes, that is, on a sliding, progressive scale. Because all ten men enjoyed both the company of the others (thus they did not want anyone no longer to come to dinner), and the food (thus they did not want to go to another restaurant), they all agreed. As a result, the distribution of the bill was as follows (from poorest to wealthiest): $0; $0; $1; $2; $5; $7; $10; $15; $20; $40. This arrangement proves satisfactory until one day, when bringing the bill the restauranteur says because the men have been such good customers he will give them a discount from now on, the new total is $80. Again the men discuss how they will divide this reduction. Again one proposes that they simply divide it equally: $2 each. Another quickly objects to this pointing out that this would mean that two of the ten men would be paid for coming to dinner. Soon enough they hit upon the solution, they will divide the reduction according to the way they pay the bill (or as close as they can get still using whole dollars). As a result, the reduction is divided as follows (again from poorest to wealthiest): $0; $0; $1; $1; $1; $1; $2; $3; $4; $7. This results is the following distribution of the bill (again from poorest to wealthiest) with the resulting reduction in parentheses: $0 (0%); $0 (0%); $0 (100%); $1 (50%); $4 (20%); $6 (14%); $8 (20%); $12 (20%); $16 (20%); $33 (18%). They pay the bill and everyone leaves the restaurant happy - one who expected to pay didn't have to, another received half-off, and only two received less than the 20% reduction. Once outside, one of the poorest remarks that he did not benefit at all from the reduction. The one who unexpectedly ended up getting a free meal remarked that the wealthiest received 7 times as much of the $20 as he did. This realization leads the other poorest to say that it is always the wealth who benefit anytime there is a reduction in cost, he suggests that they gang-up on him and each take their fair share. So the other nine beat up the wealthiest and take the $7 dollars that he left the restaurant with. Finally content they go home, leaving their dinner companion on the sidewalk. The following week, the nine men show up for dinner. One of them remarks that the wealthiest is not there. Nevertheless, says another, let's eat. And so they do, but when the bill comes to the table and they put their money together they realize that they are $33 dollars short. Since none of them brought anymore money with them they all had to wash dishes in order to cover the $33 they were short. The moral of the story is that those who provide nothing but company should not complain that they do not benefit from a reduction in the bill; otherwise they may find that they no longer get the free lunch to which they feel they are entitled when the one who foots most of the bill chooses to find other dinner companions.

Posted by: MSYB at April 18, 2006 08:50 PM (O+ACo)

24 What part of truth, reality and humanity am I missing???? How about this truth: "Every persons life is theirs by right. An individual's life can and must belong only to to himself, not to any society or community, or he is then but a slave"-- Terry Goodkind

Posted by: Regis at April 18, 2006 09:28 PM (ZrYg/)

25 Steve D, And the Communist Party of Cuba is right wing compared to the Comnunist Party of North Korea. You and the rest of you lefties are all about the moral relativism. Take a stance, plant your flag in the ground and declare where you really stand for once. Bunch of fools are what you are. enough

Posted by: enough at April 18, 2006 09:34 PM (6sAMe)

26 MSYB Here's another story for you. A man advertises for help. He needs ten men. Why? In order to make money he needs help otherwise he can never make enough to pay the bills. These jobs are unskilled, anyone can make a widget only the owner can't because he doesn't have time. Payday comes the owner has made $10,000 in a week. He gives each of the ten $200 pays his overhead another $2000 and pockets $6,000. After twenty years the man retires rich and the ten men go on welfare because they are too old and unskilled to get jobs. They were skilled enough to make a man rich but not skilled enough to gain the respect of the people around them who thought they were just a burden on society. The only reason the man got rich is that the people who worked for him believed those were the rules. Those rules are not divine they are man made. One day the worker who enables this system will begin to see it is skewed to the one who had the idea and opened the business but found out his idea and risk amount to nothing without the cooperation of others. In truth they all created the wealth together but the ten lived a hard life on poverty wages while the one got to live in a mansion on a hill. The system is predatory. It is not healthy.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 10:41 PM (sw5R/)

27 enough My stand is clear. If you are upset that the world isn't simple it is not my fault. You want simple answers in a complex world. You need the Liberals AND NDP to be in the same space. It is easier to dismiss them and label them and berate them. The truth is we are all more alike than different. Our differences are more shades of grey than black and white. Get used to it.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 10:47 PM (sw5R/)

28 Regis Dream on. You raised yourself? You educated yourelf? You make an income without the help of others? You grow your own food? You make your own clothes? You perhaps depend on others to make your transportation and commnication possible? Regis if you believe every man is an island then you are living in the wrong place. It must be very hard on such an "individual" lke yourself to have to depend on so many thousands of others directly and indirectly every day of your dependent independent life. Come to think of it you probably don't even have any ideas except those the society gives you. My goodness, you must feel completely overwhelmed. '

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 11:04 PM (sw5R/)

29 Steve, don't attack a straw man and afterwards claim victory. I said nothing like what you so deftly spouted and used to fashion a personal attack on me with. As such, I'm not going to argue with you any more. You are hopelessly lost to bad philosophy. Rest assured I hold you in about as high esteem as this man did: [Socialists and anarchists] are the stench today in the nostrils of all honest men and women. They are a poison; and I would have them go and colonize and live out their theories and eat one another up; for they produce nothing and they subsist as suckers on what honest men, frugal and industrious, produce.-- John D. Rockfeller

Posted by: Regis at April 18, 2006 11:20 PM (ZrYg/)

30 Rockfeller? Talk about stench!!! This man secretly buys the railroads and then has his competitors wondering why they can't move their oil but he can. He got kickbacks from the train company too. Later on he colluded with GM, Firestone and a few others to destroy public transit in favour of the automobile. No morals, no ethics, no emotion, no attachments. Yessir, a model capitalist. A man to quote,like Hitler. Honest men and women are the ones he liked to exploit the most. They were the real suckers. He was angry that some wouldn't tolerate his immoral behaviour so he labeled them socialists and anarchists. He never labeled himself a fascist but it is a label that fits rather well.

Posted by: steve d. at April 18, 2006 11:48 PM (sw5R/)

31 Steve D. I could argue with you about Liberal policies that are from the left until the cows come home (Faint Hope Clause, Longgun Registry, Kyoto Accord, etc.) but nothing will satisfy you because you are fooling yourself. You said that the Conservatives reached to the left to get their policies, and I say you're the one reaching. I don't see a single thing in those five policies that are in the left. Accountability in government, tax relief, crime control and helping families with raising their children are all big "C" conservative policies, let alone small "c" conservative policies. As for a patient wait times guarantee? The NDP aren't concerned with ensuring that patients have quick access to health care. The only thing they care about is that there is not a single element of private care allowed (though there always has and always will be) whether or not it kills people. But nice try.

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 01:01 AM (zF+Gw)

32 "Like the Left love crime. It's only the Conservatives who hate crime. Duh. This tired old chestnut keeps being dragged out for resale every ten years or so. A few jails, a few laws. ho hum." Well, if the left DOESN"T love crime why it that they have done so little about it? Perhaps, because the libs were criminals themselves they thought it would by hypocritical to stop other criminals. Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at April 19, 2006 01:28 AM (vntGg)

33 Surecure You are the one who is fooling himself. I am on the Left and YOU are telling ME what Left is????? There was one person in the last parliament who studied accountability and presented a comprehensive bill. This person was approached by Harper to see if he was interested in Shapiros job. Was this person on the Right? No. Was he a centist Liberal? He was from the Left. Ed Broadbent. The Left were the first to talk about accountability. The Conservatives took their issue. Crime, the phony issue, was also an NDP platform plank. If the crime issue is only a conservative concern why was it part of the NDP platform?? You are correct about taxes though. They would have used the 1%GST and the $1200-taxes,on daycare and health care. Health care is a Left program that the Liberals and Conservatives pretend to support because Canadians love it.

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 07:05 AM (sw5R/)

34 Horny Toad Crime rates have been going down since 1991. I checked stats Canada. It is only on the radar because we had a crime wave in Canada's major urban area in an election year. This crime wave was a consequence of huge cutbacks in social programs leaving youth out on the streets with nothing to do. Now we are paying the price. This will pass as they grow up and/or go to jail. Then the crime issue will disappear again.

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 07:11 AM (sw5R/)

35 Crime rates may have been going down, but have the actual instances of crime gone down? Maybe the reason we're seeing more news related to violent crime recently is because there are more violent crimes occuring, just not as many per capita.

Posted by: Grook at April 19, 2006 07:55 AM (f1BnB)

36 steve d.: You still haven't answered my questions about the Japanese economic mouse and Jeanne d'Arc at SDA. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3842 Mark Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins at April 19, 2006 07:55 AM (y2EP4)

37 Okay Steve D. I'll call your bluff. You see, I'm not on the left or the right. I'm one of those evil centrists who, when presenting his values, is accused of being right-wing by leftists and left-wing by those on the right. But if you are so sure in your ability to judge when the "right" is stealing ideas from the "left", then give me a list of "left" and "right" values. Let's see exactly what you are and what you know. I have an idea what you'll come up with, but have more of inclination that you could't come up with a fair list if you tried.

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 09:19 AM (uyqvH)

38 Oh, and BTW Steve D, on that ethics point you talked about... could you ever imagine the NDP forming a government and asking somebody from the Conservatives to take a prominent role in the watchdog department of Parliament? I don't think so. And I think that says more than needs to be said.

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 09:23 AM (uyqvH)

39 "This crime wave was a consequence of huge cutbacks in social programs leaving youth out on the streets with nothing to do." Mindless BS! I grew up in the same time period and I'm not a criminal and I didn't end up in jail. And if there is some kind of resounding truth to your suggestion, then why is it that these crimes are rare against the total population of people in the exact same circumstances? I'll answer it since you probably don't know the concept: personal responsibility/free will. Oh, the priceless left argument. Crime is a result of cuts to social programs, blah, blah, blah. I guess it doesn't cross your mind that if you take 1,000 people in the same circumstance, maybe 1 out of the group will turn to a life of crime. If it truly was something to do with social programs, then a huge portion of that population would be criminals. But I guess science and statistics only matter in certain circumstances, right? Of course, it helps your argument to ignore the fact that crime had been steadily increasing for 30 years before 1991, during the largest increase in social spending in Canadian history. I mean, when Trudeau was sinking billions of dollars into new and lofty social programs and we can track crime rates rising steadily from 200 per 100,000 population in 1962 up to 1,100 per 100,000 in 1991, that doesn't mean anything. Right? I mean, it's a whole lot easier to suggest that a two year spike is a result of provincial social program cutbacks by Mike Harris that ended some three years earlier, rather than saying that a 30 year steady climb might be a result of social program spending during the Trudeau years, right? Right? I mean it's SO obvious, isn't it? Because, as long as you ignore the correlation between federal (read: large scale) social spending and crime when social spending was increasing dramatically and only look at a small increase in crime some 10 years after provincial (read: small scale) social spending was put on a slight diet, it is obvious. Right? (PS: this is me laughing)

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 09:58 AM (uyqvH)

40 Surecure Okay,here is your list. LEFT RIGHT family family work work ethics ethics justice justice democracy democracy Okay, you can see where this is going. Nowhere. The trick is discerning what each side means when they say they support these values. To someone on the left family is any group who live together giving one another mutual support and love. To someone on the right family is wife,father,children. Work to the left is any job which allows you to live in dignity and provide the basics for your family. Many jobs would not fulfill these basic needs. Work to the right is any job. Ethics permeates ones life. High standards of fairness, tolerance and justice dominate. It is seen as a bottom up movement that many times doesn't make it to the corridors of power except as lip service. Ethics to the right is basically the same but a little more situational. There is a hierarchical nature to ethics. It is seen as something the middle and upper classes have that the lower classes don't quite measure up to. Justice to the left is social(equal rights for all)and economic(every human has the right to the neccessities of life. Crime should be punished but the social causes should be found and dealt with. Justice to the right is jail for criminals. They don't normally think of justice beyond this narrow definition. Democracy both believe in representative government. The Left sees it presently as a skewed system. They want representation according to the percentage of vote your party recieves. In this way every vote actually counts. Taxes: both sides would agree that taxes should support all the basic services. The difference is in social programs. The left want a safety net that catches anyone who cannot provide the basic human needs for himself for whatever reason. The right are afraid of this approach. They don't trust man's basic nature to provide, work and care for the family. They think it will rob men of the freedom to choose between success and failure, lazyness and ambition. Oh yeah, your probably right about the cause of crime. It was likely just a bad run in the gene pool. See, simple. Maybe if we find a way of identifying these genetic patterns we can lock them up before they commit crime.

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 11:16 AM (sw5R/)

41 At least now I know what I'm dealing with, which is exactly what I expected. Though, with you listing every value as being both equal on left and right, at least we now know you were speaking out of a different orifice when you said the Conservatives were reaching over to "left" values. Carry on.

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 12:00 PM (uyqvH)

42 And also, "gene pool"? No. You see, that's a leftists perspective. It's genetics. They had no choice. I believe the right would simply say, they chose to break the law.

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 12:05 PM (uyqvH)

43 Steved, back to your story. If the ten unskilled workers had any business sense as the owner did, they too could build widgets. We are in a somewhat free society and no one is preventing them from doing so. Seems like initiative and elbow grease don't mix well with your socialist-communist views. Move to China, Korea or Cuba if you think we should live as a collective. Most communist regimes are corrupt and contrary to your belief have two classes. (Extremely rich and extremely poor). At least here, I can get and education, work and be rewarded for my effort.

Posted by: Denis at April 19, 2006 12:29 PM (hz8AR)

44 steve d, "The system is predatory, not healthy." As I recall from your previous posts - you make your living playing the stock market, no? Could that possibly mean that all your money is made on the back of workers? Perhaps some of those workers might be in China? Making less than a buck an hour? If this is correct, you are a hypocrite of the highest order and should refrain from commenting any further.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 19, 2006 01:08 PM (MkblT)

45 steve_d, just a couple of quick comments on your comparisons of Canadian left and right. I don't believe people on the Right so rigidly define the family as you have done. I also don't believe, or find it difficult to do so, that people on the Left define family as such an amorphous blob. Work for the Right, I think, is receiving a fair wage for employment. But the Right doesn't expect to receive 40k a year for bagging groceries. Not sure where your concept of Right ethics comes from but it sounds a bit 18th century. When it comes to justice the Left seems preoccupied with finding root causes to the detriment of protecting society. I think that the Right believes in protecting society first. When it comes to taxes I think the Right is just as concerned about those who can not provide the basic necessities. The difference is in degree, subsidized daycare for the middleclass being a case in point.

Posted by: potato at April 19, 2006 01:13 PM (zTXCu)

46 Steve d said it perfectly at 3:40pm and that goes in spades for the BC liberals of Gordon Campbell. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 19, 2006 01:59 PM (2GVBQ)

47 surecure I am glad I confirmed your suspicions. I wouldn't want to disappoint prejudgements. Look closely at the five points and tell me you don't see any support for social programs. They are they are there in amoebic forms,but they are there. I fully understand that it will take some time to fully mature in this direction. Oh, some choose to break the law? Now why exactly would that be?

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 02:20 PM (sw5R/)

48 Denis There are no Communist states. There never have been. I thought my ten workers showed initiative by finding a job. Maybe you are saying only certain types of initiative or people are worthy of a comfortable lifestyle?

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 02:27 PM (sw5R/)

49 "Oh, some choose to break the law? Now why exactly would that be?" I could probably have found out in Toronto on boxing day if those shooters didn't speed away in their BMW's. Damn cuts to social programs are forcing people to buy sports cars. How terrible!

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 02:30 PM (uyqvH)

50 It may just be me, but I always saw the left/right divide as less about sets of specific issues and more about solutions. In general, those on the right (of which I am a proud member) want to create a level playing field, regardless of the issue, and let people do with it as they will. One set of rules regardless of race, religon, sex, income, etc.. Except for extreme situations, no special laws created to give one group precedence over another. Those on the left, want everyone brought down to the same level to prevent hurt feelings. So, for example, if you happen to be 6 foot, and the average height is only 5'2" then you would have to stand in a 10" hole so as not to be 'above' anyone else. Steve's 10 worker example highlights this perfectly. Under his left leaning view of the world the boss was in the wrong because he managed to make more money than the workers. As Denis put forward, the 10 workers were all permitted to start their own company if they had the inclination, but chose not to. From the right's perspective as long as the rules were the same for everyone, the fact that only one of the 11 people involved managed to come out wealthy is not the fault or the responsibility of the government. Taking crime as a real world example, Liberals tend to be softer on crime because they want to deal more with the personal issues that led to the criminals decision. Conservatives essentially believe that if the crime is well defined, with a clear set of conditions necessary to be found guilty, if you do the crime, you do the time (hence the idea of mandetory minimums). While underlying conditions may be important for trend analysis and to develop education programs, they should have little or no affect on the individuals cases. Of course, that's just how I see things.

Posted by: Bic at April 19, 2006 02:30 PM (hkwnD)

51 Well said Bic.

Posted by: Surecure at April 19, 2006 02:34 PM (uyqvH)

52 Irwin Daisy Just because I choose not to starve doesn't mean I have to like with my work. My guess is most people don't find their employers particularly agreeable but they have to live too.

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 02:34 PM (sw5R/)

53 Bic You analysis of my ten worker story claims that he earned his money. That is not a true reading. It was clear that there is no company without workers. There is no income without workers. In truth the owner provided the platform and the workers made widgets. It was the widgets that made the money. So if anyone earned the money it was the workers. In our system the people that do the work get a small fraction of payment in comparison to the people that own the workplace.

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 02:44 PM (sw5R/)

54 TonyGuitar Thanks for the compliment. My sympathies go out to the people of B.C. The more I hear about Gordo the more I am reminded of Mike Harris. He was the worst I have ever seen or heard of in Canada. Unfortunately, Gordo looks like a Harris, walks like a Harris, talks like a Harris.

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 03:11 PM (sw5R/)

55 Here's a great article for ya'll. Sorry to burst your bubble, buy good ole Trudeau (the crowned champ of the Lieberals), was FAR from toting Conservative values. Consider joining the rally, if you're in the area. From the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy: WEEKLY COMMENTARY "Just Between Us" April 17, 2006 Trudeau is gone. The damage he did will live on forever -- unless we fix it. This past week our national iconographers have been busy trying to repair more damaging evidence about their patron saint, Pierre Trudeau. Sensible people, especially in Alberta, have known all along that poor, silly Pierre was a humbug. He was a head-case, not a hero. Now two friendly biographers, Max and Monique Nemni, tell us our champion of national unity started his political life plotting a violent revolution to establish Quebec as a right-wing dictatorship like those of Spain, Portugal and France. This was youthful misjudgment, we're assured -- quite out of character, and unrelated to his brilliant achievements as Canada's fifteenth prime minister. Nonsense. It fits with everything else we know about Pierre Trudeau. We learned decades ago that when our boys were over there getting blown to bits in Europe to stop Hitler, Trudeau was roaring around Montreal on a motorcycle wearing a German army helmet. What a rebel! say his legions of fans. What style! No, he was a spoiled rich kid in his early twenties who should have been fighting for his country. Now it turns out he was actively plotting violent sedition. Quebec spawned several large pro-Hitler, anti-Jewish fascist groups in the Depression. The worst (including Trudeau's, apparently) were suppressed when Canada declared war in 1939. Apologists like Marc Lalonde are now saying that Trudeau just got caught up in the intellectual temper of those times. Which is precisely the point. From his German helmet days to his childish "north-south dialogue" in 1983, Trudeau was always just getting caught up in things. In fact he changed ideas and philosophies like clothing styles. Consistency lay in his personality, not his beliefs. He was the perennial rebel, egotist and show-off, and always fascinated by totalitarian power. That's why he was a fascist when Canada joined the free world war against fascism. That's why when the West later began a long, fearful war of nerves and resolve against communist China and the Soviet Union, Trudeau was mysteriously slipping through the Iron Curtain to tour both those countries, and coming home to sing their praises. That's why, when two people were kidnapped in Quebec by a gang of fanatics well known to the police, Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, suspended civil liberties across the country, and threw 450 innocent political opponents into jail without warrant. That's why he so loved hobnobbing with Fidel Castro, Mao and others whose hands were stained crimson with innocent blood. He admired such monsters, and often said so. But worst was the damage he did to our constitution. He did more to centralize power in his own office than any leader before or since. He did more to entrench socialist assumptions like Equalization. He did more to weaken our elected institutions, weaken traditional rights and freedoms, and Americanize our legal system. And all of this damage is permanent unless we undo it. That's why the Citizens Centre is organizing a major grassroots assembly in Calgary this September 29 to October 1. It's to identify and proclaim the basic principles Canada needs to get back on track constitutionally. Now that Stephen Harper is prime minister he is going to reopen the matter of constitutional reform. He has said so, and he means it. It's essential that for once we be a jump ahead, knowing what we want and not merely what we don't like. Consider attending this assembly. For details, check out www.CalgaryCongress.ca - Link Byfield Link Byfield is chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, and an Alberta senator-elect. "Just Between Us" is a feature service of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy. The purpose of the Citizens Centre is to enhance freedom and democracy by enabling ordinary citizens to become active and effective on important issues outside the normal processes of party politics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Citizens Centre is funded entirely by freewill contributions. Your support is needed and appreciated! Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy Suite 203, 10441 - 178 Street Edmonton, AB T5S 1R5 Phone: 780-481-7844 Toll Free: 1-866-666-6768 Fax: 780-481-9983 contact@ccfd.ca www.ccfd.ca www.anticorruption.ca

Posted by: Concerned Conservative at April 19, 2006 03:13 PM (FWPCU)

56 And if there were no widgets there would be no company, and hence, no jobs. Did the workers get fair compensation for the work they provided? Clearly it's a tradeoff. The workers shouldn't be exploited but there needs to be a system which encourages people to invest their time, money and ideas into creating and developing new and better widgets. They don't just appear out of thin air.

Posted by: potato at April 19, 2006 03:18 PM (zTXCu)

57 Steve, I'm not really looking to debate your example as much as explain the right/left views of your case. You do a perfect job putting forward the left leaning view; the workers did the job so they deserve the money. I, and Denis before me, was trying to put forward the right leaning view; all 11 people involved had equal oppourtunity, under the law, and the fact that only 1 managed to make that work to his advantage is not an issue the government should get involved with. The 10 workers were under no obligation to continue working for this boss. They could either: A)start their own widget factory based on their expertise in the field, B)apply pressure to receive a higher portion of the profits or C)find another job. As long as 'the boss' was not creating a unsafe or hostile work environment, as defined by the law, then the onus is on the individual worker to improve their position. If they are incapable of running their own plant than obviously the boss provides a necessary service and can demand compensation; in this case a higher salary. If their positions are such, that they can not hold out or they would be easily replaced, then I'm sorry, but the law of supply and demand pretty much dictates that the boss can pay them whatever minimal level he chooses (once again contingent on Canadian law). If they are currently incapable of finding other employment, then it is up to them to find a means to remedy that situation (education, relocation, etc..). Under the right leaning view, the government is not meant to be a baby sitter for it's people, but rather a mechanism to ensure a level field. It may create some laws to prevent outright abuse (minimum wage, workplace safty acts, etc..) but should not be dictating all the terms of the day to day operations of every widget factory in Canada. Essentially, it's a live and let live type of mentality and until the boss does something to alter the playing field (abuses monopolistic powers to prevent the workers from opening their own widget factory for example) they should stay out of it. In simple terms, it's the idea of the nanny state vs. the idea of individual accountability. Now not all cases will fall 100% to one side or the other (see my examples of government interference above), but conservatives tend to side more with individual choice idea while liberals believe it is the governments job to right every possible wrong (either real or imagined).

Posted by: Bic at April 19, 2006 03:26 PM (hkwnD)

58 Bic You are correct about it being about accountability. After ten men giving loyal service to a task the owner,made rich by the ten, feels no sense of accountability to them for their long and loyal attention to duty. Looks good on the owner doesn't it? Looks good on Capitalism too? Looks good on Conservatism as well? Its about cold hard users of people like pieces of meat. No emotion. No loyalty in return. Its all about greed. The social darwinism survival of the fittest. That is why there have been and continue to be new laws written until they number in the thousands.When there is no sense of right or wrong, morality or justice, laws are the last resort. That is why ultimately it has to collapse.

Posted by: steve d. at April 19, 2006 07:42 PM (sw5R/)

59 Steve, But it's also a question of accountability. Should a boss, or government, bare the sole responsibility for a persons well being? When does the person take part of the responsability for their own choices? As I've already said, one of the governments roles is to protect the well being of it's people, but it is NOT to ensure that no matter what choice they make, everything will work out for them in the end. If you know you are in a dead end job it is no ones responsibility but your own to change that. Companies exist to make money and while it's good for them to also have a heart, it is not a requirement and can not be mandated upon them. Please tell me, at what point in your example are the workers being forced to continue working making widgets? The process you describe is essentially communism, and despite your claim that a capitalist system has to collapse, if you look around the world I believe you will find that in fact it is the communist/socialist nations, in general, that collapse under the weight of the myriad of regulations that you would have us impose. Just look at France, with it 20%+ unemployment amoungst people under 30 because of it's socialistic regulations and the restrictions it puts on companies. Just think it through. Under you system of communal wealth there is no incentive for anyone to go the extra mile and risk themselves to open a widget factory in the first place. The boss man is much more likely to stay at his nice safe job making whatchamacallits instead. No new factory, no new jobs for those 10 additional workers so now the workers at the whatchamacallit factory have to reduce their hours and wages to absord the 10 unemployed workers into their midst. Historically, the only real innovation in this type of system comes from outside pressures. The USSR had the US to force them to innovate, who would your system have? Now, this works fine if all you want is an agricultural society. Quakers live under that type of communal system an do quite fine for themselves, but if you are looking for anything approaching what we have today, then you MUST allow for the oppourtunity for people to raise themselves up. People should be free to aspire to greatness, not be pulled down into mediocrity, and THAT, in a nut shell, is the difference between the Conservative and Liberal views of governement.

Posted by: Bic at April 19, 2006 09:21 PM (vg22c)

60 Under you system of communal wealth there is no incentive for anyone to go the extra mile and risk themselves to open a widget factory in the first place. The boss man is much more likely to stay at his nice safe job making whatchamacallits instead. No new factory, no new jobs for those 10 additional workers You've got it right Bic. That man is rich because he took the risk and had the ability to run a successful business. Which is not an easy thing to do. He gets rewarded for taking that risk, and rightly so. Without that incentive you get no creation, no growth. Only stagnation. Hence the collapse of every communist state ever created. 1945-1990 Germany is a great example of this concept. West and East Germany were equally bad off in 1945. They had roughly equal levels of education, industrialization, damage, etc. It was as close to the kind of controlled environment a scientist tries to create as you are ever going to get in the real world. One became capitalist, the other communist. By 1990 the the difference was staggering. And still people believe in such a discredited ideology. It baffles the mind that they cannot see, or that they are wilfully blind to the blatantly obvious. I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -- Voltaire

Posted by: Regis at April 19, 2006 11:06 PM (ZrYg/)

61 Regis, A perfect example. Wish I had thought of it. =)

Posted by: Bic at April 19, 2006 11:16 PM (vg22c)

62 All in all, it seems we have gotten back to the point we were at with Steve D.'s "McJobs" comment two threads ago. It blows me away that people actually think that every job should carry the same benefits. No wonder most socialist countries where this thought process is the norm have either failed economically or have peaked in their economic and social progress and have no means to move forward. To move forward, one has to have a goal. If workers all receive the same benefits in every job, there is no goal needed and thus there is no forward momentum. Doesn't sound like rocket science to me. And it doesn't take an idiot to look around and see that not everybody applies themselves or tries to do anything more than just get by. I have a friend who has been stuck in the same rut for two years and have been trying to help her in every way... motivating her, discussing options, giving her clues on how to move her life forward. And even though she has ever means to do so, and thinks the ideas are great, she does nothing. Why? Because she'c comfortable. She's not making a great deal of money in any sense, but she makes enough to get everything she needs (an apartment, a TV, email on her cell phone, goes out drinking a couple of nights a week, flies somewhere every year). I can only imagine what kind of motivation she would have if the status of her job was that of her boss and she knew she could wield the same benefits. But I guess that one has to be at least somewhat realistic in their perception of others and not have a bleeding heart for everybody to realize that not everyone is going to try and do more than where they are at. Steve D says: "Work to the left is any job which allows you to live in dignity and provide the basics for your family. Many jobs would not fulfill these basic needs. Work to the right is any job. " This is the hypocrisy of the left. Dignity? Provide the basics for your family? I haven't seen that many jobs that don't provide that when one applies oneself, and I have worked many of those jobs Steve D here would probably describe as being a part of those. I picked fruit for a summer and saw people who made a good deal of money at that. I worked at a fast food place for years and did not see a single person I worked with who were undignified or couldn't provide the basics for their family. I have to wonder exactly what Steve D. considers a job that is not dignified or cannot provide for a family. And I wonder if Steve D has ever worked at such a job and knows what he is talking about. I highly doubt it. It's a lot easier to say you understand something from a distance than to actually put yourself in that situation and get to know its reality. But those on the right (and people such as myself) don't feel that work is ANY job. I (as I imagine generally those on the right) believe that work is any job that gives you a foot hold to move up to the next level if one applies themself. And therein lies the torpedo that destroyed Steve D's argument the last time. I mentioned it and he knows it to be true: most people don't move beyond these jobs because they never even try. They don't put out resumes, they don't upgrade their skills and they get comfortable. That is not undignified. That is unmotivated. And without motivation, NOTHING in this world improves. And as I said, most jobs do provide enough to supply for one's family, and when they don't we have social assistance to help get them higher. But to believe we can enforce some kind of rule of law where every job provides a certain basic status is ridiculous. There would be no way of enforcing it to begin with, especially with the thousands of people who work pyramid schemes or jot down every flyer they see on the corner lamp post saying, "Work From Home and Make $10,000 a month!" There are people out there who have no ambition except to make a quick buck. They are no different in motivation than people who would describe sleep or "partying" as a favourite thing to do. But one has to be realistic in looking at people to see it. I don't see realism in Steve D's perception. How could I? His "McJobs", crime from social cutbacks and his ridiculous notion that Harper reached to the left for his platform (HA!) only show how out of touch he is with reality.

Posted by: Surecure at April 20, 2006 07:32 AM (5xF7M)

63 Bic I don't mind if someone gets rich off the work of others as long as the 'others' are not treated,as they are most often, like cost items on a balance sheet. They have a right to more than a simple wage. Automatic real profit sharing and/or stock would "add to the incentive" if that is one of your dire concerns. Supposedly, if you create 'incentive' people will be more involved and encouraged. Well, if capitalism is about lifting people up how come every company doesn't do this,except for the chosen few at the top. In fact, the way the system works now the more you screw the guy at the bottom the more the guy at the top earns. Yes, a great system! These countries that are always brought up, like France and Germany as being examples of the horror of the socialistic influence are old mature economies. America had the good fortune to be able to start a begin growing a country at the precise moment that the industrial revolution was exploding in Europe. They didn't have to change their old ways and adapt. They could start from scratch,in an environment that could support every need,unencumbered by the drag of tradition and history. When looked at fairly, Europe is doing quite well. They don't work themselves to death like Americans. Their life is more humane and balanced. They don't have the wide gaps in social equality that America has. Finally, if you reject the above analysis then you would have to explain how a communist/socialist China is kicking the hell out of pristine capitalist America in economic growth. Socialism is the modern 'bogey man' for those who want to be free to exploit the environment and people. The same arguments were used when the idea of abolishing slavery was first bandied about. Abolishing the old slavery didn't kill the capitalist. Abolishing the new slavery, the working poor, won't either.

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 09:27 AM (sw5R/)

64 Regis There never has been a communist state created so we don't know if it works or not. The USSR was and is an oligrachy. An oligarchy is not much different from a monarchy. This collection of countries was controlled from Moscow by and for the oligarchy. The industrial revolution that swept Europe in the 19th century missed Eastern Europe and Russia because these countries were still tightly controlled by monarchies who were by their nature conservative and suspicious of change. You have to understand that the Industrial Revolution caused a lot of social upheaval. When the "revolution' finally hit Russia it was coopted by a few enterprising and ambitious fellows who controlled everything to their satisfaction which was to stifle the change and keep the masses as peasants on farms where they are easier to control. As usual in Russian history the country was embroiled in intrigue instead of investment. There does need to be a balence between public and private power. A concentration of power in the hands of a few is always unhealthy. That is why Europe and Canada are trying to come to a healthy balance. Call it democratic capitalist socialism. Under this kind of set up you don't have exploitation which the pure form of capitalism is drawn to. Cleaning the environment after you have polluted it lowers profits. Paying a living wage when supply and demand of employees is great, is unnecessary expenditure, a poverty wage will do. Government needs to be the conscience of unbridled Capitalism. Capitalism by its very nature, is exploitative. Just look at the black slaves of the American south or the employment of young children in the coal mines of England or the Tax Free Zones in Southeast Asia today where young women are locked in fenced in work zones and paid subsistance wages. Oh yes, all workers are free just like you are. That is why you have freely chosen, not to be a billionaire, or even a multi millionaire. This choice argument is patently false. In order to have choice you have to believe you have choice. Most people don't really believe it. You could say you chose not to be a billionaire but what you are really saying is that you don't really believe its possible, except in a sort of win the lottery kind of way. So you are as trapped as those ten men, just at another level.

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 10:16 AM (sw5R/)

65 Surecure I never said every job should pay the same. I just think it should be against the law to hire anyone unless you can pay him a living wage. If you can't pay a living wage then don't pretend you have a job to offer. What you would be offering is slavery. It was moving a couple of weeks ago to see Oprah do a show on the working poor. How people work full time and have to live in hostels because on seven dollars an hour for some reason they have difficulty making ends meet. After months or years some of them move up to jobs making ten dollars and they find that much better. They can live in one room apartments instead of hostels. Apparently there are 30 million adults working full time who are making less than the poverty level. Why is it that I am looked upon as an odd curiosity when I think it is immoral to pay people less than it costs to live??? I find that very strange. Even slaves don't have to worry about whether they can afford to eat or afford shelter but the working poor do. I am assuming you don't agree with slavery. Maybe I am wrong to assume this. True pure capitalists take the opportunity to have slaves do the work any time they can. They have gotten around the outlawing of slavery very nicely with paying free people almost the same amount it would cost them to keep slaves. Living on slave wages causes you to lose hope. You don't get comfortable being poor you get discouraged. You are not rich, not because you don't want to be but because you don't really believe you can be. You have to really believe in yourself to move up. You have to believe that when you write your resume that people won't just laugh and throw it in the garbage. The best predictor of how well you will do is how well your parents did. So if you were lucky enough to be born in a middle or upper class family then you are quite likely to do just fine. If you weren't then how do you get the confidence? How do you get the education? How do you believe you out of all the people around you will be different? We can't wait for everyone to have the "mindset of success" that is just an excuse to justify paying below cost of living wages.

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 10:56 AM (sw5R/)

66 You seem to be refusing to 'get it' Steve. Under a free market system the ability to create this Nirvana like company you seem to crave is there. No one is saying you can't create your own company with profit sharing, incentive programs, whatever. Our issue is that it is not the governments responsibilty to enforce those action on anyone. Many companies already do many of the things you want, of their own free will, which is as it should be. They may do it for purely altruistic reasons or simply because it makes business sense (better employee moral, less turn over, etc..) but it is there choice as it is their employees choice whether or not to work for them. I'm sorry to say this but we are dealing with the reality here, not the hypothetical. Trying to explain how total failures of real world examples of the policies you put forward are due to some event 300 years ago really doesn't help your case. If the systems worked then they should be able to compensate by now don't you think. And have you missed the news lately? France is in utter chaos because of the huge disparities between various groups of people. Today it's young vs. old, a few weeks ago it was immigrants vs. citizens. And China?!? You really should try and find a better example to make your case. Do you know why China has seen such an economic boom as of late? Because the central government has begun relaxing their stranglehold on the economy and allowing for much more freedom for business. They are moving away from a communist/socialist model and more towards capitalism and their economy has begun to reap the benefits. It was only after they allowed more freedom for private companies to come in and open shop that their economy began to blossom. If anything, the communist/socialist tendencies of the government held back this move for decades longer than needed. With all their natural resources, including people, China should have been well ahead of where they are now had they adopted capitalism earlier. Socialism/Communism is a fine philosophy, but on the global scale, that is all it will ever truly be. It works fine on paper, but as soon as you introduce people, with their wide range of emotions and ideologies, then it fails completely. Whenever it gets put into any real world use anywhere larger than a few hundred people, it has a tendency to collapse in upon itself. The only way to make it work for any length of time is to remove all aspects of the individuals life that make them an individual. Only where every person shares an identical opinion on every subject can your dream world or company exist. It may work well on Star Trek or in poli-sci class, but when the rubber meets the road, it fails pretty much every time.

Posted by: Bic at April 20, 2006 11:08 AM (hkwnD)

67 steve d, So you admit that you profit off the labour of others, some of which may be paid below poverty levels (China for example)? I believe that Capitalism has some work to do in terms of respect and decency towards people. Even if it simply begins with changing some of the dehumanizing/degrading terms used. 'Human Resources' has always irritated me.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 20, 2006 11:46 AM (MkblT)

68 " I am assuming you don't agree with slavery. Maybe I am wrong to assume this." You just lost your argument pal.

Posted by: Surecure at April 20, 2006 01:04 PM (5xF7M)

69 Irwin Daisy You are correct on all counts. It would be nice to see these Capitalist types actually do some of this moral growth on their own instead of continually waiting until instructed by law to do so. They need to start taking the initiative! Why is it that the little guys always have to prod the big guys into doing the right thing?

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 01:14 PM (sw5R/)

70 Bic Speaking of failure a lot of South American countries are turning to socialism because under Capitalism they didn't get enough "trickle down". So you see China's success as adoption of Capitalism? I think in reality it is the marriage of capitalism to socialism that is the secret. Maybe if the USA had socialism it could attain the growth rate of China instead of being stuck at sub 5% growth rates. Socialism is required because Capitalism by its very nature is a USER philosophy. It uses resources and people without regard to morality or standards except the profit motive. If it is controlled,forced to treat people humanely, forced to clean up after themselves environmentally and kept on a short leash through laws, it is useful.

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 01:39 PM (sw5R/)

71 Surecure Well, you are a big defender of wages below the poverty level. We both know that those wages only allow for the most meagre existence. We also know that the distance between the working poor and slavery is semantic. So can you blame me for thinking you may feel slavery has its place?

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 01:44 PM (sw5R/)

72 Oh yeah... because suggesting I might appreciate slavery is really going to win you points. The difference between you and I is really simple. You think that the problem can be fixed by overhauling the entire system around the few. I think that the problem can be fixed by helping those few people through welfare and education to get on their feet themselves to the point where they can be self-sustaining and don't need any help. It's the difference between a parent who will never let their child take the training wheels off the bike and a parent who will help a child get to a point where the risk will be taken to take the training wheels off. Sure, the kid will crash a few times. But more often they succeed in the end. You see, in my viewpoint, when you brainwash people into thinking that the only way they can succeed is by a guaranteed minimum standard... THAT is slavery. I guess in that same viewpoint, I could suggest that you are a defender of slavery. But I'm not pathetic. What I defend is giving social assistance to people who need to get on their feet. If I didn't care and wanted people to have no way out, then I would be advocating getting rid of welfare. I do not. Welfare was created out of the same mindset that you have presently. The only difference is, you have taken it to the next level whereby you are advocating the viewpoint that the only way for people to live in dignity (gotta love that nothing term) is to be guaranteed a minimum standard of living. The biggest problem of your "solution" is that it ignores spending habits. And you cannot guarantee a minimum standard of living if you ignore spending habits. Most problems come down to that one factor. It's the same problem that even people who don't live in shelters have to overcome. But, you can't fix a spending problem in individuals by torpedoing the ability of lower income businesses to pay lower wages. It's a solution that runs parallel to throwing the baby out with the bath water. If the empoverished can't live in comfort, than nobody else trying to start their own business should either. The reason I don't support your position is because I 100% do not defend creating an environment that destroys small business by forcing set payment levels across the board. The left likes to complain about how most of the businesses 100 years ago were mom and pop run and how most of them now are big business. Then the same people will complain that you can't force all businesses to pay a certain amount for people they employ. Guess what? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Without a state run economy, your solution will have a dual effect: it will ensure that the poor will have a minimum level, and it will ensure that small businesses will slowly die off leaving only the big corporations behind. Happy now? But go ahead... call me a slave driver if it makes you happy. I come from the long line of people who think its better to teach a person how to fish than to just keep giving them fish. I guess that makes me a bad person. Oh well. That really hurts coming from you.

Posted by: Surecure at April 20, 2006 03:06 PM (5xF7M)

73 Just to put the US and Chinese economies into a simple anaology. Imagine two cars, a Ferrari and a Firefly, traveling down the highway (assume no speed limit so you won't feel bad breaking the law). The firefly (China) is traveling at 20 MPH while the Ferrari (the US) is travelling at 190 MPH. Now the drivers of each car presses down on the accelerators at the same time and they both start speeding up. At 1 second intervals you get the new speeds of: Firefly: 22, 25, 27, 31, 35, and 40 Ferrari: 192, 194, 196, 197, 198 and 199 The firefly, in just 6 seconds has increased it's speed 100%. The Ferrari on the other hand, in the same time period has only increased by 4.7% Now, which car would you rather have? And for the record, I agree that we require some degreee of social conscience to prevent capitalism from degenerating back to it basest forms (i.e. the days if the robber barons in the US), but I disagree as to the amount of interference any government should put on the capitalist system. Once protections are put in place for a minimum standard (as mentioned way, way back, minimum wage laws, workplace safty acts, etc..), with some system in place of legal protections for reporting abuses (whistleblower laws) then I believe the government should basically stand back and let people live their own lives. If you can't support your family of 5 on your McDonalds job than I'm sorry, but that's not mine or the governments fault. You should have either thought about that before having 3 kids or you should find yourself a better job either within McD's or elsewhere.

Posted by: Bic at April 20, 2006 03:10 PM (hkwnD)

74 Bic In your car anaology the Ferrari appears to be running out of gas while the Firefly is barely 10% empty. In the race between the Hare and the Turtle you know who wins. I heard an economist say that if China continues to grow at about this same rate for 30 more years they will surpass the US in GNP. What took the US 200 years to accomplish China will do in 50. The amount of government interence in business is directly proportional to the number of times they will transgress into immoral averous. In other words government won't go there if they behave. But we both know they won't. Greed is a disease that is built in to capitalism. The average family is averaging less than three. People can't afford to replace the population anymore. If we didn't have immigration our population would be shrinking. We are already contracting seasonal(cheap,never slave, labour)from Jamaica and Mexico. If McDonald's can't pay full time wages above the poverty level. I believe in Toronto that would be something just over $25,000 a year for a small family, then they should not be in business. As it is now, for 40h weeks in Ontario they only are required to pay $286.00 a week or $14,872.00 (before deductions like EI,CPP, etc)a year! With the average small apartment at $1,000 a month, that leaves less than $2,800. for food, clothing and public transit. Welcome to the working poor,AKA slavery(the modern kind,the kind we can shrug off). If you can't pay at or above poverty level go out of business but don't call yourself a business because that would be an insult to those who actually pay above the poverty level and you should never be included in that group.

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 03:47 PM (sw5R/)

75 But Bic... you can't expect people to change their own lives? Why should a person working a low paying job be forced to make choices in their own lives by looking around for another job or improving their job skills? Oh... sorry... I was channelling Steve D. for second.

Posted by: Surecure at April 20, 2006 03:48 PM (5xF7M)

76 Surecure and Bic Its easy to say, "Make a choice" but words are cheap and actions are far more difficult. If choosing was really an option far more people would move up to the social class above them. The truth is, the reality is, only about 15% of people actually move up to the next social class. So instead of 'pretending' that people are choosing to be in poverty because they like it, we should insisting on employers actually paying a living wage.

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 04:02 PM (sw5R/)

77 It uses resources and people without regard to morality or standards except the profit motive. I dispute that. But most of all I'm curious. What is the moral standard of Socialism? Maybe if the USA had socialism it could attain the growth rate of China instead of being stuck at sub 5% growth rates. Like Sweden? Oops, nevermind. Their economy isn't growing above 5% either. How about France? They've got a nice semi-socialist model. Err...no thanks. 2% growth and 20% unemployment is not for me. As for China's economic growth: I'd rather have 3% of 12 Trillion (US GDP) than 10% of 1 Trillion (Chinese GDP). Wouldn't you? There never has been a communist state created so we don't know if it works or not. You keep saying this and you'll keep saying it until you are blue in the face. Want to know something? There has never been a true (pure)capitalist country either. You don't see me defending capitalism that way, though. That's because Capitalism works. I don't have to make silly excuses about how it could work if things were done differently, or if dictators didn't take over, or if people were more "moral". Capitalism works NOW. And it works in direct proportion to how close to the ideal it is. In that way capitalism and socialism are like food and poison. You can mix them all you want, if you don't put too much poison, but don't expect to stay healthy over the long term if you keep doing it. This applies to every country, including so-called "capitalist" ones which merely have less of the poison called socialism infecting their economies.

Posted by: Regis at April 20, 2006 04:24 PM (ZrYg/)

78 Steve, Here's a concept for you, you may want to sit down because it might be hard to handle. If you can't afford to rent an apartment in Toronto they maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't live in Toronto. No one is forcing you to live in one of the most expensive locals in Canada, and it's not the governments job to allow you to live there in comfort. If you can't afford to live where you are to a level of comfort that you expect then it is up to you to remedy the situation. Change professions, move to a cheaper area, whatever, I don't really care, but try something. If after trying all that you still can't make ends meet, then that is what the various social assistance programs are for. But, and this is a big but, if you have to go on social assistance for a while to get your life in order, then make the most of it. Get the free training or education, restructure your debt load, cut back on 'necessities' like cable TV, high speed internet, cigarettes, beer, etc and save some money. I lived next to an social assistance high rise for 7 years (and still work across the street from it) and I can tell you from personal experience, the day the cheques come out, the liquer store is packed, and in a day or two you'll see an awful lot of fresh new Tommy Hilfiger clothing walking down the street. And I challenge anyone to find a building with more satellite antennas per capita than that one. On the other hand, our office janitor, Sam (the nicest guy you'll ever meet), also lived there and through his hard effort and sacrifice he was able to put his son through college. He used the system, as it was meant to be used, and was able to give his children a better life, but he was by far the exception. In general, the building is filled with people that think in much the same way as you do, and live off the government dole because they have a believe that it is owed to them. This is a bit of a sore subject with me because coming from Newfoundland, I have seen what this entitlement mentality has managed to do. Many times, and I have aunts, uncles and cousins that do this regularly, you have 2 or 3 people working one full time job because they have it ingrained in their head that they are entitled to live and work in the field of their choosing. In some cases, it's hard to fault them; what else is a 60 year old fisherman going to do when the stocks are depleted. But, when that same fisherman's son or daughter has to make the choice as to what they are going to do, it does no one any good when the government creates a system that makes it more enticing to stay at home and join in the family business then find some new line of work and possibly have to move away. Sometimes life is about making those tough decisions. To succeed in a capitalistic society you have to plan ahead and think things through. "Do I enter the food service industry or try and go to college or trade school and get a better job" Socialism is about creating a false sense of well being by off loading those tough decisions to the all powerful government. But that only delays the inevitable, as at some point the imbalance becomes too much for the system to handle and it all implodes. That's what we are seeing happen in France right now as they have discovered that the socialist policies of the past have caused their economy to stagnate. As a result unemployment rises and soon the economy as a whole collapses under the weight of the social assistance network. They can then make one of three choices, move towards a more open market and try to allow the system to balance itself, create even more government bureaucracy and move towards a more repressive regime or allow the current system to continue unabated until the disenfranchised respond with open revolt. Wow, sorry for the long post but I just drank a nice iced caramel latte and I guess the sugar gave me a little bit more of an energy surge than I expected.

Posted by: Bic at April 20, 2006 05:31 PM (hkwnD)

79 Slavery is when you do some work and you are paid nothing because someone else keeps or takes the money. In that sense, socialists are all slaveowners.

Posted by: lrC at April 20, 2006 07:15 PM (XDL9B)

80 I think steve d owes a huge debt of thanks to our host, Steve Janke, the ever-original Angry in the Great White North. Seriously. If steve d had his own blog and spent his time writing his warped socio-economic theories and posting them up, he might get one or two hits per month because no-one in their right mind would willingly go there to read his drivel. Even Marxist-Leninists wouldn't link to him. Instead, steve d comes here to a conservative blog and pours out his hatred for capitalists, his disdain for conservatives, his yearn for "real" communism- and he gets "traffic" like none other. Yet we conservatives believe all mankind, even such as steve d, can improve their lot in life, so we plead and cajole him, go to great lengths to attempt to convince him all to no avail. There's an old saying about leading a horse to water but let me slightly modify that allegory- You can lead a horse to water but make sure you're addressing the right end of the horse if you want it to drink as the "wrong" end cannot drink. I could take this allegory further (ie: what the wrong end is full of) but I'm sure you get the idea.

Posted by: Mac at April 20, 2006 09:13 PM (TaDbz)

81 LOL Mac. Indeed. Our host has been quite gracious to let our discussion ramble on.

Posted by: Regis at April 20, 2006 09:30 PM (ZrYg/)

82 Mac You are correct in your observing STEVE JANKE'S generosity. Thanks STEVE for allowing what to you must often times be hard stuff to read. I hope you see that I am sincere in my views and come to this blog to have them challenged. I hope in turn to have you think about things which under normal circumstances you would not. Thanks also to everyone who takes up my challenges. I do sometimes get carried away and I often don't give as complete an answer as I would like but I think I am getting better at this kind of stimulating(for me at least) discussion. I would like to respond to Regis and Bic but I have to get up early. Until tomorrow gentlemen.

Posted by: steve d. at April 20, 2006 10:47 PM (sw5R/)

83 Where did you get that 15% number from Steve D?

Posted by: Surecure at April 21, 2006 12:25 AM (5xF7M)

84 I'll have to 4th that Mac. This is one of the most civil of discussions I have seen when two such opposing views meet in the blogosphere, and its much appreciated. While everyone has a tendency to react from the gut when dealing with such personal beliefs, it's nice to see that we can have a dialog without resorting to the 'Yo Momma' level.

Posted by: Bic at April 21, 2006 08:19 AM (/nyc7)

85 Regis The moral standard for socialism is production is geared more to human need. It assumes that peoples primary needs and concerns be met first. Production has more meaning for those workers than under the present system which cuts off the worker from any sense that what he does has meaning except for the paycheck at the end. This alienation from the meaning of work is why so many products are junk. A worker makes a widget and he is paid a flat wage. He has no control over how many widgets, why widgets?, why this price? These and other basic questions are literally none of his business. The boss tells him to make 20 widgets a day every day for a certain set wage. A socialist workplace would be more participatory and democratic. Democratic socialism would see the taking of critical businesses out of private hands. Most services are publicly owned already but I think the energy sector is too important to be in private hands. I would envision Alberta oil as an important Canadian resource as opposed to an important Alberta and Canadian source of income. I envision Alberta oil as being used if not exclusively by Canadians at least primarily by Canadians. On a cost plus a small profit. In Venezuala apparently the people pay 5 cents a litre. I heard an oil analyst say they take it out of the ground in Alberta for $1.15 a barrel. Other than the energy sector perhaps food should be looked upon as a critical issue. We are importing increasing amounts to the detriment of the local farmer. This is short sighted. Though good Capitalism. At some point the illegals are going to unionize. You can't exploit people forever. They always wake up sooner or later. As Jay Leno joked, "The good news is, they are banning illegal aliens. The bad news is, lettuce is now $3.00." Food self sufficiency, as much as possible, would be a goal I would like to see. The free market could take care of the luxury or non-essential consumer goods. If companies are seen as 'persons" and have the same rights then they should pay the same taxes. No more corporate welfare,no write-offs, write-downs, deferments, etc. In other words, they would run efficiently or go out of business. If the people were fed, housed, educated, with access to health care and had productive work to do you wouldn't have to be concerned with most of the economics that concern most. The only questions that have real meaning for people are are they productively engaged and are they able to meet their basic needs. If we are taking care of one another through our government and community then that is the goal. Capitalism can handle the good time stuff, the treats, the extras, the toys. The reason for the existence of socialism is that Capitalism has failed to lift everyone. Too many are either falling lower or treading water economically. Capitalism has no answer for this. It never has and it never will because the care and maintenance of human beings is only a byproduct of the profit motive, not the goal.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 01:52 PM (sw5R/)

86 Bic The worker has to go where the work is. The work is generally found where all the people are, in the cities. Where the people are is where you will find the most competition for everything including housing. The fisherman are in a real bind. I am willing to bet that these families have been fishermen for hundreds of years. The ocean is their life, their life is the ocean. It is in their genes. How do you change that. What you don't do is simply write them a cheque and forget-about-it. The cheque may solve their body needs but not their soul needs. The cheque keeps them alive and housed, but for what? To what end? Socialisms raison d'etre is to meet the needs of the whole person body and soul. It recognizes that through productive work men gain self worth, personal satisfaction and provider feelings. All these emotional needs are just as important as the physical. The people writing the cheques should be actively working with the fishermen on a plan figuring out where to go from here. They keep working until they have a plan and then the cheque writer helps them gets started on their way. To see what I mean you should google "Argentine factories". What you will find is an exciting example of socialism in action. Six years ago Capitalism failed the people of Argentina. Awash in debt the factories closed. Most of the owners left the country with whatever was left of the liquid assets. The workers began taking over the factories. They run them usually with everyone making the same wage, but not always. They all have a say in how the workplace runs. Each factory is run by the workers in that factory so each workplace is unique. It is amazing to read about it. If the government leaves them alone I am sure this movement will continue to grow. You can imagine the pressure that Capitalist types will place on the government to find a way to close it down. It is after all a threat to all private enterprise.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 02:43 PM (sw5R/)

87 Surecure The 15% is a number I got from University. I took a course on Inequality(surprise). Movement up to the next social class is not as great as you might at first assume. But I looked around at the people I grew up with and of all the guys and girls in our group of friends only a few of us ever went to university. In fact, I have at least one vivid memory of leaving High School with a friend and asking him what was next, was he going to go on. He said,"Naw,this is enough, don't need anymore". That is just the way the working class is brought up. That is the norm. Just as the norm for middle class is university. Guess what, only about 15% of university grads go on to post-graduate studies.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 02:51 PM (sw5R/)

88 The moral standard for socialism is human need? Ok, lets examine this "standard". I'll do so by taking the principle to its extreme, which is the best way to see the ultimate results of a principle. Lets say I am on a deserted island with two other people. We are all starving. If I let them kill me and eat me they will live long enough to be rescued. If I don't let them kill me I will live but they certainly won't. The moral choice then, by the socialist standard, reducing need, would be to kill myself and let the other two people live because their need to eat (to live) outweighs mine 2 to 1. Is this what you mean when you say the moral standard of Socialism is need? Simple utilitarianist ethics? [Capitalism] never has and it never will [lift everyone] because the care and maintenance of human beings is only a byproduct of the profit motive, not the goal. Byproduct?!! I don't know about you, but I work to live. The profit I make is how I continue to live. I don't live to work. I work to live. Money is not the goal. Money is just a means to the end I desire. I want to live a long happy, comfortable, fulfilling life. Doing work other people value puts me closer to that goal.

Posted by: Regis at April 21, 2006 03:22 PM (ZrYg/)

89 Steve, You may not have noticed but you are in effect agreeing with my original point. It is not the governments job to take care of every need of it's people, just create a system in which people should be free, within reason, to do what they want. Each of these recovered factories were brought to life by individuals working together who decided that they should take responsibility for their own lives, without government interference. The fact that each factory runs internally on a socialist type mentality if fine. I've already said that socialism tends to work best on small scales. In this case like minded people get together to run different companies. The circumstances differ from case to case, and as such, it is the people directly involved who are best suited to make the necessary decisions as to how to run the day to day operations. If the government were to get directly involved then it would move from balance within each particular factory, as it is now, to balance between different factories and it is at that point that things turn bad under the socialist system. And again, I've already stated that capitalism in it's purest form is not a good idea but I still contest that on the sliding scale between capitalism and socialism it's is better for everyone involved to be closer to the capitalist side. People can debate exactly where the line goes, 80/20, 90/10, 70/30, etc.., but I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone on here, with the exception of yourself perhaps, who would want to see it at 20/80, 10/90 or 30/70. (capitalism/socialism)

Posted by: Bic at April 21, 2006 03:42 PM (hkwnD)

90 A tip of the hat to Poul Anderson and his novel "Mirkheim" and my apologies for paraphrasing... Entrepreneurs offer their goods and services but force them on no-one. It is never capitalists who start wars since there is you can't sell something to a person who is dead. Socialists, however, force their agenda on everyone. How does it start? Slogans substitute for thinking, beginning with the intellectuals but soon percolating down to the ordinary working man. Politicians pretend to be magicians by passing laws, jacking up taxes and conjuring money out of think air to guarantee everyone a soft ride through life based on the false premise of protecting the weak. Soon favoured businesses and institutes divide up the territory and strangle out anyone who might have something new. For every shipwreck the government brings about, the cure is more government. Power grows until it's appetite is too great to be filled by a single country... and then maybe troubles at home can be exported on bayonet points but somehow, the real barbarians are never those involved in the battle but it is war war war...

Posted by: Mac at April 21, 2006 07:25 PM (TaDbz)

91 Regis The desert island is easy: Under Capitalism you would have to fight to the death. Survival of the fittest. Under socialism you would each contribute an arm. I'll have mine, and I do mean mine, well done. You work to live but Capitalism doesn't work to feed you it works to profit from you, and ultimately, its customers. Under Capitalism they pay no more than they have to. If that amount allows you to survive or thrive or accumulate great wealth, well then, that was because it was necessary for the health and well being of the company. Whether what you do has value is entirely dependent upon whether or not they can get your skills somewhere else cheaper. There are tens of thousands all over the world who also want to live long,happy and fulfilling lives who thought their jobs were valued, and they were, for awhile. But then technology made the whole world a possible labour market and now many are out of work because the supply of workers, most of them low wage, just increased by multiples.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 07:29 PM (sw5R/)

92 Bic Some things are very important to people. Family, job, education, health care, transportation, food, housing. The important things should be under peoples control if at all possible, not out of their control. That is all. Now you should understand that some socialists would go farther with the public ownership than that. But I think in North America the majority of socialists would be happy with that much control over their lives. What is happening today with oil? It is out of control of the many, but firmly in control by the few. I think its $75.00 a barrel! This is obscene to a socialist. They believe that such an important energy source should be controlled in the interest of the people, not exploited at their expense. You can bet that Venezuela is still selling their gasoline at 5 cents a litre today when the rest of the world is gasping at the cost. Capitalism at work. I can't say I am impressed. I don't think the demand has gone up this quickly. Certainly the supply is the same. What changed? The geo politics. So much for supply and demand. If the demand outstrips the supply then that forces prices up children. Except of course when they go up just because...something might happen somewhere, sometime, that may actually affect the supply. THEN you will REALLY see the price go up. Does everyone understand Capitalism now? hmmm? Yeah, its about greed. So why don't we all feed the monster and cheer it on, because the more people see its ugliness the more they look around for an ulternative.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 07:57 PM (sw5R/)

93 Mac Pretty scary stuff. Truth is, you won't like it, that pillar of Capitalism the USA has been involved in more wars than any other nation. American Foreign Policy is about securing markets amd countries. American companies require ever expanding markets, cheap raw materials and labour. The American appetite is so great that they have outposts all over the world. They make deals with governments. They want cooperation, no taxes, a cheap labour source, and political stability so they can operate without interruption. They don't like socialist governments because they don't let business have carte blanche. The socialist governments want control over their resources and a fair price for them as well. Usually, a bribe or lobbying or both is all that is required to get their way but not always. This is when the CIA get involved. The CIA has done a lot of work in Central and South America supporting guerilla groups against leftist governments to have them overthrown as they did with Salvadore Allende, a socialist president, democratically elected. They installed a despot who ruled much like Saddam Hussein,brutally. Now Caesar Chavez is being primed for overthrow. They tried once and missed(another Bush failure). Chavez is not cooperating he nationalized oil rewrote deals with major oil companies some left in a huff. Now he wants fair prices for other raw materials as well. Capitalists get pissed when third world countries don't just roll over when they are told. Another important area is the middle east. They loved and supported Saddam before they hated him.When Saddam was gassing Kurds good old Rumsfeld was selling arms to Saddam. Encouraging him to go after Iran. Iran turned uncooperative after their man, the Shah of Iran, was kicked out in a revolution. Of course Iran is still being punished today. Just as Castro is being punished. The Americans thought at first that Castro was their new man in Havana and it would be business as usual but Castro wanted to be his own man. That is not cooperation. So they tried to kill him several times over the years. Their puppet in Panama, Orteiga, got involved in drugs and became undependable they sent in the marines for him. I could go on forever but you get the point. There is no bigger bully or aggressor that the Capitalist USA. Next time you hear the USA is upset with a certain country don't listen to the rhetoric out of the White House ask yourself, what is the economics involved here? When you have discovered that you will know the real reason for the discord. Oh, one other thing. Capitalism loves war because they usually can be found making money on both sides. Remember the American President Dwight D. Isenhower? His last speech was a warning about the danger of the Military Industrial Complex. They are now placing their men in high office. Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld came from working in this group of companys. Ask yourself how could the country with the most highly educated people on earth be so stupid as to go into Iraq without knowing what they were going to do once they got there? Answer. If they let country destroy itself internally it insures we keep the military there indefinitely that means an unending supply of all the weapons of war are needed. Plus auxilliary companies that specialize in reconstruction will have an unending amount of work to do. Iraq has cost $300billion. That the bulk of that money went to the Military Industrial Complex of companys. So lets not talk about Capitalists not forcing their goods on people cause it doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe if you are talking about little Joe around the corner with his Pizza business but not big business. Big business plays dirty, and for keeps.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 08:49 PM (sw5R/)

94 Two quick things and then back to celebrating the Sens victory. Oil is not really a good example of capitalism at work because it is actually a cartel based system. It is not open to competitors (one of the things I stated is a must for any true capitalistic system to work) and as the prices are pretty much set on the whims of the speculators, does not follow the laws of supply and demand. And just to jump in on the US/War issue, please limit your wars to those the US started. Joining in to aid an ally, or on the request of the UN doesn't count. Even Iraq is in a gray area since military actions against them have been continual since the original Gulf war ended. It's odd that you would only see the $$$ involved, viewing the situation as a socialist that is. Putting a price tag on the freedom of 25 million people. My first thought was why weren't they in sooner for the humanitarian needs. Tens of thousands of 'disadents' killed annually, government sanctioned rape rooms, using chemical weapons upon your own people, no electricity or clean water in a vast majority of the country all the while Saddam continued to live in gold palaces and build even more. Oh, and not to mentioned the government funding of terrorist organizations, such as the allowences paid to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. Really, if you want to point to unjustified wars, you may want to find someone a bit more sympathetic than Saddam.

Posted by: Bic at April 21, 2006 09:40 PM (/nyc7)

95 Steve, You might have a fight to the death. If you did it wouldn't be moral by the ethical system Capitalism is based on. Remember, we are talking about Ethics, not economics. By that ethical standard you have a right to life. Which includes the idea that initiation of force, except in self defense, is a crime and unethical. Capitalism does not, indeed cannot, work with the introduction of force. That sort of right to life doesn't mesh well if it is "moral" to reduce need. At the very least it makes one hell of a choice. Stop and think. I mean really think. The sheer need of billions is incredible. If it is moral to reduce need, then it is right to give up everything you have to strangers. Including your food because someone is starving, your clothes because someone is naked, your house because someone is homeless, etc etc etc. Everything you have, anything you work for, should be given to others because their need is greater. If you do not do so you are acting immorally. By definition immorallity is evil. This is the choice the ethics supporting socialism gives you. Live like an "evil" selfish greedy man or live like a pauper working day and night to fulfill the needs of every man on earth, or at least in your neighborhood. How wonderful. There is another choice, of course, if the government enforces these ethics through compulsive taxation. Notice that a man who does no work in this system is still morally entitled to have others provide his basic needs for him, at the very least. It encourages people NOT to work. Enough people stop working and you won't be able to feed everyone. Remember how I said Socialism causes economies to stagnate? This is how it happens. Why work when you get a welfare check every month? This is why Socialists the world over scream that man is not good enough for Socialism to work correctly. People choose life over the "moral good" that Socialism tells them to strive for. They would rather be hypocrits than live by such an impossible system of ethics. Or they prefer to live off the work of others if the government implements these ethical principles by force.

Posted by: Regis at April 21, 2006 10:30 PM (ZrYg/)

96 Bic The vast majority of time the US does not have to resort to war. “One of our greatest helpers has been the State Department,” mused John D. Rockefeller,in his book, Random Reminiscences of Men and Events. “Our ambassadors and ministers and consuls have aided to push our way into new markets in the utmost corners of the world.” Companies and their sponsor governments do not shrink from backing dictatorial governments, using bribery and corruption, promoting civil violence and yes, even resorting to war, to meet their commercial goals and best their competitors. The modern history of the Middle East bears witness to this process. In one notorious example, US intelligence services recruited in 1959 a young Iraqi thug named Saddam Hussein to take part in the assassination of Iraqi Prime Minister Abd el-Karim Qasim. Washington feared that the nationalist Qasim might act independently and alter the favorable terms under which their oil companies operated. So he may have been a monster but he was America's monster. Too bad he got power hungry and greedy. He broke the cardinal rule. Corporations need political stability. Saddam had upset the peaceful extraction of oil from the Middle East. He had to go. Not because he was a monster. That is just naive. A few years earlier, in 1953, the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, overthrowing the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installing the autocratic Shah, in order to gain control over Iranian oil and redistribute British production shares to US companies. So it becomes difficult to figure out who is working for whom? Is the US government working for the American oil companies or is it the other way around? See what I mean about American foreign policy. It is a game of "follow the corporate money". Haven't you had the feeling that Government is not acting in your interest? I have. That's why I look into these things. People elect governments but governments serve corporations not people. This is particularly true the Capitalist America, where in Washington they have 68,000 lobbyists working 24/7 to impress upon the elected officials all those ideas and arguments that buttress the corporate point of view. You don't like Government mucking around in business. How about business mucking around in Government? I guess that is okay, right? Ask the Iraqis how they are liking it.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 11:27 PM (sw5R/)

97 So lets not talk about Capitalists not forcing their goods on people cause it doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe if you are talking about little Joe around the corner with his Pizza business but not big business. Big business plays dirty, and for keeps. Ahhhh, so you're saying rugged individualists who work and care for themselves are okay but as soon as the group gets big enough, there's problems? How do you expect socialism or communism to work? As for your war examples, they go to prove MY point, not yours.

Posted by: Mac at April 22, 2006 12:14 AM (TaDbz)

98 Regis Capitalism is based on an ethical system? Excuse me? Capitalism does not and cannot work with the introduction of force? OMG. Yeah, there is no doubt, you have been brainwashed beyond the beyond. Go read my last post to BIC. It gives a couple of Middle East examples of how Corporate America works ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Notice the word "push" that Rockefeller used to describe how aggressively the state department advances American business. Then further down you see how the CIA pushes in a more violent way. Even in America itself when Corporations are challenged they push back violently. That was the motor companys initial response to unionization-thuggery. Oh yes, the guys on the line fought back of course. But the violence was always provoked by the company. I never said socialism will reduce need. I said there are some needs that cannot be left to the whims of the marketplace, oil being the prime example. If they are a cartel and I think BIC is correct they are. Then where is the ethics in a cartel? Why are governments which are elected to serve the people allowing cartels??? We both know the answer the so called "ethical" Capitalists have co-opted the government to serve their needs. I would much rather have a government that truly represented the people. Instead of a government that pretends to. I thought I made it clear that my idea of socialism would be a mixed economy. Keynes-like. Whereby you have some critical businesses that are controlled by government. Electric power being the most important. Oil would be close behind. The less critical or less strategic can be privately owned. That means most business is private. But the private business has to be a good citizen not a welfare case. Corporate taxes are fast closing in on zero.I think they are 9% in Alberta. Wouldn't you like 9% taxes? This is ridiculous. I guess that is ethical to some but I don't see ethics I see greed brought about by successful lobbying. To hear companies brag about how they like to be good corporate citizens. Give me a break! They pay as little tax as is legal to pay. As little wages as the market will bear. Charge as much as the market will bear. Then talk ethics like they know what they are. There are 78 companies that have been charged with fraud in the Iraq mess. America sent over plane loads of cash to Iraq and the business community was close behind with schemes to defraud the Government. From Halliburton to Worldcom to Enron to Fizer to Hundai to IBM to Ford to Goodyear to Standard oil to Hollinger to... well, you get the idea. If you still don't here is a url with a list of the top 100 of the 90's only; http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html#Briefs Truth is that Capitalism and ethics is an oxymoron It is precisely because of the lack of ethics that Capitalism will do itself in. It doesn't need anyones help. It has a single purpose that is distilled down to one word "greed". Everything is for the company. You live, eat, breathe, exist, for the company. In return the company will give you a few years of money. It is a crass existence. Talk about the barren nature of socialism? Where men are in control of the workplace instead of the other way around and you say Capitalism is better??? In Capitalism there is no yesterday there is only today. If today is good you get to stay until tomorrow... this is living??? In Capitalism the more a company pays you the more they own you. A well paid executive is available to the company 24/7, he goes where the company sends him. His personal life,what there is of it, is to be immpecable so as not to embarrass the company. Community work is also expected because that too makes the company look good. You are owned outright. It is slavery of a new kind. Voluntary slavery. You are purchased willingly. You go to the highest bidder, literally. Then you are owned. You are told when to work, how to work, when to play, how to play, how to dress, how to look. What games you must play(golf and/or tennis and squash. Oh yeah, its a great life if you like playing kissy ass 24/7

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 12:38 AM (sw5R/)

99 BIC yes, the Iraqis are optimistic that once the Americans leave they will be able to run their own country. The question is when are the Americans leaving? This latest guy Maliki was kicked out by Saddam because he was working for an Islamic State. His activities are somewhat murky in the 1980's but a party he was associated with was participating in anti-American activities in Lebanon. He came back to Iraq(brought in by the Americans?) and has been quite active ever since. He was picked by Paul Bremer to be on the Debaathification Board. Since the Sunni were Baathist it is unclear whether peace will come anytime soon. The anti-Bush/US bias is well earned. So you are one of these"Democracy is Breaking Out All Over guys". Good luck to ya. This is just another smoke screen. Democracies are easier to work with because they are usually plugged in to Capitalism. Democracies work by the art of persuasion and these multinationals have expertise in using every persuasive tool. We don't really know how many Iraqis are being killed because the Americans don't think its very important to count the dead--except of course if they are Saddams dead,then we we scour the earth until we have exhumed every victim of this monster. But count Iraqis who have died since the Americans arrived? Not so much. I have seen estimates of 130,000. Thousands of 'happy' Iraqis are moving out of their homes. The Sunni are moving out of Shiit neighbourhoods and Shiits moving out of Sunni neighbourhoods because each group has been threatened by the other. Ethnic cleansing has begun and the two sides are ready to turn the heat up on the civil war.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 09:10 AM (sw5R/)

100 The military doesn't count 'kills' because it is too hard to do on the field. They used to report them during vietnam but the inaccuracies when comparing estimate to counts made after the fact made the numbers so meaningless they stopped. They now allow for outside, independant, agencies to do the reporting for them. But I guess with you it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. The 130,000+ number has been debunked so often to even put it forward discredits almost anything else you may say. Just look up the original Lancet study that created that myth. It's degree of accuracy put the number, and this was in their own words, between 9,000 and 190,000, so they just picked 100,000+ because it was in the middle and a nice round number. Add to that their collection methods used failed almost every test of a unbias survey. Anywhere else that type of report would have been simply thrown away but to the anti-war crowd, it became their mantra. IraqBodycount, as well as other nationwide surveys, have all been pretty consistant with a 35-50k number so unless you can come up with scientifically backed number to the contrary, I'm sticking with that. And just for the record, many of the mass graves found are not because the Americans were looking for them but because family members of those killed were looking but everything is the Americans fault I guess.

Posted by: Bic at April 22, 2006 09:36 AM (/nyc7)

101 Mac You think of socialism as a total state control of everything. That is not what I am talking about. Oh yes there are those that want no private ownership of property, just as there are those Libertarians who want no government. Both are unrealistic extremes. The view of the majority of Canadian socialists is much more of a mixed economy. Keynsian perhaps. Where certain critical assets are run by the state because they are too important to the welfare of the state to leave to the profit motive. I think of gas and electricity as examples. But there would be an encouragement for owners to share. Especially if they can't afford to pay a living wage. Profit share instead. If Pizza Joe can't afford to pay his two employees above what the state sets as the minimum wage then Joe could ask his two employees to partner with him to keep the business open. A cooperate workplace where there is equality of input is a much happier workplace than one which is run by a dictator boss. Some dictators are tolerable others are brutal. Socialists think it is healthy for workers to have real workplace power. The workplace would be unique in some respects at each business because each business has a different reality. The workplace is seen as a cooperative effort in the real sense as all workers would have input into how their workday would proceed. Many professionals already have this. Doctors and some lawyers make their own hours and decide which days they will work etc. I am sure many corporate types make their own agendas. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander. This should be expanded to everyones workplace. This idea that only a chosen few are able to design their work environment is just elitist. The workers know what has to be done to run the restaurant or the factory. They know which jobs are brutally physical and maybe deserve an extra wage to acknowledge that or maybe regular breaks from the job. Perhaps they would agree that the conceptual person deserves more money. In any event the involvement by the workers give them a sense of pride and satisfaction that is dearly missing today in the work world.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 09:37 AM (sw5R/)

102 Steve D. All I can say is that your last comment to me proved my point about you not recognizing personal choice. It doesn't even seem to register with you for a second even as you are using people's own apathy towards success (read: choice not to better themselves) as a reason why everybody else should bend to their positions in life. I'm honestly dumbfounded here. It's like, it's right in front of your face, you are seeing it, but it is completely slipping past you. It seems that you would rather people who improve themselves to work for the apathetic, rather than having the apathetic feel any hardship that would influence them to work at improving themselves. You may have taken a "course" on "inequality", but before advocating a position of changing how the entire field of income works you should study human behaviour. All you are advocating is that we should recognize that some people have no interest in succeeding at anything and that we should just coddle them by providing a cushion from which they will never have to feel the natural prodding that is "real life". I tried discussing this with you a couple of threads ago, and you seemed to have missed it. Humans do not change except for two influences, those being inspiration and discomfort. And your comment about your high school friends shows that inspiration is not a very powerful force. That leaves option two. But you would rather we eliminate all discomfort. I'm sorry, but if you want to torpedo human progress, that'll do it. As for the 15% number, you still haven't provided where this number came from other than saying you heard it in class. But I will say that I have another figure. 100% of human improvement comes from some type of personal choice. Take that for a statistic. I'm still curious for your opinion on the point I brought up before. To ask a direct question, how would you enforce your idea of minimum payments (won't call it quality of life as you won't talk about spending habits - the Achilles Heel of your argument) without decimating small business and turning this country into a big-corporation powerhouse?

Posted by: Surecure at April 22, 2006 09:39 AM (5xF7M)

103 Surecure This idea you have of personal choice is where we are having our greatest problem. I don't know which social class you were born in and which class you are in now but my guess is you were born middle class and are middle class now. You wouldn't have experienced the difference in belief and understanding. It is a different culture, a sub culture within the dominant middle class culture. There is an attitude of "us and them" not "we". The middle class assume that we all believe in the same things and have the same aspirations and dreams but we don't. The middle class assume merely that there are ambitious people and everybody else. If you don't "make something of yourself" its because you lack ambition. What you don't seem to realize is that ambition comes as part of a package or set of beliefs you have about what life has to offer you, and where you want to end up. These beliefs are different from working class. I have vivid memories of wanting to be like my dad at 16. A factory worker. That was my "ambition". The middle class person would look at my being a mere factory worker as being unmotivated and just to lazy to apply himself to stay in school and become a lawyer or some such. But that never enter my consciousness. That literally did not appear on my radar. So did I choose to be a factory worker or was that chosen for me by my environment? Did I choose to be among the working poor? Was I too lazy to get a good education? No,no and no. My social class dictated my consciousness. NO ONE ever mentioned university as even existing when I was growing up. There was never a mention of its existence by family, friends or acquaintances. So what did I choose?? Did I have the same choices as the middle class child who understood his entire life that he is expected to go to university? I think not. Better still I know not. Change can be brought about in more ways than inspiration and discomfort. My change came from inspiration because the inspiration came at the exact moment I needed it. I remember the vice principle of my high school calling me in concerned about my grades. He said you don't want to be on that side of the desk when you are older you want to be on this side. He was trying to inspire me. Middle class values being sold to a working class person takes some preparation. It had never occured to me that I might work in an office, I was going to work in a factory. He may as well have been speaking in Greek for all the understanding I had about where he was coming from. Opportunity is a good way to grow. Who will give opportunity to someone when they don't have formal qualifications? How do you get qualifications if it never occurs to you that you might need them and you are not really sure what those are anyway. Do you begin to see the distance between us and them? Trust me, I grew up with working class people, they are smart and very hard working and amibitious in their understanding of the word, ie. get a job hold on to it because jobs are precious and if you lose one who knows when you will get another, get a house, have a family and keep up with your bills. There it is, the working class dream. Today with manufacturing jobs going to third world countries the working class must be under a lot of stress. Minimum Wage The small businessman has two choices he can pay a living wage to his employees or he can get a partner or partners and share the burden of the cost of the business. One way it to admit that your small business cannot be run profitably without someone else's investment of time or money. I can buy into your business in the hope that it will increase and rise to the level of being able to support its employees. The other way involves luring people in to profit share with you. If you make a $1,000 a week after expenses then you split it with your co-worker. In that way, instead of just you being ambitious for the success of the venture now there is another guy just as eager to sell widgets as you. If the business continues to grow you hire another guy who appears eager to help you guys grow your business and now you divide the spoils three ways. The work world doesn't always have to be chiefs and indians. You need a division of labour but you don't need to have one person making all the decisions.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 01:21 PM (sw5R/)

104 You think of socialism as a total state control of everything. That is not what I am talking about. We're back to reality check time, steve d. Socialism starts off as a nice, warm & fuzzy sweater to keep everyone warm and ends up being a straight jacket- each and every time without fail.

Posted by: Mac at April 22, 2006 02:30 PM (TaDbz)

105 Mac You can't prove that. In fact I just found evidence of the opposite. I just read an article from The Economist. The article,Meritocracy in America,Ever Higher Society,Ever Harder to Ascend, talks about how inequality appears to be increasing in American society and upward social obility is declining. Apparently about 6 to12% make it from the bottom 20% to the top 20% in income. It is not getting any easier. The only group that is outdoing their parents are the super rich the top 1%. Everyone else is moving up a tiny bit or treading water. One other salient point I noticed was that upward social mobility was easier in countries like Canada and Sweden,yes that is the partial nanny state Canada and the total nanny state Sweden!! MORE UPWARD MOBILITY THAN CAPITALIST USA!!!!!! Which system is the strait jacket?? I think it is clear. But don't believe me read it for yourself and then weep for the loss of illusion. Either google the article title or google "social mobility" and you will find it 5th on the list of hits.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 02:54 PM (sw5R/)

106 One question Steve, in you working class world had you ever heard of university? It may not have been talked about but were you aware of the concept of higher education? Had you ever seen someone behind a desk? Heard of someone working in an office? Make all the excuses you want but no matter how you slice it the final choice is yours and no one elses. You can not pawn your life or the decisions you make off onto your friends and family. The likelyhood of getting a higher education may have seemed highly improbable, given your circumstances, but as they say, "where there's a will...". If you were fine with the idea of working in a factory that everything's fine, if not, then you, as an individual, have to look at yourself and say what do I have to do to make my dream come true. And personally, I kind of resent the mixing of the terms "middle" and "working" class in your description. I've always seen "working class" as more of a job description as opposed to income measure. My father was a mechanic at a mine (now professional Discovery channel watcher and occasional snow-shoe manufacturer) and my mother is a cook at a hospital but we were comfortably middle class. Do you mean to imply that they were not also working class? But that's just semantics. Anyway, half the people I grew up with choose to stay behind and go to work for the mine in some capacity or another while others, like myself, decided that we wanted something different and left for university, and some did both, but in each and every case, it was their choice to do so. Once you take away the idea of choice you take away the idea of personal responsibility and then in comes Socialism to rear it's ugly head. Surrender all control to the hive, but since getting the input of the entire hive for all decision making is impracticle in any large scale system, you have to create a central authority to make the day to day decisions of running the country. Soon you end up becoming nothing more than slaves to the whims of the C.A. and yes, the trains may run on time, and you may get your loaf of bread and bottle of vodka every week, but you dare not speak out about anything you dislike because rocking the boat is seen as an attack on everything people hold dear and can not be tolerated. Of course that's just the history of pretty much every country that's tried to follow your system, but you might just luck out and get a good dictator. But then again, once he dies, you're just spinning the wheel of fate again and how long until someone gets in that isn't so kind. People are generally 'want' based animals and socialism tries to force people to want the same things. That can never work forever and never for everyone. Capitalism, on the other hand, accepts the reality that people want different things and does not try to restrict that.

Posted by: Bic at April 22, 2006 03:15 PM (/nyc7)

107 You say that if a person can't run a business to be profitable, they should get a partner. Well, let me illuminate you on this front. Every small business owner has a partner. It is called a bank. They get money from a bank in the form of a loan that they pay back at an incredibly smaller percentage than if you had two people as partners with families of their own (forgot that part of the equation, didn't ya) and the same living expenses you expect them to provide every person they employ. I would say that your outlook on how businesses should be run is misguided to say the least. But as it is, your solution was the best illuminator yet as to your mindset. You suggested that if somebody comes up with an idea for a business or "widget", instead of seeing it as a means for them to find a greater success, they should automatically go find somebody -- anybody -- to co-opt that venture. Or in more basic terms, if somebody comes up with a great idea that they want to develop to further themselves, that idea should be equally shared amongst people around that person. Or to cut through all the crap: all ideas are the property and equal opportunity of the state. Geez... I wonder what kind of political and social system you are advocating here. It sounds really, really familiar. The most telling portion of your statement is this: "instead of just you being ambitious for the success of the venture..." You see, we just got through talking about inspiration and discomfort. Tell me, what kind of inspiration can one draw from being in the position where if you come up with a great idea for a business, you will always know that it will only lead you to the exact same position you were at before? I'll tell you since you probably don't know. It leads nowhere. How do I know this? Because 99.9% of the time, people in a position to actually follow through on a great idea won't do it simply because the motivating outcome must be greater than the present state. If you were to study human behaviour you'd know this outrightly. But you probably know it already and simply haven't recognized it. Don't you know somebody who has/had a great idea and never followed through on it? I wouldn't be surprised if you knew several people like that. And it has nothing to do with lower, middle or upper class position. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I already see that you have some kind bone to pick with anybody who may be (not necessarily IS) from a different social stratum as you. But you further But you are wrong in saying that not every change can be made from inspiration or discomfort. If you were to tell me any story about a person who changed their position in life, I can trace it back to inspiration or discomfort. Because either you see something that you want (inspiration) and change, or you see something you don't like (discomfort) and change. Nobody changes without motivation because something has to spark the idea.

Posted by: Surecure at April 22, 2006 04:23 PM (5xF7M)

108 Part two of above... Either way, in your talk about your own "ambition" simply outlines that you in fact had ambition. You wanted to be a factory worker. That is an ambition whether you like it or not. Go and look up the word in the dictionary and you'll see it is simply the motivation to do a particular thing. If the ambition is set to a lower paying job, that is the ambition. And I always hear that word... environment. You talk about hoe your environment didn't give you any idea that university was possible. You talked about how the environment made you think that you should become a factory worker. Earlier you talked about your friends and how the environment they were in led them to simply think that high school was all they need. Then, you talk about factory work as if it is a job that produces a level in life that is undesirable. But, instead of saying that we have to fix the environment find a way of motivating people to want to make it better, you say that we should simply make the job more desirable. After all, if you make every job a means for having everything that you need, you make every job desirable. You know that it is the environment that needs to be changed. But do you say that we should try and find a way of fixing the environment so people will know their options? No. You say we should overhaul everything else to accomodate applying zero effort to actually fixing the real problem: the environment. Why is that? You know that it isn't the job that is the problem, it's the environment. You know that the real problem isn't that there are no better jobs, but rather that people aren't motivated to go higher. You even said so. (The best part of this is that you have not once said that there are no better paying jobs out there. It's a good thing you didn't since it would be wrong.) Your ideas here sound like the perfect formula for a roadblock to ingenuity. You talk about a problem where people raised in the "blue-collar" workforce have no motivation to go any higher. At the same time you suggest that all new businesses should be equal partnership ventures where the one with the idea never gets anything more for coming up with the idea than whoever he/she partners with. What you are advocating is a zero ambition society. It doesn't surprise me since everything you say seems to be a criticism of ambition. But, ambition is what forces improvement. That's not to say that improvement won't come without ambition. After all, if one feels discomfort with any aspect of their life, they will find a way to fix it. But, when you have the choice between just a stick and having both a carrot and a stick, people will move a lot faster with both. After all, the ass does get numb after a few hits. But having both a positive and negative motivator moves things faster and more often than just a negative motivator, and that is as true on a societal front as it is on an individual front. Of course, now everybody complains about jobs moving overseas. And yet the funny thing is that both employment is up and the average income is up. In other words, a new negative was added below the "blue-collar" level: not only does the job pay less, but those jobs are going away. So, the "blue-collars" are being forced to find better employment. And lo and behold, it's there for them. And if there is a better indicator that negative leverage works better than positive leverage -- and that perhaps some of us who do not advocate a forced minimum pay level may be right -- I don't know what it is.

Posted by: Surecure at April 22, 2006 04:24 PM (5xF7M)

109 As an addendum... A lot of this reminds me of a problem my brother had in high school. Often, his teachers would tell him they wanted work done in a certain fashion and he wouldn't agree with what they asked for. So, he'd do it his own way and get less than stellar grades. Then he would complain about how he wasn't getting fantastic grades. My parents would keep telling him that if it takes doing things a certain way to get good results, maybe you should change your approach, even if you don't agree 100% with how you have to get there. After all, you can't expect the teacher to change for every single student. When he came to understand that lesson his grade improved dramatically. I think when it comes to the material above, this lesson certainly could teach others what it takes to get to a level of comfort. The world isn't going to change for every individual. It's up to the individuals to change for the world.

Posted by: Surecure at April 22, 2006 04:56 PM (5xF7M)

110 Surecure Everyone has ambitions. The working class have modest ambitions because they don't understand that the big fancy ambitions are possible for them so they don't even go there. That is the wall they face and they are right statistically speaking. Very few will ever move up beyond just a bit better than where they are now. That goes for everyone. So realistically speaking people are where they are. A few will advance a great deal. But how many Oprah's are there? I am not saying its impossible but it is extremely hard to move up very far on the ladder of upward mobility. That is just the evidence speaking not me. So if all the evidence shows that as the bible says the poor will always be with us(you are not going to argue with the bible surely) then what do we do to improve the lot of these people? Well, partnerships don't have to be 50/50 so if you are concerned about the guy with the idea make it 60/40. All I was trying to do was save the guys business because 100% of nothing is nothing. Unless a person thinks of a business he can run where others are not needed or he wants to limit his business so that he alone can manage it. Those are options too. However, if you believe in your idea, believe it has legs then roll the dice again and hire the best person you can and share your dream with him. Keep the dream alive. What is wrong with asking people to share in your dream in a more equitable way. Walmart didn't grow only because they paid low wages, it grew because it was a good idea and well managed. It would still have grown if they had paid a living wage. Maybe it would have grown faster. Maybe it would have grown slower. In any event the Walton family would still have been rich. Perhaps not quite as rich as they are but then does it really matter when you have that much money? I am sure if you asked him he would say I didn't do it primarily for the money I did it for the excitement, the challenge. His personality dictated he was going to do something in a big way. That would not change under a socialist system. These people find a way to work the system whatever it is. The ambitious don't wallow in excuses they just get on with it. The guy who started IKEA didn't get discouraged because he lived in a socialist country he just got on with it. If you don't have the ambition or talent of the big guys then you may need to partner. It is done all the time in business. Even if we could somehow motivate everyone to be middle class would there be that many middle class jobs? Then who would do the garbage collecting? No, it is much more realistic to improve the lot of the little guy by paying him a living wage. Remember I am not asking that you pay him millions a year. Just pay him so that he can live with the basic necessities of life. Why is that so evil? Maybe it will shake these small businessmen to be a little more creative in their businesses. It is a challenge to an ambitious person. In my experience ambitious people like challenges. If he is able to pay a living wage I am certain he will feel better about himself as will his employees. Some will go out of business but that is nothing new. People starting new businesses will know the rules and plan accordingly. Retraining is a good idea. It has been tried before. The problem is that it has never been funded properly and it is the first program cut when the cut cycle comes around in politics. My mom took a typing course once. She said the class was full. It is not easy when you are living on very little and you have a family to support. Those are the people we have to offer good training to. All expenses paid including rent and groceries. You would have more applicants than you could handle.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 05:42 PM (sw5R/)

111 BIC Thinking back I remember being aware that my high school teachers had University educations. But it didn't mean anything it was no more than an awareness with no meaning attached. You obviously had a different awareness than me. I am surprise that half of your class went to university. This is very unusual for half of a class goes to university. Only about 20% of high school graduates get post secondary education. You had a real choice, I didn't. In order to actually have a choice you have to be aware that you have one. The kind of socialism I have been talking about expands the choices for those who aren't aware they have any. It also leaves those who want choices to have them. Socialism is a social and economic philosophy while Capitalism is only an economic philosophy. It has no social vision. Perhaps that is why so many are left out in Capitalist dominated societies. In fact, it has always thrived on cheap labour which implies the existence and dependance on an underclass of readily available unemployed people to ensure low wages.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 07:39 PM (sw5R/)

112 Surecure As an addendum My parents never asked about school and never phoned the school. When I went to school it was I think understood that teaching and learning is the teachers domain. Schools do one job and parents do another. The separation between us and them. Middle class parents are obsessive about their childrens education. You can't change the world unless you are aware you can. First comes the awareness, then comes the belief,then understanding, then choice is possible. By awareness I mean a significant other has to inform you of the existence of a thing. This must happen many times in a childs life. By belief I mean once the awareness takes root it becomes part of your 'normal' thinking pattern part of your belief system. By understanding I mean reaching a certain age where you start thinking about future more seriously. You are in high school and by grade ten or so you begin to understand the power of the university degree over merely a high school diploma. Now you are prepared to begin to make choices. The majority of lower class people don't get to the first step, never mind the last. That is why they don't really choose they drift into things.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 08:09 PM (sw5R/)

113 That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call free will is your mind`s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character. -- Ayn Rand My mom came from a lower class family, my dad from a middle class one. I see the difference the choice to think or not has made for members of my family from either starting situation. Each side of my family has people who made the wrong choice and those who have made the right one. I can tell you from experience, that choice is the main factor in determining who was successful and who was not.

Posted by: Regis at April 22, 2006 10:37 PM (ZrYg/)

114 Excellent post, Regis. It's all about choice; even not choosing is a choice.

Posted by: Mac at April 22, 2006 11:05 PM (TaDbz)

115 Steve D. You said "Just pay him so that he can live with the basic necessities of life. Why is that so evil?" Can I ask who ever said this was evil? As far as I know, you're the only one assigning "evil" traits around here (so says the slave driver). I never said it was evil. The idea of paying all people the basic necessities is not evil. It would be a very nice gesture to find a way of doing that, but just saying that is the way it should be doesn't necessarily make for a great strategy to ensure that we don't erode other qualities of life. I mean, you keep talking about this lofty idea but offer no ideas as to how to implement it other than saying we should. For instance, if you make it so that every time somebody takes a job they will at least make a certain amount, you will have people at the age of 13 entering the workforce for a little money, find themselves making enough so that they could live on their own, and at the age of 18 dropping out of school, getting their own place and living the life. I mean, after all, you're the one that wants a guaranteed minimum. And that would apply to everybody in all walks of life from teenagers to those about to retire. Otherwise you have a situation where business owners would pay lesser wages to certain people... like, say... teenagers? As bad as the never ending cycle of blue-collar families not seeing the possibility for better jobs is, your "solution" -- as I've outlined several times -- would compound the problem of people losing the will to better themselves. After all, it's not going to hurt if you simply stop trying. And when you create a society where all people of all circumstances get the same, you end up with more and more people simply questioning why they should even want to do anything different since they are always going to end up in the same place... just like the working-class that you describe. You offered the proof. I guess the proof works both ways, doesn't it? Even then, your working-man against the middle-class world whining really doesn't help your suggestion make any more sense. Should I go find people in Ethiopia with less opportunity than the Western world's working-class to come over here and tell the working-class how good they have it? Please. Everybody can look at the next social stratus and say, "Oh, how lucky they are. I'll never have that." That even confirms your point about how the evidence shows most people will not move beyond their present situation. But, as I've said oft before, this will never be solved by enforcing some kind of minimum payment for every job. All your suggestion would do is making a new class of citizens: the blue-collar level, Paris Hilton-esque socialite. Don't believe me? The only reason why she never improves her own life is because she has no risk. Imagine if everybody had that? That is the world you are asking for my friend. We both feel bad about people who live in poverty. The difference is that you want them to be comforted, whereas I want to genuinely see their lives improve. You would see them comforted, costs to society's progress be damned. I want to see them fulfill their potential by finding their place in a world that has every opportunity available if one knows how to get it. I see the exact same thing that you do. People are in environments that do not inspire confidence in one's abilities. But if the environment is the problem, then it is the environment that has to be fixed. And you have offered more proof to the idea that we should work on fixing the environment than you have of how this guaranteed minimum idea might actually succeed. In that sense, I say we should try and fix the environment before we throw out the system. After all, I see this system as being a competitive one that inspires both innovation and forward momentum. The only place I've seen your notion in practice are countries like North Korea, Cuba and Russia. I don't want to live in countries like those.

Posted by: Surecure at April 22, 2006 11:27 PM (5xF7M)

116 Regis Choice starts early. It starts at conception. Except the choice isn't yours. As a fetus you don't choose your parent. You don't choose your social class. You don't choose whether or not your mother drinks alcohol to damage your brain even a little bit. You don't choose your mothers nutrition. You don't choose whether or not your mother gets neonatal care. You learn more in the first four years of life than you do in the next fifteen. You do not choose your nutrition. You do not choose whether or not you are read to. You do not choose whether or not you learn language. You do not choose whether or not you have any preparation for school. Some children have had thousands of stories read to them and therefore have a healthy vocabulary and appreciate stories, the have good listening skills and often can read. The opposite is true for many other kids. Did they choose not to be prepared for school? The best predictor for university success is whether or not your parents are university educated. Too bad the kid didn't choose educated parents. If a child isn't ready for school his experience is negative. Negative feedback is not healthy especially in school where positive feedback is so important. But the poor kid is more trouble than anything else because he can't listen quietly to the stories and so teacher is always speaking sternly to him. He understands. He is trouble and stupid. He gets it early. Its over early. Too bad he didn't make better choices. Because the poor kid can't read or count he needs to go to a special class. He knows. He is stupid. He can't learn. Too bad he chooses not to learn. Yeah, Regis you made good choices you chose a middle class family. How did you know to do that? You chose not to be abused I suppose. You probably also chose to have sober hardworking parents. You are amazing! You probably chose not to have your parents divorce too, right? Ah, you are very clever. I definitely see what you mean about choice. You and Ayn Rand. Too bad I didn't meet you guys before conception I would have made much better choices.

Posted by: steve d. at April 22, 2006 11:37 PM (sw5R/)

117 The choice to think or not overrides all of those factors. The fortunate rich often destroy their lives through their own choices and poor people make successes of their lives through correct choices. Even if it were not so, your entire system comes down to stealing from the successful regardless of their childhood circumstances and giving it to the unsuccessful indescriminately regardless of *their* circumstances. Or would you not tax the rich who started off poor and pay the rich who wasted their money on whatever and are now poor?

Posted by: Regis at April 23, 2006 12:38 AM (ZrYg/)

118 Regis is right Steve D. in saying that the choice to change oneself can overcome any obstacle. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of people will fail once or twice and then decide it cannot be done. Reading your last posting, I couldn't help but notice the scent of the defeatist. The "oh-woe-is-me" type of helplessness that comes from those who do fail and decide not to try anymore. But, the truth is that you have absolute proof that one can overcome anything to achieve results. And how do I know this? You can both walk and talk. No, seriously. It is that simple. I had it described to me in those terms. Adults fear failure, and that is why they do not try. Babies on the other hand have no fear of failure. So, they will continue to try until they achieve their goals. The fact that you know how to walk on your own and speak a language indicates that you have ability to develope skill sets inside of you. As do most people. But the thing is, they stop trying because they fail and suddenly they believe it is impossible. I keep using personal examples because I know them to be true. Here's another one linked directly to your discussions about kids who think they are stupid because of teacher reactions. Throughout my schooling, I was treated quite differently from other kids. This is probably because I grew up a lot faster than the others did. I was nearly six feet tall by the time I was in grade 8 and maxxed out at 6 feet 2 inches by grade 10. My teachers -- as did most adults -- treated me as somebody more mature than my peers, and this also translated to my grades. I was expected to do more, thus unless I was so much better than the rest, they did not give me very good grades. No matter how hard I tried, I ended up getting grades circling around the 70 percent mark. And the funny thing is, when I didn't try at all, I ended up getting grades around the 70 percent mark. Thus, I came to realize early on that no matter what I did, I would end up in the 70's, so why bother trying? (Try applying that to a job market with a minimum level, friend). So, throughout high school I coasted with the same grades, with the exception of math classes where my grades were not great for the simple fact that I didn't apply myself (math is actually simple to me when I apply myself). However, when I started in post-secondary education, my grades tanked. I wasn't a party animal who wasted away my post-secondary education drunk and stoned. Just carrying through with the same attitude I was instilled with, I ended up with rather poor grades. I attended one year at a University and then transferred to a college. I spent two years at that college and between both schools ended up with very low grades, failing several classes. I then took several years off and worked for very little pay at one of those "McJobs" you keep talking about. I had lofty ambitions, but never was going to apply myself. But then, I decided one year that I wanted to get a better job. So, I looked around at possible schooling I could attend and found a one year (three term) highly condensed technical program and decided I was going to go for it an apply myself as hard as I could. I ended up graduating with a 98% average. And now I have a job that makes me almost three times as much as my previous job. I don't really have time to listen to those who complain about their environment because when I ask them what they have done to get themselves out of it and they simply go on complaining about their environment, I know the answer. Nothing. And perhaps it may seem to you like a law of the jungle type attitude for me not to want to bend down and pick everybody up every time they fall, but I don't see it. I believe that it is our responsibility as a country to offer welfare so people don't start, shelter to the homeless so that they can get off the streets, food so that they can eat, and training/counselling so that people can find a way to better themselves. If you think that too many people are not aware of these options, then perhaps you might want to apply your energies to getting your government reps to put more money into making people aware of these options. But so long as the opportunity for better employment is available, I think we should try and work on helping people to help themselves. We have to change their ways of thinking, not simply throw a pillow under them and leave it at that. To paraphrase you... what is so evil in wanting to help people help themselves?

Posted by: Surecure at April 23, 2006 09:54 AM (5xF7M)

119 That should've been "I believe that it is our responsibility as a country to offer welfare so people don't starve".

Posted by: Surecure at April 23, 2006 09:58 AM (5xF7M)

120 Regis Some people do make choices, conscious choices. Like the Johnson&Johnson heir would is into film. He could concievably go through his entire trust just to follow his dream instead of following his father into the family business. Now he made a real choice. So choice does exist. Just not for a lot of people. Not really. If I placed you in a university classroom in China and said, "Now Regis, show me how you choose to succeed." You might protest that you don't even know the language. That is my point. A lot of folks don't even know the language. That language was never part of their experience. So there are real academic and social skills that are necessary. You also need to have developed an imagination. The kind that is developed through the brain being actively engaged in an activity. Reading is the perfect imagination exerciser. Poor people don't read. It is not a part of their culture,except perhaps an occasional book that they may bring home from school. The story of the wild child who was found at age 12 without language is moot. They tried to teach her the basic communication language that the average pre-schooler would use with no success. It was too late. There is an optimal time for learning and when it doesn't happen it is just too late. But these people are still human beings with all the basic needs that the rest of have. Society's solution to date has been to allow them to live at a subsistence level on a subsistence minimum wage. That is not good enough. Meanwhile those who can choose,the top 1% are garnering increasing amounts of wealth. I heard the other day on Oprah that they own 40% of everything and continues to increase at the expense of the rest of us who, I guess you would say,choose to give it to them. Ulimately, in my mind, we are headed for another French Revolution type of revolt. It was during the Great Depression that communism started to gain adherants. The failures of Capitalism are leading to South America and soon Mexico choosing socialist type governments. Simply because under Capitalism those at the bottom are ignored. My bottom line is you ignore them at your peril.

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 10:18 AM (sw5R/)

121 If I placed you in a university classroom in China and said, "Now Regis, show me how you choose to succeed." You might protest that you don't even know the language. That is my point. A lot of folks don't even know the language. You'd watch me start learning the language. That's what you'd see. I'd acknowledge the reality that I don't know the language and work my ass off to learn it so that I could succeed rather than complain that I couldn't succeed. Because I can. Put me at a disadvantage all you want. I recognize that success comes from my own effort and that wishing things were different will not make them so. BTW I'm still waiting for that worker revolt here in the US. Wasn't Marx convinced that it would happen in the most developed countries first? Its been what now? 165 years since Marx wrote Das Kapital? The US is the leading economy in the world. Tick tock tick tock. If anything this country is less socialist now than it was 35 years ago. Its like saying the people in the Middle East will rise up against their rulers and demand democracy. It has been said for decades now. How much progress has there been? Hardly any without outside pressure from the West. Socialism is no more inevitable in the West than Democracy is in the Middle East. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Marxian dogma according to which socialism is bound to come with the inexorability of a law of nature is just an arbitrary surmise devoid of any proof.-- Ludwig von Mises

Posted by: Regis at April 23, 2006 12:36 PM (ZrYg/)

122 Here's a fascinating photo essay of Venezuela in 1998 and 2006. Oil prices were at their lowest point in decades in 98 and have increased by 500% or so since then. What happened in 1998? Hugo Chavez's Socialist dictatorship came to power. It might take a while to load. I don't know what kind of connection you have. http://therealcuba.com/files/Venezuela%20antes%20y%20despues%20de%20Chavez.pps

Posted by: Regis at April 23, 2006 01:17 PM (ZrYg/)

123 Surecure I detect genuine empathy for those that don't end up as you have. You and Bic and Regis are correct about having choices up to a point. You had choices because you knew you had choices. Not everyone has this knowing. I will tell you where I think your knowing came from. Your teachers had high expectations of you because they knew what you didn't you were an A student. Neither you nor your teachers knew how to reach that potential. However, you still got B's, which means you were basically capable and understanding a bit above average. Inside you knew you were better but you couldn't reach in and retrieve that part of you. You became increasingly frustrated with yourself and when you hit bottom in university you gave up on yourself for awhile. College was going to get messed up because you were already discouraged by the time you got there. The working world re-energized you because then you could see in a concrete manner how a little more education would take you a long way financially. By then you knew the value of a buck and felt what it was like to be short of them. Now you were motivated. Now you had a goal. Most importantly you had that educational grounding that solid B average to draw upon. That solid B meant that you had all the academic skills absorbed fairly well. You had buried within you that frustrated need to succeed that always eluded you. You did succeed,you just were too hard on yourself. You didn't know perhaps how to study and never learned the art of research paper writing. That is why first year university students see their grades fall an average of 15%. They need time to adjust to the new system and learn the new rules, higher standards of content grammar and form. Not everyone is 6'2", you probably know height matters in the work world. Your height is about what the average executives height is. As Regis would say more tall guys "choose" to succeed. Not everyone has a B experience in high school. At least a quarter of the students don't graduate. As Regis would say they choose not to graduate. Many that do finish don't have B's. Many people feel that is enough. They choose to end their education there because that is where their dream ends. They can't imagine more than that. Everyone else they know does okay with it so why go on? I am no nerd. I wanna buy a car! The middle class know about deferring gratification until the finish university. The working class don't know about deferred gratification. In one sense both classes are the same in that they each get what is expected of them. Needless to say the working class and lower class kids are married years before the middle class student. Marriage and its responsibilities, rent, car payments,etc. I makes choosing to improve yourself much tougher. You are already alienated from school. You never did that well. It was always tough. The teachers always bugged you. So you don't need a lot of convincing to stay the course and if things get tougher financially you can always get a second job. Both you and the poor students make choices but they are based upon different realities. If you can understand and forgive yourself for your bad choices when you objectively had no excuse. You really had everything going for you how could you give up on yourself so easily? If you can flounder with all the pluses in your life can you begin to imagine how a person with weak academic skills must feel? Even if and when they decide to improve themselves they are usually behind the eight ball financially. It is a lot tougher than you guys appear to think it is. If these "failures" believed they could achieve don't you think they would? You have to believe before you can achieve. To make a success out of a failure is far easier when that failure has experienced success early in life. He has banked that feeling and he can use it later. If you have never had early success to bank it is a much more difficult.

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 01:21 PM (sw5R/)

124 Surecure I detect genuine empathy for those that don't end up as you have. You, Bic and Regis are correct about having choices up to a point. You had choices because you knew you had choices. Not everyone has this knowing. I will tell you where I think your knowing came from. Your teachers had high expectations of you because they knew what you didn't you were an A student. Neither you nor your teachers knew how to reach that potential. However, you still got B's, which means you were basically capable and understanding a bit above average. Inside you knew you were better but you couldn't reach in and retrieve that part of you. You became increasingly frustrated with yourself and when you hit bottom in university you gave up on yourself for awhile. College was going to get messed up because you were already discouraged by the time you got there. The working world re-energized you because then you could see in a concrete manner how a little more education would take you a long way financially. By then you knew the value of a buck and felt what it was like to be short of them. Now you were motivated. Now you had a goal. Most importantly you had that educational grounding that solid B average to draw upon. That solid B meant that you had all the academic skills absorbed fairly well. You had buried within you that frustrated need to succeed that always eluded you. You did succeed,you just were too hard on yourself. You didn't know perhaps how to study and never learned the art of research paper writing. That is why first year university students see their grades fall an average of 15%. They need time to adjust to the new system and learn the new rules, higher standards of content grammar and form. Not everyone is 6'2", you probably know height matters in the work world. Your height is about what the average executives height is. As Regis would say more tall guys "choose" to succeed. Not everyone has a B experience in high school. At least a quarter of the students don't graduate. As Regis would say they choose not to graduate. Many that do finish don't have B's. Many people feel that is enough. They choose to end their education there because that is where their dream ends. They can't imagine more than that. Everyone else they know does okay with it so why go on? I am no nerd. I wanna buy a car! The middle class know about deferring gratification until the finish university. The working class don't know about deferred gratification. In one sense both classes are the same in that they each get what is expected of them. Needless to say the working class and lower class kids are married years before the middle class student. Marriage and its responsibilities, rent, car payments,etc. I makes choosing to improve yourself much tougher. You are already alienated from school. You never did that well. It was always tough. The teachers always bugged you. So you don't need a lot of convincing to stay the course and if things get tougher financially you can always get a second job. Both you and the poor students make choices but they are based upon different realities. If you can understand and forgive yourself for your bad choices when you objectively had no excuse. You really had everything going for you how could you give up on yourself so easily? If you can flounder with all the pluses in your life can you begin to imagine how a person with weak academic skills must feel? Even if and when they decide to improve themselves they are usually behind the eight ball financially. It is a lot tougher than you guys appear to think it is. If these "failures" believed they could achieve don't you think they would? You have to believe before you can achieve. To make a success out of a failure is far easier when that failure has experienced success early in life. He has banked that feeling and he can use it later. If you have never had early success to bank it is a much more difficult.

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 01:37 PM (sw5R/)

125 Poor people don't read. It is not a part of their culture,except perhaps an occasional book that they may bring home from school. Holy Gross Generalization, Batman!!

Posted by: Mac at April 23, 2006 03:24 PM (TaDbz)

126 Mac Yes, I am saying generally speaking they don't have books and don't spend a lot of time reading them to their children. I should know, I came from a working class environment. Nobody I knew ever had a parent read to them. My parents never read to me even once!

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 03:53 PM (sw5R/)

127 Yet you are still fairly successful, right? I do remember you mentioning that you made $40,000 a year. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.) 40k Can$ is actually slightly above the national average. Talk about undercutting the point you're trying to make.

Posted by: Regis at April 23, 2006 04:58 PM (ZrYg/)

128 Regis You have to recognize that America has a huge underclass of working poor. Including the illegals its about 41million. These people have no representatives in congress. If you don't see a problem on the horizon then you are paying attention. Marx didn't anticipate the rise of unionism. Nor did he anticipate the rise of the middle class. Unfortunately, Regis both of these social stop gaps are suffering decline. The unions are less than 10%of the workforce. So the conditions are ripening much more slowly but I think Marx is back on track especially with the huge windfall wages these top earners are publicly grabbing. I am glad to see you have a lot of confidence. I doubt very much you could function very quickly in Chinese.

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 05:09 PM (sw5R/)

129 If you don't see a problem on the horizon then you are paying attention. LOL Indeed. So since you see a problem where there is none that would make you what? Delusional *grin*

Posted by: Regis at April 23, 2006 05:42 PM (ZrYg/)

130 I should know, I came from a working class environment. Nobody I knew ever had a parent read to them. My parents never read to me even once! These types of observations are called "empirical" and are considered highly unreliable. I'm sorry you didn't read as a child and your parents didn't read to you but that does not mean that other children do not read and other parents did not read to their children. Ridiculous!!

Posted by: Mac at April 23, 2006 07:41 PM (TaDbz)

131 Regis OOPS! hehe, I meant to say you weren't paying attention! BTW that real cuba website was a tad to the right. Like almost over the far right edge. Here is what they don't say. Cuba was a Spanish colony and Cuban patriots were railing against Spain's rule. The American's who owned the sugar plantations added in a whispering campaign against the Spanish as being harsh and cruel. The Americans who read about this in their newspapers felt great sympathy for Cubans. An American ship the Maine blew up in Havana habour adding to the anger against Spain. Cuban patriots hestitated to let American troops into Cuba to help them get rid of the Spanish. The Americans reassured the Cubans by an act of congress the Teller Amendment which said Americans would leave as soon as Cuban independance was achieved. What happened? Spain left,Americans stayed! Cuba was ruled by a series of US military men for several decades and then by American puppets until Castro. In Castros first speech he promised his government was not going to repeat 1898's mistakes. Cuba was going to be run as an independent country. If America had been true to its word in 1898 I doubt that Castro would have had his revolution. A similar story can be told of Iran. They had a democratic government in the 1940's. Their mistake was they wanted to nationalise their oil. American oil companies got the American government through the CIA to overthrow the democratic government and install their man, The Shah of Iran. That was the end of Middle East democracy. See what happens when corporate interests use the government to get their way.

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 08:07 PM (sw5R/)

132 Steve, you're evading the point entirely. I linked to a slideshow on Venezuela. Not Cuba, not Iran. Venezuela.

Posted by: Regis at April 23, 2006 08:45 PM (ZrYg/)

133 Regis It doesn't matter, what happened to Iran in 1953 to get their nationalized oil is going to happen to Venezuela sometime fairly soon. They demonize the leader first. That process is fairly well along. It looks like the CIA is working on destabilization, internal strife. Undoubtably, they are funneling money into the upper classes and trying to get them organized to keep up the pressure on Chavez. If Chavez takes the bait and starts using violence the Americans will organize and train a guerilla group. They can destabilize just like the insurgents in Iraq. At the right moment they take him out.

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 08:56 PM (sw5R/)

134 Still avoiding the pictures with rampant arbitrary, unsupported speculation about US covert action against Chavez? What's the matter? Don't like what socialist policies and nationalizing the oil industry has done despite 500% increases in oil prices? PS there is no need to demonize Chavez. He does that all on his own.

Posted by: Regis at April 23, 2006 10:15 PM (ZrYg/)

135 Regis Those same pictures could be taken in any large US city. Look the Venezuelan elite along with American oil companies had their way for 40 years. At the end of 40 years 80% of Venezuelans were poor, 75% of the arable land was owned by 5% of the people and 70% had no access to health care This same process is occuring in the US. If the number of working poor is 40m, what would the number of poor be? If 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth, what percent of Americans would it take to own 75% of the wealth? My guess is 5% at most. Access to health care isn't as bad but those other two statistics are probably conservative. There is a lot more here; http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1699

Posted by: steve d. at April 23, 2006 10:53 PM (sw5R/)

136 Well Steve D, I can tell you that your hypothisizing about where I was mentally in terms of my schooling is completely wrong. I never "gave up" on myself when my grades tanked in University. I left University because I realized the particular program I was in wasn't right for what I wanted to achieve. I entered the college stream and ultimately became disenchanted with what I saw. That is why I dropped out. And the working world did nothing to reenergize me. In fact, quite the opposite. I got comfortable. I wasn't making a lot of money or getting ahead, but I didn't feel any real pain so I never applied myself. I simply coasted like so many people do. And, "the middle class know about deferring gratification until the finish university"? I don't know where you got that notion from, but I can tell you that from what I have seen, it doesn't matter whether you are lower, middle or upper class, when it comes to university NOBODY defers gratification. You have some really strange ideas about middle class people my friend. The more you post the more I can't help but remember some of the earlier things you said about people from the lower-class accepting where they are and not seeing a way to rise above it. And you seem to describe yourself as being a part of this position. It kind of gives me the feeling that this belief of the incapability of lower-class people is so engrained in your way of thinking, that you actually have an inherent need to continue believing this. Since it was you who suggested that the biggest reason why those in the lower class don't move up is because they don't know how to and by connection don't believe it's possible, let me ask you this... do you think it is even remotely possible that the reason why you yourself don't think that the lower-class can succeed is because it was engrained in you from such an early age and now it refuses to leave your overall view of the world? Do you think that is even REMOTELY possible that it is your own prejudice towards the lower-class that is dictating your present view? And in doing so, do you think the reason why you reject the possibility that the lower-class very well might be able to help themselves is because you are subconsciously afraid of what that might mean in terms of you or the people you care about who have not? Do you think there is the slightest possibility that you are afraid that the success of those who have been in the lower-class is a direct affront to you?

Posted by: Surecure at April 23, 2006 11:07 PM (5xF7M)

137 This whole "classed society" malarkey doesn't do a thing for me. A "classed" society is one of those things socialists like to tell us they're going to eliminate... usually from their ivory towers. I grew up poor but I wasn't lower class; I was simply poor. I worked hard (still do!) and made some good choices so I'm not poor anymore but I'm sure as hell not rich. Did I somehow morph into middle class? Nope, I'm the same guy I was before but now I can afford to buy an occasional toy. My neighbours are pretty wealthy. They just bought a new Aston-Martin DB9 convertible (only about $250K) but we often have dinner together or sit around and drink tea. They don't seem to think it's beneath them to socialize with me. You know what? I think the socialists like to throw these artificial definitions like "middle class" out there like strawman arguments... so they can look great knocking 'em down, despite how meaningless they are. What's your thoughts, Regis?

Posted by: Mac at April 24, 2006 01:23 AM (TaDbz)

138 At the point where that essay said that Chavez was a legitimately elected leader I knew it was propoganda trash. The man stayed in power longer than the term he was elected for and has subsequently rigged elections and used intimidation tactics to prevent his opponents from voting to make his regieme look legitimate. I also think Surecure has a point. And finally, I know history will prove me right. Europe's standard of living relative to the rest of the world will decline and the US will continue to lead the way. The effects of socialism are already plainly visible over the last 35 years. Economies that were essentially even in 1970 (Those of Western Europe and the US) now shows a 25% advantage in GDP per capita in the US, which continues to grow at roughly double the rate of Europe. Think of it this way: If the trends over the last 35 years continue, in thirty five more years (2041) a person at the "poverty line" in the US (~$10,000 now) will probably make as much money as the average person in the EU does today ($28,000) and the gap in GDP per capita is likely to be 50%. (Yes, I did the math) But of course that is the trick with a relative poverty line. No matter how good life is compared to the rest of the world countries like the US will get scolded for not taking care of their "poor" people when by any absolute standard those people are incredibly rich. No doubt we'd get scolded by our "enlightened betters" across the pond if the US' poor, on average, made more than the average European. Kind of like Chavez's publicity stunt of giving away heating oil to poor people in the US when nearly half of his people are poor by their much lower standards. Not that I mind his politically motivated charity, mind you. I just find it highly amusing. Especially since the average person in Venezuela makes less than 60% of what a person on minimum wage does. "We are free to evade the effort of thinking-to reject reason-but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see"-- Terry Goodkind On that wonderful quote I'm finished with this discussion. Its been fun.

Posted by: Regis at April 24, 2006 01:24 AM (ZrYg/)

139 Mac, That's an interesting thought. The whole class warfare idea has always seemed artificial to me too. Of course, it comes down to Marx's idea of "class consciousness". I've always found that idea in and of itself absurd, so I guess it isn't such a stretch from there to class warfare. Class consciousness is an attempt to give human attributes to a group independant and completely apart from the attributes of its individual members. How that comes about I have no idea. But then, people will accept some really weird ideas, so what else is new?

Posted by: Regis at April 24, 2006 02:01 AM (ZrYg/)

140 Good points guys. As for me, I kind of see the idea of "classes" as being just another humanistic attempt at simplicity. It's a lot easier to just group things together in clever little definitions than it is to recognize that there are so many variations in the structure that you cannot even begin to categorize. It's like music. Forty years ago you had classical, jazz, blues, country and rock. Now how many categories do you have? And how often does one type float into the next? One of the biggest things I really dislike about Steve D's arguments is that they fall into the "this is my lot in life as part of a certain class" that ignore individuality. Every person is different and has different abilities at any given moment. They only change on individual basis' not as a collective. But some people would have us believe that there is no individuality, but rather collective consciousness' at different levels. I don't buy it because if that were true I might see a whole lot more similarities between myself and other people at my own supposed "class". But I don't. I see so many variations in lifestyles and attitudes that I cannot possibly believe that there is an underlying "attitude" of my "class". Maybe there are fairly common notions or realizations in my "class", but to be quite honest I have just as good understanding in the relationships I have with people from all economic walks of life.

Posted by: Surecure at April 24, 2006 09:12 AM (xSKww)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From the CBC:

Ottawa and the RCMP are considering a wholesale restructuring of federal law enforcement, based on a new British super crime-fighting agency, CBC News has learned.

Canadian officials are examining an organization unveiled in the United Kingdom last week known as the Serious Organized Crime Agency, or SOCA.

The biggest change in law enforcement since the founding of Scotland Yard, the FBI-style agency brings together 4,000 people from the U.K.'s National Crime Squad, the Intelligence Service, Customs and Excise, and the Immigration Service. SOCA members can hold multiple powers of police, immigration and customs officers.

Farther down in the story, though, is the most important aspect of the reorganization -- the legislation that is driving it:

SOCA Director General Bill Hughes said the organization has also been given new legislation to target organized crime.

"With the powers we have under Proceeds of Crime, and the other additional powers we've got under the SOCA Act, then we have some real opportunities to act against organized criminals," he said.

For example, lower level gang members could be sent to jail if they refuse to testify against the leaders of organized crime gangs.

Clearly, Canadian officials like the structural reorganization, but perhaps also the legislative aspect:

RCMP Chief Superintendent Bob Paulson, who took over control of the RCMP's Organized Crime Intelligence Branch two months ago, says he likes what he sees in the U.K.

"It's a recognition that if you're going to tackle organized crime on more than one enforcement front, you can do it with all the regulatory punch of government."

The truth is, I'm confused whether Canadian officials are more enamoured by the SOCA Act, or by the enforcing agency. I think the confusion is being sowed purposely. Keep the focus on the shiny new super-crime fighting agency, so that certain groups don't pay much attention to SOCA, the law.

Why? Because of the SOCA Act, as it has been enacted in the UK, gives law enforcement the ability to crack down on organized crime in an unprecedented manner.

So what's the problem? Fewer Sicilian or Russian mobsters is a good thing. It's not like the NDP can be too upset at that, right?

Interestingly, the SOCA Act can target, and has targeted, animal rights groups:

The new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCA) came into force on 1 July this year and it includes several measures to tackle the problem of animal rights extremism.

The legislation creates a new offence of causing economic loss by organised campaigns that target any scientist or member of their family, research facility or company in the supply chain using tactics such as intimidation, criminal damage, trespass, blackmail and libel.

The new law should enable police forces and the justice system to clamp down more effectively on animal rights extremism: they now have a clearer legal framework and can act more quickly. The Act may have already helped to reduce the number of attacks significantly.

On 3 August, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that seven animal rights activists were arrested for the first time under the SOCA Act. In recent years, there have been a growing number of police and prosecution successes against offenders who target companies and their staff.

In addition, many research institutions successfully protected themselves by gaining injunctions against harassment by groups and individuals - this has reduced illegal activity in a very effective way. The injunctions have been successful, both in controlling overt protests at research premises and outside private homes.

Presumably any group that pickets a private home, or uses late night visits to intimidate people they don't like, will find themselves subject to the SOCA Act. For example, there is now a concept in British law, introduced by this Act, of the "reasonable persons" -- a test a person has to pass to avoid being subjected to prosecution for executing what is called in the UK a "home visit".

Remember those anti-sealing protests on Canada's east coast? The helicopter fly-by's, the McCartneys prancing about on an ice flow, the general nuisance factor? In the British SOCA Act, it is now an offence to enter a "designated site" as a trespasser, punishable with up to a year in jail, a designated site being defined as any Crown land. It is a crime to take part in or to help organize a demonstration on a designated site. Note that special exceptions are made for labour demonstrations. If you want to stage a demonstration on Crown land, you have to apply for permission. Permission might be granted, with details concerning allowed size, number and size of placards, time of day, etc. No loudspeakers are allowed under the SOCA Act.

Now the British SOCA Act has special sections covering animal research protests, going beyond the sections I've just described. Of course, animal rights protests targeting animal research facilities and their staff is a major problem in the UK. Presumably, a Canadianized SOCA Act would focus on the disruption of such legal activities as the seal hunt in addition to the more general sections aimed at more traditional organized crime elements.

So I go back to the first sentence of the CBC report:

Ottawa and the RCMP are considering a wholesale restructuring of federal law enforcement, based on a new British super crime-fighting agency, CBC News has learned.

The CBC report focuses on the agency itself. But the agency is backed by enabling legislation that is far more significant than the nuts and bolts details of enforcement. I'm curious about what Canadian officials are spending their time in the UK studying.

I guess we'll all find out when the we see the plans for legislation to support the law-and-order plank of the Conservative Party platform. I suspect something like the SOCA Act will get a pretty rough ride in this minority government, since the activist groups that might find themselves subject to restrictions when it comes to their hitherto unfettered ability to cause mischief are also the natural allies of the current crop of opposition parties.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:56 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 1010 words, total size 7 kb.

From the CBC:

Another section of the act hints that an inquiry might be called into the spending practices of a past Liberal government.

An independent adviser will be appointed for six months to look at public opinion surveying commissioned while former prime minister Jean Chretien was in charge, before November 2003, "and determine whether further action, such as a judicial inquiry, is required."

OK, the prime minister wants to get a sense of how the citizens of this country feel about an issue. Isn't that what members of parliament are for? Or am I missing something here?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:34 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

In relation to my last post, I think I've come to some sort of understanding about the nature of "progressivism" as it is defined by liberals.

I discussed that it can't be progressive unless you have a goal, otherwise you can't judge if you've made any progress to that goal.

I was wrong. More to the point, I was had not considered the other possibility. You can measure progress to a goal. You can also measure progress away from something.

And with that realization, I suddenly understood why conservatives are inherently hard-working and liberals are inherently lazy. It has to do with which type of progress you are trying to achieve and entropy.

Yes, my flashes of insight are often weird and difficult to explain. Still, I'll try.

Let us say for the sake of argument that conservatives strive for general stability. That is to say, they are generally satisfied with the status quo and resist dramatic change. When they do desire change, it is usually a very focused and specific change that can be objectively measured in order to determine success. Take for example the Conservative government's five priorities. A very specific set of goals, limited in number and scope, achievable and measurable.

Liberals seem to think that the status quo is generally bad. For them, progress is anything that is not what it is like today.

And there is where the laziness comes in. It is related to entropy. Consider a jigsaw puzzle fresh out of the box, the pieces scattered on your kitchen table. The random jumble is in a state of high entropy, a term that comes from the field of thermodynamics, and is applicable to information theory as well. Think of it as randomness (though that is an imperfect analogy scientifically speaking). If your goal is to depict the bucolic scene on the cover of the box, you have to invest a great deal of time and effort sorting the pieces and fitting them together.

That is because there is only one correct configuration that shows the picture. To go from a state of randomness to one of order means injecting energy into the system. When completed you have a system of low entropy and high potential energy.

If on the other hand, your goal is merely to have a different configuration than the one you have on the table, all you have to do is mess around with the pieces by shuffling them about for a few moments. It takes nearly no effort, and you have achieve your goal of being different.

Of course, the system is still in a state of high entropy and low potential energy, but then you've injected virtually no energy into the system. Moreoever, by your measure of success, your have succeeded, which isn't surprising, since the bar was set so low. On the other hand, if your goal was to solve the puzzle, success is much harder to come by and failure is easily discerned.

Keeping that analogy in mind, think about conservative progressivism and liberal progressivism. For a conservative, a goal would be to increase Canada's birth rate, for example. That's a measurable goal, and hard to achieve. One step would be to strengthen marriage as an institution, not dilute it.

For a liberal, progress is merely being able to say that today is different from yesterday. Yesterday we did not have gay marriage. Today we do. That's progress.

In a way it is, because you have moved away from your previous state. But the new state is really not much different from the old state. Birth rates, for example, continue to fall. So though the configuration is different, it is still essentially that same (random noise, purposeless, chaotic), and achieving it really required no special effort. The liberal can hold up his achievement, but then any change from day to day would meet his weak definition for progress.

For the conservative, of course, that's not progress. Not because, in this case, of a fundamental problem with gay marriage. But because that change has done nothing to move the state of the system (birth rate in this case) to a desired goal (an increase), and arguably has moved away from it. So when a conservative says this does not represent progress, it is because he understands progress to mean something different. There is a specific goal in mind, and if that goal is not reached, or at least approached, then whatever changes have occurred are not truly progressive. The system is merely in a different, but equivalent, state.

The conservative's goals are much harder to achieve. He is trying to solve the puzzle. That takes incredible amounts of energy, given the puzzle at hand -- Canada. For the liberal, the goal is to continually fiddle, and any pointless or ineffective change is progress and so is a claim to success. Gay marriage does nothing to strengthen marriage or the family, but yesterday we didn't have it, and today we do, so that's progress. The long gun registry has done nothing to lower crime, but yesterday we didn't have it, and today we do, so that's progress. The additional billions thrown at healthcare have not improved the system, but yesterday we weren't spending it, and today we are, so that's progress. Nationalized daycare as envisioned by the Liberals would have resulted in almost no new daycare spaces, but yesterday we didn't have it, and today we would have, so that would have been progress.

The size of government is a function of this difference is "progress". Conservatives believe in having only as much government as you need to fulfill a specific set of goals. Any more does not help reach those goals and so does not help progress (indeed is an impediment in terms of wasted tax dollars). Liberals believe in large governments involved in all aspects of society. That provides the maximum capacity for changing things, which to them is the equivalent of maxium progress.

This is why liberals are always talking about an endless list of progressive policies and rarely any concrete goals. Progress is an end to itself, and what is "policy" but a word for how to change something, minus the actual goal. As long as things are changing (and they are directing the changes, of course), then, according to them, they have achieved their goal, because the goal is the change. Where the change leads is really not all that important, because wherever that is, they don't plan to stay there for long before changing things again.

I guess I know now why I tune out when I starting reading or hearing about progressive this and progressive that. At some level, I've always understood that all that nonsense about progressive policies never meant anything. Now I think I understand why.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:12 PM | Comments (171) | Add Comment
Post contains 1143 words, total size 7 kb.

1 The problem is that once the Conservative umbrella becomes established as a venue for getting a ride on the government train- guess which human types will flock to hitch a ride? The same types who flocked to the Liberal one party state party will switch to the Conservative bandwagon and will spout Conservative rhetoric, and they will do this very convincingly, better than most conservatives, and they will work very hard to avoid working.

Posted by: hoffman at April 08, 2006 03:20 PM (e/acA)

2 Don't ride too hard on 'progressives', after all, they've had some very constructive ideas over the last little while. Ideas like electoral reform have been bouncing around leftist (liberal) parties for a while. As well, I'll be the first to admit that some NDP/Liberal ideas aren't so bad. Things like unions aren't bad ideas in many circumstances. Its only thanks to the unions that many corporations began treating their employees better. Progressives (liberals) want change because they feel that anything is an improvement over the current situation. Its a little naive sometimes (which is why young people become more conservative over time) but at other times it can be very useful. I mean heck, if it was for liberal progressives women wouldn't even be allowed to vote.

Posted by: Southernontarioan at April 08, 2006 04:37 PM (rNbbk)

3 Steve, before you write off "Progressivism" as an any change read this. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060417/aronson It's time to break a taboo and place the word "socialism" across the top of the page in a major American progressive magazine. Time for the left to stop repressing the side of ourselves that the right finds most objectionable. Until we thumb our noses at the Democratic pols who have been calling the shots and reassert the very ideas they say are unthinkable, we will keep stumbling around in the dark corners of American politics, wondering how we lost our souls--and how to find them again. I can hear tongues clucking the conventional wisdom that the "S" word is the kiss of death for any American political initiative. Since the collapse of Communism, hasn't "socialism"--even the democratic kind--reeked of everything obsolete and discredited? Isn't it sheer absurdity to ask today's mainstream to pay attention to this nineteenth-century idea? Didn't Tony Blair reshape "New Labour" into a force capable of winning an unprecedented string of victories in Britain only by first defeating socialism and socialists in his party? And for a generation haven't we on the American left declared socialist ideology irrelevant time and again in the process of shaping our feminist, antiwar, progay, antiracist, multicultural, ecological and community-oriented identities? Norman Thomas, a founder of the ACLU, said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." While some Liberals are indeed like you envision the stronger force intellectually and morally behind them are tried and true socialists. Even in the United States.

Posted by: Regis at April 08, 2006 07:14 PM (ZrYg/)

4 Why explain laziness as a function of anything? Progressivism is lassitude harnessed to a bourgeois sense of entitlement. Think of the U of T class of 1968- Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff era. The lure of progressive candyfloss from a war-dodging Montreal university lecturer was too much to resist. So, we got the last 38 years of what was essentially reactionary provincialism dressed up as progress. Progress is measured out with coffee spoons by people who had plenty in common with J. Alfred Prufrock long before they were prepared to admit consanguinity with Eliot's protagonist. By the way, the Long John Baldry CD re-issue of 'It Ain't Easy' is a great listen, as this is being written and 'Going Down Slow' has more soul and poetic intelligence than the two U of T princes combined.

Posted by: Barry Stagg at April 08, 2006 07:22 PM (cLWjd)

5 Steve, I wouldn't say that liberals simply change for the sake of change. For example, I don't think they'll want to change back to the traditional definition of marriage anytime soon. So what, then, is the goal of their change? Try this: Abstract Radicalized Equality. Let me explain by going back to the basics. As Plato says, the democratic conception of justice is always based on two principles: freedom and equality. Thus in our democracy, we say that everyone should be free to pursue their conception of the good (principle of freedom) as long as we similarly allow others to pursue their conception of the good (principle of equality). However, in applying these principles to the particular context, people will tend to place more emphasis on one than the other, and this is what the right-left spectrum is supposed to indicate. The right is for those who tend to emphasize freedom at the expense of sacrificing some equality, and the left is for those who tend to emphasize equality at the expense of sacrificing some freedom. Conservatives, therefore, will always tend to be more on the right, because they will advocate local practical solutions to political problems (that encourage the free activity of ordinary citizens) at the risk of leaving or allowing some inequality. They would rather do this than risk imposing an equality that is abstract and makes things worse. Liberals, on the other hand, will tend to be more on the left because they emphasize bringing about a more equal distribution of freedom at the risk of taking away the freedom of a certain group. They generally prefer to impose this by government rather than trust local practical solutions, which are often unreliable. Note that both of these are ideals and when misapplied can have major faults. Ok, I think that was as non-partisan as I can be right now. Moving on to criticizing the present-day liberals, I think the problem is that they are increasingly radicalizing their emphasis on equality, which makes them apply it to places where it should not be applied. In other words, they have an abstract project (ungrounded in reality) that they are trying to impose onto the public. This is what gay marriage and state child care are about. They say: "Equally apply marriage not just to heterosexuals but to homosexuals," without realizing the consequences for the traditional family in which the country's future citizens are raised; and "Equally provide child care, 1) to equalize the economic disparity between single parents and two parent families, and 2) to allow women to be equal participants in the work force without children weighing them down," without realizing how this discourages marriage and family, and without realizing that children -in general (though not in every particular case)- are much better off when raised by parents than by strangers who are paid to do it. Anyway, this is why I think liberal progressivism is not goal-less or change for the sake of change, but is directed towards an abstract radicalized equality. Does this make sense?

Posted by: Michael at April 08, 2006 07:54 PM (WWOlu)

6 So what you're really saying is that the Liberals are confused???? It's just a difference between talk and action. As my mother used to say..."Talk is cheap." In politics, however, the Liberals "talk" cost the country a lot, and not just in $$$, but in trust. RZ

Posted by: RZ at April 08, 2006 08:07 PM (tyzJl)

7 A large part of the problem as well is that modern Liberals or Democrats tend to define themselves as not Conservatives. Liberals have always fallen back on painting Conservatives or Americans as evil. When your identity comes from not being like something (Americans or Conservatives), then by that token conservatives control the definition of who Liberals in fact are. If I as a conservative (or American) state that the color blue is good, Liberals by rote will automatically have to decry the color blue as bad because it is conservative and move away from any association with the color blue. With that ideology, whatever conservatives like or support, Liberals will be against, which I think is what we have seen from the left for the last 40 years, and rabidly so today. The more conservative move toward a leftist/liberal position the more the liberals move away from it, and the direction is always further left. As they do they pull the political spectrum, at least as it is interpreted/delivered by the MSM, along with them. The MSM supports and promotes the idea that the center is about two steps to the right of the leftist position. Even as the left continues to march leftward the MSM seems to consider their positions to be the same distance from the center. As such, conservatives unless they march along leftward with the liberals, will be painted as being very far to the right of center and as such extremist, which is actually the reverse of what is true. It is the left that becomes more extreme with their continued movement away from the center. Since modern liberalism is (in my opinion) defined by not being conservative, the more conservatives move toward "progressive" liberal "policies" (which by definition must be opposite of conservative policies) the further to the left liberals will go. I thank the flower power boomer generation who decided they were going to make the world a better place by rejecting every moral, principal or ideal their parents had, a philosphy of oppositism. Ufortunately due to the baby boom phenomenon, they had the ability to impose their will by sheer numbers -not because their views represented good or necessary policy. An unscrupulous politician who wanted to gain power would simply tell them what they wanted to hear (Trudeau), and what they wanted to hear was that their rejection of their parents ideals was in fact a progressive, enlightened, correct philosophy with merit. However it only had merit if it remained the opposite of conservative values. IMO, it is how we find today that a Conservative government many of whose positions and policies would put it far to the left of even the recent Chretien Liberals find themselves painted as extreme right, and how the peace loving liberal flower children of the sixties have come to support the likes of Saddams regime (and all the evil that went with it) via their protest against conservative governments.

Posted by: at April 08, 2006 08:16 PM (CjcOZ)

8 'All change is not progress, just as all motion is not forward'. The question should always be 'does this change take us closer to the ideal of democracy, or does it take us further away?' What dough head can argue that an ELECTED senate would take us further away from an ideal democracy and not closer to it? Oh right, the Liberal intellectual giants from Quebec can.

Posted by: rockyt at April 08, 2006 08:35 PM (jJ+Lj)

9 I agree with much of what you said, but it's too simplistic to say that liberals simply negate conservatives (though they often do) because it doesn't explain the specific directions their policies tend to take. And yes, RZ, I am saying that liberals are confused, at least many of them. Note the small 'l', refering to people of the liberal persuasion in general. The Liberal party of Canada is also confused with respect to policy. Of course, with respect to practice, many of them are also corrupt.

Posted by: Michael at April 08, 2006 08:39 PM (WWOlu)

10 Note the first comment I posted above is to our anonymous friend, not rockyt.

Posted by: Michael at April 08, 2006 08:43 PM (WWOlu)

11 Is it more lazy to change or to stay the same? This is not a hard question except for some Conservatives. For conservatives slow is fast, up is down, good is bad etc. At least that appears what they are saying. Take Marriage for instance. Conservatives think that because gay people can marry then it logically follows that heterosexuals will not propagate? Worse they may not marry or divorce. All this because gays are allowed equality under the marriage laws. Since gays were given that right I have not seen families collapse, or libidos lessen at all. Even Conservative families appear to be carrying on just as they were before gay people could legally marry. In fact I would be so bold as to venture to say that it has not affected heterosexual relationships or families one little bit. Like the Crime and Punishment issue it is another fake issue. A scare tactic. Based on irrational fears and superstitions. Conservative goals are hard to achieve because most people are not as anal about these things as most Conservatives appear to be. It is hard for me to get upset about crime because I know over the last 15 years there has been a steady decline in crime. It is hard for me to be upset about the fact that gay people have equal rights and appear happy to be viewed as complete human beings. Conservatives oddly find this threatening. Is it because they are insecure in their own sexual identity? Government grows because people have needs that they cannot provide for themselves. The concepts of strength in numbers, cooperative federalism, collective goals and aspirations appear foreign to the Conservative mind. The Darwinian survival of the fittest is their game. Life is a competition get in the game! This is naive because we are not all born equal in any sense of the word. We must however all play the game, and if you lose, well, too bad on the trash heap. We are not going to build a big government to take care of losers. Now that would be a waste of tax dollars! Do you sense a superior attitude? Yes. Plato was the first conservative and he believed that only a small elite could rule the unwashed masses. I think that is the conservative message. In the conservative mind people can't be trusted in groups. Only the individual can be trusted. Of course, the individual is nothing without the group but the conservative mind cannot fathom this truth. The Cult of the Individual is an American myth. No one can be great except through others. It takes a village, or a city or a country.

Posted by: steve d. at April 08, 2006 10:25 PM (sw5R/)

12 Oh Steved.... "most people are not as anal about these things as most Conservatives appear to be" Let us take marriage...only a liberal would agree that allowing gays to use a religious institution while cherrypicking which parts of religion to follow is anal. Your musing about our sexuality insecurity is sad. Funny...if a conservative doesn't follow the libs idea of marriage...we may be afraid we are gay? Bigots? Asinine. As for crime...a fake issue? Irrational fears? Superstition? A fake issue is the belief that the Libs had a national daycare program. Making people pay for their crimes is a real issue. Surely in the liberal mind..there is some belief that we are responsible for our actions and must pay the price for what we do. Or is it that they are simply misunderstood? You yap about the "group"...yet fail to grasp the basic fact that some just don't like to play by the "groups" rules. A fake issue? Tell that to victims of crime. Tell that to those that live in the middle of the "shooting galleries" found throughout the big cities. It is an issue...a real issue and hopefully...finally...criminals will now actually suffer a lose for the crime they commit. Just like on any team..in any group...there are those who just refuse to make an effort..to try...to sacrifice. You would like to reward them for taking a passive attitude. You say "are not going to build a big government to take care of losers." Does that mean a big government is required for some to actually live? While it is obvious some need the help of society because they can't help themselves...there are those that won't. This is the best..."Government grows because people have needs that they cannot provide for themselves". Can not? Choose not? Laziness? See the real issue is....the more the Government seduces...the more people take. Sure, there are some issues that the Government is required for but surely they are not required on every aspect of our lives. Justin Trudeau says it best: ""As you look at what the Conservative government stands for, itÂ’s the engagement of the individual, the empowerment of everyone, and the taking on of personal responsibility, not just waiting for the government to do anything" Conservatives left their mothers nipples years ago. While we appreciate the Governments role...we don't attach our lips to it much like liberals do. We have words to describe the dependant suckler..it is called a communist.

Posted by: Ownshook at April 08, 2006 11:39 PM (yfaTi)

13 "No-one can be great except through others." Don't you ever get tired of spewing smoke and putting up mirrors, steve d? Now you're claiming Conservatives are the fear mongers... and we're all truly Communists, if only we would abandon the ridiculous American Dream. Keep sipping the Koolaid, steve d... or should I say Comrade steve d?

Posted by: Mac at April 08, 2006 11:49 PM (TaDbz)

14 Of course, the individual is nothing without the group but the conservative mind cannot fathom this truth. The Cult of the Individual is an American myth. No one can be great except through others. An American myth? You should read John Locke and Adam Smith. Two very intelligent Englishmen. A single man can live alone on an island. A single man can think and feel and do all that life requires alone except procreate. A single man may be great. He needs no recognition of his greatness to make it so. He simply IS. I pity you. I really, honestly, deeply do. If your self-esteem depends on the platitudes and assurances of others as it appears, true happiness is impossible. Happiness depends upon ourselves.-- Aristotle I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction-- Ayn Rand

Posted by: Regis at April 09, 2006 01:27 AM (ZrYg/)

15 "Progressive" certainly does not mean change for the sake of change. "Progressive" in the political sphere means an individual or group who promotes policies leading to their goal of positive social change based on human rights. Concrete examples of progressives would be those throughout the years who have argued to end discrimination against people due to their race, sex, sexual preference, etc., with reactionary conservatives arguing against them every step of the way. In the financial sphere, progressives seek to ameliorate some of the harsher aspects of capitalism, with the goal of making the system progress to the point where it works for as much of society as possible. The reason that conservatives are not progressive is that their policies are a mix of maintaing the status quo, or rolling back progress already made.

Posted by: Rob at April 09, 2006 01:59 AM (SUUn7)

16 Hey Steve D. Your comment "Since gays were given that right I have not seen families collapse, or libidos lessen at all." So because it didn't happen the next day you imply that it has no impact. Can you tell me how many gay men who contract aids through unprotected anal sex die the next day? I will guarantee you that the answer is ZERO. Does that mean that aids does not exist or that if you contract the disease through unprotected anal sex with an HIV infected person that because you may not actually die until many years later that the eventual outcome of this action should be disregarded because it did not happen the next day, or month, or even year? You need to apply your own logic to your own ideologies.

Posted by: at April 09, 2006 03:02 AM (CjcOZ)

17 Re: the anonymous 'observation' that liberals define themselves in opposition to conservative views. It's just as easy to argue that conservatives define themselves in opposition to liberals. To a non-partisan paying lip service to no party, one who is more concerned with issues than with broad ideologies, either viewpoint reads as polemic and empty. Re: liberal laziness. As a reasonable man, Steve, you know that broad generalizations serve no truths. There are certainly lazy conservatives and industrious liberals. Yes, the CPC busted their collective chops to get their government, but the NDP couldn't have been that lazy in the last election to have made the gains they did. I think a fair argument could be made that the Liberals became complacent and paid for it, although not as much as they could have, no laziness there. The electorate sent a message that should be heeded by all the parties. Good government gets rewarded with the chance to try again, bad government will not. Campaigns and spin will only go so far, no matter what end of the political spectrum you represent. Just ask Kim Campbell.

Posted by: Don at April 09, 2006 03:18 AM (K7KF4)

18 Steve, You've lost your senses. First, statements like "all conservatives work hard, while all liberals are lazy" are basically meaningless and show a complete lack of thought and balance. For sure it is not conservative statement. Second, you keep equating progressives and liberals. They are to different terms. Third, your definition of liberal is incorrect. Fourth, your posts are way too verbose. Presumably, you want to make a point and have an impact on your audience. Try and do that in 10 lines as opposed to 200. (After all, it's not rocket science you're writing about.)

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at April 09, 2006 03:29 AM (ZdNYO)

19 i must agree with johan.trim it down lad. remember, you're dissing liberals to a conservative audience. lots of words make conservative head hurt.

Posted by: davidson at April 09, 2006 10:07 AM (Sp/NO)

20 OWNSHOOK Asinine? I wonder. Marriage existed long before Christianity picked it up and redefined it through their narrow prism. Marriage doesn't exist because religion says so, it exists because eons ago humankind discovered its special nature, sex, companionship, economic advantage and procreation. Religion merely stated the obvious by recognizing its special nature. Discouraging homosexual relationships even made some sense back then because so few of the children born ever made it to adulthood and numbers were important in a primitive, labour intensive agricultural society. Today in the urban world where space and time are expensive and precious these former ideas are not functional. Today our problems are the distribution of people and wealth not their production. This paradigm shift along with a more mature understanding of the biological normalcy of homosexuality allows for the free expression of your deepest held feelings. That is true freedom, true liberty, if that is what you believe in. Crime is a fake issue because for whatever reason crime has been going down for 15 years straight. So we must be doing something right. However, that is not good enough. Conservatives want more punishment, longer sentences, no time off for good behaviour. The vast majority do come out at some point. Then the question is will they be so alienated from the world that it becomes inevitable that they return to crime? Does pouring money into something solve it? If building more jails and stiffening the sentences worked then the USA would be a safer country than Canada. It isn't. It never will be. There is no easy answer. The easy answers have all been tried and ended in failure. It is easy for the upper middle class to feel they have power because they do. I am not talking about the Justin Trudeau's of the world. These people can do fine without government because they already own most of the wealth. The vast majority are powerless and feel powerless. That is why the number of people who vote keeps decreasing. MAC & REGIS Society is organized into groups, doctors, lawyers,firemen, etc. These groups have standards rewards and punishments for surpassing or not meeting them. People judge themselves against these standards, and the larger group societies standards,which also rewards and punishes behaviour. Perhaps the most important group is the family group. Children grow up wanting their parents to be proud of them, or not(if they are abused). So there are familial rewards and punishments. Don't try to sell me the crock that every man is an island unto himself. Every man has the weight of the expectations, mores, norms, and values of his social environment. If he strays too far from this reality he will be looked upon as a weirdo, or misfit or criminal on the one hand or if he excels at meeting these expectations he will be deemed a hero, a genius, an inspiration, a winner, an award winner or a rich man. So where is the Individual who hss made it without using others to get there????????? That's right, The Cult of the Individual is a myth. Steve(i think) You are correct. It hasn't been very long since the inception of this new acceptance of the gay person into full citizenship. So yes, time will tell. If you see the sky falling you will tell me won't you? I have a feeling you will see it before most of the rest of us.

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 11:44 AM (sw5R/)

21 What the heck does traditional marriages have to do with Birth Rate? Do we force gay men and or woman into these traditional marriage and force them to have children? Who will be the enforcer of this? I suppose that you and your Brownshirted friends will be the controllers of morality...right Steve. This is the weakest argument I've ever heard. Maybe you and your friends can solve the Iraq puzzle...oh that's right you broke it and have no idea how to fix it. LOL

Posted by: DL at April 09, 2006 12:09 PM (nlL5Y)

22 Good analysis of the misused and over-used term 'progressive'. It's one of the ways of identifying a hypocrite in most cases. "As a progressive, I believe we should..." and then he spouts some demand to get something for nothing... 'Human rights' has been turned into getting something without doing the requisite labour to warrant getting it, and 'long gone group identity gripes' substitute for individual acomplishment. The root of the term 'progressive' is in Marxism, where marx held a social evolutionary progressive view of historical 'determinism', where 'progress' along an evolutionary developmental scale was inevitable. In other words, the use of the term 'progressive' identifies a person as believing in this ideology which filled both fascism and communism in its time. The fascists took 'progressive' to mean the inevitable evolutionary prevalence of the 'Uebermensch', based on race; the communists took the term 'progressive' to mean the inevitable prevalence of the 'Uebermensch' based on 'superior political awareness'. Same effect: a social engineering presumption by 'progressive' self-appointed elites, not unlike the radical feminists and other 'politically correct' 'progressives' in Canada's virtual one party state Liberals. If you are addicted to labels, I prefer the label "Conservative humanism" to the social engineering implications of the term 'progressive' any day.

Posted by: hoffman at April 09, 2006 12:27 PM (e/acA)

23 So where is the Individual who hss made it without using others to get there????????? I don't "use" others to get anything. I willingly cooperate with them to achieve my goals. They willingly cooperate with me because our goals or similar or because I trade them value for their help. Society is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner's success as a means for the attainment of his own. -- Ludwig von Mises You poor Marxist. You can't tell that the forest is made of individual trees.

Posted by: Regis at April 09, 2006 01:21 PM (ZrYg/)

24 Regis "Willingly?" You mean like the MCJOB/slave who 'willingly' gets $6.50-8.00 an hour while the real "hero" the owner gets 170 times that? Is that "Value" for help?? When you would be worth nothing if it weren't for your "willing" MCJOB/slaves. No, that is not using people that is called cooperation. I guess they should be grateful too. They "willingly" perhaps you would say "gladly" live in poverty so that you can be the "hero" corporate captain. You are probably right, there is no "useing" after all in our system if these "willing cooperators" were worth more they would rise to the top. Isn't that the way it works? Everybody rising? Too bad that 80% are losers and never rise past the level of assistant store manager. This is a great system that almost guarantees that 80% will struggle and have to watch their pennies while the very few live in opulence. In Capitalism, the ones that rise to the top are the ones that most effectively "use" people, in a willing and cooperative way, to attain their goals of power and wealth. It is only because these "willing cooperators" go along with this charade that makes the "individual" worth 170 times more than him. Just pray that they don't one day wake up and say they don't wanna play this anymore. Meanwhile this "forest of individual trees" is being sold a bill of goods by the elite who have convinced them that the ground they are planted in belongs to the top 1% of income "earners?" You poor Capitalist. You are owned and you think you are free. You think you are an individual because they allow you to say you are. As long as we are "willing cooperators" there will be no need to become heavy handed.

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 03:57 PM (sw5R/)

25 DL I don't have Brownshirted friends, I am not a religious fundamentalist. I think you either misread my statement or I worded it poorly. My point was that earlier civilizations had high infant mortality rates while having a tremendous need for the agricultural help that children provided. In this kind of environment it is important they every male and female if possible mate. To tolerate homosexuality under these conditions would mean less children. So it was dysfunctional to the health of the society. In this primitive agricultural society prohibitions had a logic(every male and female is needed for procreative purposes). Today the opposite is true. Almost every child lives to adulthood while we do not require their labour. Further with housing, clothing and food relatively costly children are a financial burden moreso than in the past. In today's world homosexuality is not a threat to the society(we don't need their procreative potential fulfilled) our society can survive quite nicely without it.

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 05:57 PM (sw5R/)

26 Qannddian Politics is just like the beer, after a few, they all taste the same. The only difference between Libranos and the Conservatives is that one groups' neckties are RED, and the others are BLUE.....

Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at April 09, 2006 06:49 PM (Uagor)

27 steve d, like Regis, I pity you. I read your treatise for Canadian Communism and it saddened me to think someone could so misunderstand the human condition. The vast majority are powerless and feel powerless. That is why the number of people who vote keeps decreasing. You’re less than half right. People did feel powerless because the Liberals wanted them to feel that way. If you feel powerless, you will submit to and depend on the all-encompassing Nanny State to provide all for you. In recent years, the number of people who voted decreased because they were disgusted by the Liberals and wanted nothing to do with them. Unfortunately, for a time, there was no viable alternative but that changed. Why did Paul Martin and the Libs keep trying to frighten people away from Prime Minister Harper? So the voters would not consider the Conservatives as an alternative. That tactic failed and for the first time in years, the number of people who voted increased from 60.9% in 2004 to 64.9% in 2006. As this government works to restore confidence in our federal government, that will increase again. That's right, The Cult of the Individual is a myth. Your studies of Marxism are showing, steve d. I’m sure Stalin would be proud of you for having seen through Khrushchev’s lies. "Willingly?" You mean like the MCJOB/slave who 'willingly' gets $6.50-8.00 an hour while the real "hero" the owner gets 170 times that? Slavery is illegal, steve d. Slaves can’t walk away from their McJobs but free citizens can work to improve their lot in life by educating themselves and working hard so they can aspire to be the real “hero” by creating jobs. You poor Capitalist. You are owned and you think you are free. You poor Communist. You don’t even aspire to be free.

Posted by: Mac at April 09, 2006 07:00 PM (TaDbz)

28 Steve, Read this, then please answer the question following honestly. Ethics is a code of action. It is a guide to living. It determines which actions one should take based on a standard of value. The concept of value requires a purpose and a beneficiary. It requires answers to the questions "Value to whom?" and "Value for what?". Collectivism is an answer to the first question. It says value to the collective, whether that's society, your tribe, your family, your nation, your race, your sex, or any other group or category you "belong" to. The standard of good is that which benefits the group. At the root of this ethical standard is the belief that a collective is more than just individuals interacting together. It is the belief that the group is an entity itself, more important than the sum of the individuals. The individuals become secondary to the collective. Their well-being and even their lives are ignored if the group has something to gain. Individuals are not recognized. They are merely a tool for the group. Since the collective is actually just individuals interacting, the collectivists have to change their views of individuals. They morally evaluate people according to the results of the collective. If the collective manages to accomplish something great like land on the moon, every individual is given equal credit. If a nation goes to war, everyone is to blame. And if an individual refuses to acknowledge the superiority of his collective, than he is a traitor and is eliminated. This is the result of collectivism. Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group. Although different from altruism, collectivism complements it well. Altruism demands sacrifice for others, collectivism demands sacrifice for the group. Collectivism leads to altruism. Do you really espouse a code of ethics that requires being a tool to be sacrificed if the group says you should die? Mac is right. Not only don't you even aspire to be free, you have shackled yourself into slavery to your precious collective.

Posted by: Regis at April 09, 2006 07:56 PM (ZrYg/)

29 Steve D: There's a lot of evidence that completely discredits your ideas. Crime is not a "fake issue" just because some forms of it are declining. That is just idiotic. We can and should reduce it further, to the benefit of all people. Your notion of government altruism is just pure BS. You may not be aware that your preferred society where government controls all property, guaranteeing that no evil capitalist can exploit the little guy, has actually been tried several times: Cuba, North Korea, the USSR, the Eastern Bloc. In each case, the government allocates resources badly, causing most people to live in misery. Government becomes the exploiter, crushing anyone who dares oppose it. There are flaws in our system despite our attempts to build safety nets. People do get left behind occasionally, but it is also true that we can't stop terrorism. The price of eliminating poverty and terrorism entirely is simply too high: the complete loss of freedom and destruction of initiative. You may think that equality of misery is a great solution, but don't expect a lot of people who have travelled, lived in one of those socialist paradises or read a newspaper in the last 20 years, to agree with you.

Posted by: Biff at April 09, 2006 09:31 PM (wz0BQ)

30 Regis: --------------- A single man can live alone on an island. A single man can think and feel and do all that life requires alone except procreate. A single man may be great. He needs no recognition of his greatness to make it so. He simply IS. --------------- This has got to be one of the funniest things I've read on the internet in a long, long time. Enjoy yourself on your island, my friend. Maybe you can build a really great hut out of palm fronds. As far as this discussion of conservativism versus liberalism goes, Angry boils it all down to utilitarianism. "The conservative's goals are much harder to achieve. He is trying to solve the puzzle." Let me solve it for ya, Angry, if "progress" is what you claim it to be. Outlaw birth control. If you're concerned by the ethics, or more likely, the optics, of spreading disease and increasing teen and unplanned pregnancies, you could always pair this with a favourite conservative notion: a PR campaign stressing abstinence, which won't work, but at least will look good to conservative voters. After all, the ability to plan pregnancies and inhibit the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases is progress as seen by liberals, so who needs it?

Posted by: Ade at April 09, 2006 10:14 PM (4p91Z)

31 Regis Yes, voting did increase this time. I do think having a multi-party system encourages the voter. I hope you are correct in your prediction that more people will vote next time. Submitting to the nanny state to me is more warm and inviting than the Corporate state we have now. This state is run by an elite for an elite. They will allow just enough to trickle down to appease the working classes. Yes, I have read some of Marx, Adam Smith, Keynes, Friedman and Galbraith. I have read quite a lot. I wouldn't call myself a Communist though. You see I am a pragmatist, I would prefer to see something in operation successfully before I adopt it. Communism has never been tried. A lot of the countries you think are Communist are really dictatorships or oligarchies. They may have a few elements of Communism but that is only the myth they tell their people. Just like we have our myth that we have a democracy. We have elements of democracy like regular elections but what goes on between elections is more Oligarchic. I have seen a lot of successful social democratic governments though. So I would call myself a social democrat. Slavery Slavery in the traditional sense was outlawed. That is why Corporations had to think outside the box. So they lobby against minimum wages. If they must have them then keep them as low as possible. Make sure there is always a large pool of workers from which to maintain your supply of cheap labour. Lobby to allow uneducated Portuguese to replace the Italian workers who used to do the manual labour and cleaning. Bring in workers from the Tropics and Mexico on work visas. Use young people as much as possible in the low wage MCJOBS. Take manufacturing jobs to Third World countries to the lowest bidder. Outsource your work to Jobbers who operate in Tax Free Zones in South East Asia. Inside these Zones are compounds where you work 14 hour days with no holidays or benefits. You have no rights. You make a dollar an hour. You are searched going in and out. You are free to work, starve or subsist in some other way. It is easy to say, "Pull up your socks and make something of yourself." In reality for numerous reasons most people don't. Just like you won't be a multi-millionaire. Not because you are lazy or too dumb but because it simply never seriously entered your mind as something that you could reasonably attain. So the thought if it occurs to you at all is quickly dismissed. That is the mindset of many people and explains why only one in three gets post secondary education. Everyone aspires to be free. They just don't know how to go about it or don't believe it is a realistic dream. So they are slaves and go from one mcjob to another making only enough to have shelter and eat and buy the odd bit of clothing, just like the slaves of old.

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 10:18 PM (sw5R/)

32 Regis Do you really espouse a code of ethics that requires being a tool to be sacrificed if the group says you should die? No, I don't unless you join the military. The military is the perfect collective. It must be a communist invention. No I guess not because it existed long before Communism was ever thought of. We do a lot of things for the collective. We pay taxes, we volunteer our services, we vote, we serve the country. We defend the country both in words and actions. I would even sacrifice my life if we were invaded to defend the collective. Organizations will sacrifice its members to ensure the survival of the organization,which is simply a larger collective of people. The few are laid off so the majority can go on. The Society will protect the collective when individuals threaten it. That is why we have jails. Their well-being and even their lives are ignored if the group has something to gain. Individuals are not recognized. They are merely a tool for the group. Corporations operate under this premise. Except if you are in a true power position. Even then you will be sacrificed, with a golden parachute, if the company itself is threatened by your leadership. My precious collective are called Canadians. I give taxes every year in the hope that they help in some small way the lives of Canadians as a collective. I am happy that some goes to the poorer provinces. I am happy that some goes to health care, roads, sewers etc. I think it is important that the collective is healthy. I know that if Canadians as a collective are doing well then so will I. We are after all, each of us, part of the whole. Together we are strong. Individually we are weak and vulnerable. That is why people have and will always live as collectives. My freedom depends on everyone else's freedom. Within the collective called Canada I have many choices because I am educated. I know I would have even more choices if more Canadians were able to afford a good education. So I work to that end trying to free as many as possible. I know I am only as free as they are. I hope I have answered your question, comrade!

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 10:48 PM (sw5R/)

33 Biff Cuba and North Korea are dictorships. The leader makes all the rules. Nobody owns anything unless the leader says so. Both, by the way, have elements of Capitalism. USSR(included the eastern bloc) is an Oligarchy. They also have elements of Capitalism. These are ancient forms of government that are highly controlled by a few powerful people. We have the modern form of Oligarchy. I will call it Democratic Oligarchy. It is Oligarchy with a democratic face. It has some elements of democracy but is run by a powerful few, some are elected, some are not. All these Swedish hockey players keep going back to Sweden(a socialist paradise) even though they pay higher taxes there. They are rich enough to live anywhere they want, even tax friendly countries, but they go to Sweden. It makes you go hmmmm? What is that about? I just wish that all our companies paid their taxes. Also,that people didn't have to live in poverty. It is totally unnecessary just ask a Swede.

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 11:10 PM (sw5R/)

34 Ask a Swede who's going to be paying for their wonderful welfare state in 20 years when most of them are on government pensions, welfare, unemployment insurance, disability pensions, and sitting around expecting to get free health care, free education, free roads, free libraries, free everything. Do you think that 50 or so retired hockey players will have enough dough to pay for it all? In a free market, the only poverty is voluntary. Capitalists cannot exploit their workers in a free market, because the workers are free to go elsewhere to work for a better employer, and they are free to create their own corporations. Capitalists cannot exploit consumers in a free market, because the consumers are free to go elsewhere to spend their money. It's easy to spot an unfree market. It's where poverty is growing, the government is growing, unemployment is growing, taxes are growing, welfare benefits are growing, and the value of the currency is being inflated to nothing. And the apologists for the unfree market go around telling everyone that the problems are the fault of "capitalists" and "individualists". P.S. You have a great solution for how to live well in a high-tax socialist welfare state: everybody just has to become a millionaire hockey player!!! Simple and elegant. Wish I hadda thought of that.

Posted by: at April 09, 2006 11:48 PM (a0Sy/)

35 Yes, voting did increase this time. Actually, it was Mac who observed that the percentage of voters increased... and I doubt you’ll be happy if the percentage increases because it’ll be folks voting Conservative, not Liberal or NDP. Submitting to the nanny state to me is more warm and inviting than the Corporate state we have now. Typical leftie thinking. It hasn’t worked elsewhere because they put the wrong people in charge. As long as the nanny state is in charge, it’s someone else’s fault when things go wrong. How did we become a corporate state when our government has predominantly been in the hands of the lefties? This state is run by an elite for an elite. That’s an interesting observation. All the guys who’ve been trying to force the nanny state down our throats were doing so to what purpose again? Let’s see.... ex-PM Paul Martin is a millionaire from Quebec. Ex-PM Jean Chretien? A millionaire from Quebec. Ex-PM Pierre Trudeau? A millionaire from Quebec. Heck, even Ex-PM Brian Mulroney was a millionaire from Quebec!! As much as I hate to lump Mulroney in with the Liberal band of thieves, he had the same background. The only difference was... Mulroney put the economy back on it’s feet after Trudeau almost bankrupt the country. Ignoring the couple of “lame ducks” who briefly held the office of Prime Minister of Canada (ie: Clark, Turner & Campbell), this means our country has been in the hands of millionaires from Quebec for almost 40 years. Now we have a middle-class economist from Alberta steering the ship... and, if memory serves, you’re still not happy, steve d. So I would call myself a social democrat. Given the foolishness you spout here regularly, I would call you something else altogether... and I would say you’re off your meds. So they are slaves and go from one mcjob to another making only enough to have shelter and eat and buy the odd bit of clothing, just like the slaves of old. steve d, you need to get out more. Take your emotional arguments to a third-world nation and see what poverty is like. My precious collective are called Canadians. Like I said, you’re off your meds. All these Swedish hockey players keep going back to Sweden(a socialist paradise) even though they pay higher taxes there. Do you think that might have something to do with the fact they were born in Sweden and their extended families live in Sweden, steve d? Wait a minute... how can they be rich if it’s a socialist nightmare... I mean paradise? Wouldn’t the collective take all that evil wealth away from them? Maybe you should use some of your Koolaid to wash down your meds, steve d... I think you’ve missed a couple doses.

Posted by: Mac at April 10, 2006 12:19 AM (TaDbz)

36 Steve, you assume too much. Remember this: Natural Rights such as life liberty and property are the product of the "American Cult of Individualism" as you so disparagingly and incorrectly put it. (Actually, it is a product of The Enlightenment) If that is a myth then any appeal to "rights" is baseless. Since you can have no rights the well being of your collective guarantees nothing for you as an individual of that group. Not prosperity, not protection from others, not even your life. You are, to your own mind, no more valuable than any other person of the collective. It is little suprise that the most barbaric and ruthless regimes in the 20th century by far were based on collectivist ethics. When the collective is everything and an individual nothing there is little preventing wholesale slaughter when those making the decisions for that collective decide that it would be best for the collective to do so. You're only one among millions, after all. The collective is what matters. You will probably want to dismiss these statistics because they were dictatorships and oligarchies. Democracies can be just as ruthless. If you don't think so imagine a Jew in Palestine today. James Madison had a wonderful name for it. "Tyranny of the Majority". People Killed Government Years 61,911,000 U.S.S.R. 1917-87 35,236,000 China (PRC) 1949-87 20,946,000 Germany 1933-45 10,075,000 China (KMT) 1928-49 5,964,000 Japan 1936-45 3,466,000 China (Mao Soviets) 1923-49 2,035,000 Cambodia 1975-79 I never said Communists invented collectivist ethics. It is, however, based on collectivist ethics. P.S. Sweden, France, and Germany's level of prosperity relative to The United States has fallen in the last 30 years. Ireland's has surpassed all three in the span of 10 years. India and China's economies are growing at rates of nearly 10% per year. Why? Seems fairly obvious to me. India had socialist policies, China was communist. Sweden, France, and Germany have taxes too high and regulations too oppressive. India and China changed. France, Germany, and Sweden have not. 100 years of evidence all points one way. Embrace capitalism and prosper, embrace Socialism and stagnate. You call yourself a pragmatist. Pragmatists decide based on facts and what works. Choose.

Posted by: Regis at April 10, 2006 01:22 AM (ZrYg/)

37 Not to sound like someone who supports communism, but Steve d. has a point about communism never really being tried. That's because true communism would require and result in a perfect society where greed and ambition are placed secondary to the common good. The problem is that no matter how hard we try to establish a communist utopia it will fail. This is because communism creates a system where corruption is inevitable, and when corruption occurs in a communism it results in a dictatorship or an oligarchy. The USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba all started as communisms, only to be replaced by a dictatorship soon thereafter. Steve D. is also right about Canada being a form of 'collective' to be honest. We do pay taxes to support other Canadians and we do require each other to move along in life. In that sense we are a collective. However, we are still individuals and we cling to our rights as individuals. We vote independently and we have the rights to make our own choices. That is the unique advantage of Canada's (Western) society, we are not simply a collective, we are a group of individuals working together collectively for mutual benefit.

Posted by: Southernontarioan at April 10, 2006 10:28 AM (VCQov)

38 Conservatives attempt to conserve the historical foundations of good civilization. Simply put, a man and a woman get married and have kids. Then other like-minded individuals (perhaps family) do the same, forming a community. If morals, values and economics continue to be shared, the community ought to grow and prosper to the benefit of all. When things go morally wrong, becoming a threat to liberty and community - such as slavery in the US - Conservatives change it, even at the expense of war. This is Conservative Progress - preserving the good and changing the bad. (Liberals, on the other hand, attempted to undermine the abolition of slavery by inventing the KKK - and proudly being the party of the same well into the 20th century). To make matters worse, in Canada, the Liberal/left sliding further and futher away from democracy and the founding principles of this country, progressively think of themselves as being above the unwashed public and the law. This is the creeping arrogance of socialism, the enemy of freedom and democracy. Both 'official bilingualism' and SSM were not democratically made law by any stretch of the imagination. Yet the Liberal/leftist mandarins believed these laws to be 'progressive' and therefore good, despite the fact that both 'laws' continue to divide the country, rather than define it. The majority of the population did not agree with gay 'marriage' (a civil union perhaps, but not marriage) because it makes no rational sense, and is not a benefit to society as a whole. With just 17% (or less) of the population being bilingual, the majority does not believe (nor should it) that we are officially bilingual either. (Supported by another liberal lie - that Canada was founded by two 'great' nations) Other ill thought out 'progressive' ideas put in place by liberals include the metric system - despite the fact that the large majority of our trade well before then and well into the forseeable future is with the US. The only 'rational' reason for doing any of the above is the appeasement of Quebec (bilingualism) and foisting a false 'progressive' identity on Canadians that is neither historic nor organic. Socialism creates an unjust society built on lies. (mandatory bilingualism for federal government employees, redefinition of language and religious definition without consent, wasted tax dollars on irrational programs, etc.) History = Culture = Destiny. A good governments first priority should be to democratically (not arbitrarily) act on behalf of the citizens and the founding principles of the country. It stands to reason then, that a good government would unite the country, not divide it. That's why 'progressive' Liberalism, is actually regressive, ill-conceived and outright dangerous. Good for special interests, but equally good at division and if allowed to continue - dissolution of the country. A major problem we obviously face. steved: On behalf of my family, friends, the past and future of this country, I will personally fight you and your ideas, using whatever force necessary, until the anti-choice, anti-human ideas of socialism are exposed and destroyed once and for all.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 10, 2006 10:48 AM (MkblT)

39 Not only do the Liberals consider shuffling the puzzle pieces as being progressive. They go one step further. They like to add puzzle pieces that do not even belong to the puzzle. Their ideas or policies do not fit together with the ones we already have, but they pat themselves on the back by saying they are progressive because they believe their wide range of ideas include so much diversity. What they fail to see is that some of their more diverse policies hurt policies/people groups that they already represent. This has never seemed to bother them - that we have laws and ideas that conflict with one another. examples: the Liberal MPs say they represent law abiding citizens of canada and at the same time allow Tamil Tigers to operate in canada. The example of marriage and procreation is excellent. Their solution is to allow gay marriage (dead end relationship) and increase immigration. Then we have a problem with people groups coming in that have ideaology very different than Canadian law. So then we have multiculturalism and we get told about 'just be nice to everyone and we will all get along together.' I say baloney to that. you can't have people in this country lamblasting our freedoms and using those freedoms to spread hatred and violence. But I suspect the Liberals think that having all these different religions and practices is progressive - it doesn't matter that some of these practices goes against each other and against the laws of this nation.

Posted by: Susan at April 10, 2006 11:21 AM (Z0B6G)

40 Excellent post Steve. In addition to the other elements of "progressivism", one should also look at homelessness. For a Liberal, one should just keep on throwing more money at the problem without deciding whether there is a goal of fixing the problem. After all, Liberals feel both that homeless people should be given every opportunity to find a place to live and a job, but that if a homeless person wants to stay on the streets, that's fine too. Look at the leftist mindset in Toronto and how they resisted every opportunity to even count the homeless! Meanwhile, the Consevative genuinely care about homeless people. But they live with the idea that it is better to teach a man to fish than to just give him a fish. Thus, they believe in both the carrot and stick mentality in that you have to offer them hope, but you can't provide every comfort. After all, if they have every comfort, what is their incentive for change? Of course, keeping that in mind, that is the exact problem you outlined. When there is no incentive for change, there will be no REAL change. Just more of this "progress" we hear about.

Posted by: Surecure at April 10, 2006 11:36 AM (uyqvH)

41 Regis You present your arguements as an either or proposition. As I said, I believe I am a social democrat. That is there needs to be a healthy mix of private and public ownership. What we have now is an unhealthy mix. Ownership is on a path to be the exclusive domain of a small Oligarchy. That is why we have trouble affording services for people. That is why the fastest growing segment of the job market is the MCJOB. That is why pension agreements between employees and employers are being broken by the employers. That is why you can be fired without cause. That is why the minimum wage is so low. That is why companies put nothing toward social good, except when they get free publicity for it and/or need to soften their public persona. That is why even though taxes have been cut and profits have been at record levels companies still do not re-invest their wealth. The companies are having their way with us. We do not demand anything of them. Good citizenship demands participation. If they are going to operate in this country they should be required to pay taxes at least(a couple of years ago the newly elected Liberal government discovered that only 50% of Ontario companies had paid their taxes. The country belongs to all of us. A very tiny minority own over half and continue to accumulate wealth and power. The amount of wealth and power is finite. It should never be concentrated in a few hands. You believe that the new Conservative government is going to represent you? My prediction is that when all is said and done most of the benefits of government will end up in the hands of a small minority just like they did under the Liberals. Watch the budget. See the analysis of the budget. While I hope and expect you would want most of the benefits to go to those that are in most need, you will find the opposite. Why? This small minority only has to pick up the phone to talk to whomever they want in government to make their case. They always make their case. They are always persuasive. These people have highly developed people skills. You and me, we get to vote once every four years. We live in hope that this time government will be different. It won't be because after politics Harper and company will want jobs. You can check and see how many boards of directors Mulroney is on. This unequal access to government gives this small already highly influential group political power on top of their social influence. That is why wealth is flowing to this group in a steady stream aided and abetted by friendly governments who can't say no to these powerful men. That is our problem. Not collectivism. The same conditions that lead up to the French Revolution are developing in North America. I suggest we stop it before the revolution that is all. What is wrong with that? Irwin Daisy You should understand what you defending and what you are fighting before you do battle. If you are defending the movement of wealth to the top 1%, then yes, the fight is on. I am mystified though as to why a victim of this status quo would want to defend it. What we have in North America is an obscenely disporportiate flow of wealth to a very few at the expense of at least the bottom 50%. You cannot have peace, order and good government as long as this is allowed to continue.

Posted by: steve d. at April 10, 2006 01:56 PM (sw5R/)

42 You mean like the MCJOB/slave who 'willingly' gets $6.50-8.00 an hour while the real "hero" the owner gets 170 times that? I train 15 - 19yr olds to excel at 'McJobs' so I guess I'm aiding and abettng the 'slave holders'. My students are taught first and foremost that what Steve D. so condesendingly refers to as a 'McJob' is not a job but an opportunity. Excelling in that job will result in valuable job training, experience, recommendations and greater opportunities. They are also taught to think of themselves as not an 'employee' but rather self-employed: they offer their training, skills and time to a company in exchange for their salary. Most of my students go on (through the support of their employers) to bigger and better opportunities, while those who disparage and resent their employers do not. "Communism has never been tried." Good Lord. Is that old excuse still being used? We used to spout that stuff when I was a young, naive student at SFU in the early seventies. Nothing wrong with Communism - it just hasn't been applied correctly. The ultimate reason that Communism will never succeed is that it denies fundamental human nature: that being that we all act in our own self-interest, despite the denials of the holyier-than-thou Steve D.'s of the world, who believe that if they could just get a crack at it, they'd show us how it could be done. BTW Steve, how do you like the 'collective' in action in France? Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot! The left loves to talk about 'sustainability' while supporting a system that is clearly unsustainable. Logic, apparently, is not their forte.

Posted by: Randy at April 10, 2006 02:17 PM (hkkIN)

43 Steve In a free market, the only poverty is voluntary. You can't be serious? A quarter of the population chooses to be in poverty? Twenty percent of children live in poverty because...? Their parents want to teach them thrift? Their parents want them to know what want feels like? The secretary at one firm can go to another. The clerk at one store can move to another. NOW THAT IS FREEDOM!!! Capitalists discovered the power of TV advertising in the 1950's. They have more power over what you purchase than you will ever admit. The proof is in the pudding. Jello. Apple. IBM. etc. They have since refined their advertising quite a bit. They have it broken down by income, postal code, lifestyle, age. Market research is a science as much as an art. Companies spend more on marketing than on R&D, are they just stupid or do they know something? Capitalism has failed in South America. That is why they are turning to Socialism. Democratic socialism. Sweden is doing fine. They don't grow quite as fast as the American economy because they have decided to take care of all the people not just the few at the top. It only costs them about 1% off their GNP growth. A small price to pay. In Sweden all children get free care between 2-6yrs. Parents can take the equivalent of 1 year paid leave off work when their child is between 2 and 8 years old. Is there a working parent in Canada that wouldn't want that? Their unemployment rate is consistently below ours! Their corporate taxes are among the lowest in Europe. Well, you get the picture. If Canada could approach Sweden in the way they treat their citizens I would be happy.

Posted by: steve d. at April 10, 2006 02:22 PM (sw5R/)

44 MAC Canada has never been in the hands of lefties. Canada has been in the hands of the Corporate Elite for several decades now. Notice how corporate taxes only go down, never up, like yours and mine. Ever notice that after the government budget is analysed the most benefits always end up in the pockets of those that need them the least? It doesn't matter who the Prime Minister is. The reality is that the corporate elite have access to government any time they want. That is why they benefit more than any other class of people. Just because you are born in Sweden doesn't mean you have to stay there. Matts Sundin will make 8 million this year. I think he could take his whole family with him to any country in the world. But no, he chooses goes back to Sweden. Is his family telling him to stay away? No. Is his family begging him to take them out of Sweden? No. Just maybe he thinks Swedish life is great and its worth the price. Its just a guess mind you. You can go back on your meds now.

Posted by: steve d. at April 10, 2006 02:38 PM (sw5R/)

45 Steved, Would you deny Oprah her climb out of poverty by ambition and capitalist success? Would you deny any individual their dream? Do you actually believe that all people are equal? And if so, do you believe that all people should get the same share, managed and dispensed by a government? South America has always been driven by socialism or its children, that's why they're drowning in poverty. Down through history socialism has proven to be the perfect dictators tool - absolute power. The citizens wallow in misery and mud, while the elites step on them. The people in the end are stripped of their humanity, freedom of choice and dreams. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's a far cry better than the savagery of socialism. And just maybe, because of the recent actions taken against Tyco, Enron, Worldcom, etc. might be evolving further.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 10, 2006 02:47 PM (MkblT)

46 Steve, I assume you have read F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. In it he shows that progressives are just socialists. And in the modern world they often are socialists who don't even recognize that their policies are antithetical to freedom and capitalism.

Posted by: Technical Bard at April 10, 2006 02:49 PM (qFcf9)

47 First off Steve D, your notion that the fastest growing job marketplace is the "McJob" is out and right fantasy or self inflicted delusion. The problem with the usage of "McJob" is that it is used to describe jobs in the service industries. Well, uh.. yeah... the service industries are the fastest growing industries. But you know what jobs count under service industries? Teachers, doctors, artists, athletes, etc. etc. Surprise, surprise. No wonder the service industries are growing. But as for the growth rate, the expected (and seen) growth rate in these industries as well as the sales and food preparation portions of the service industries is 12 percent, which with no incredible surprise on anybody who isn't selectively ignorant, is exactly the rate of growth in the workforce. However, if you are referring to "McJobs" as the typical food preparation... well, they rank at number 8 in the fastest growing job markets behind other more impressive jobs such as health services, teaching, construction, computer services, installation, business and financial management and professional services. And sales jobs? Well, they rank 6th, tied with transportation and material moving. As for pay? Well, the average take home pay has increased almost 10 percent in the last 10 years. So... um... what exactly was the point you were trying to make?

Posted by: Surecure at April 10, 2006 03:11 PM (uyqvH)

48 One correction... sales jobs are growing around 12%. Food prep (which includes BTW professional chefs, bakers, etc.) is at 13% growth. The other, more desirable service jobs (doctors, teachers, etc.) are sitting at a growth rate of 20%. Still... it's a far cry from professional and related services at a growth rate of 23%. And with management, business and financial at a growth rate of 15%, construction and extraction at a growth rate of 15%, and installation, maintenance and repair at 14%, you really have to wonder where anybody would get the idea that "McJobs" are the fastest growing job market these days.

Posted by: Surecure at April 10, 2006 03:23 PM (uyqvH)

49 The real world is a jungle. Some people would rather live in the zoo, and be content with the bucket of slop the zookeeper brings...Human nature being the way it is, discontentment and jealousy should eventually give rise to some form of ambition. The problem that the government now faces, is that the educational system hasnt kept up to the modern world. Someone who graduates high school, has Togo onto a trades school or university, in order to be employable. If the high school system could be revamped to have multitrack system - AP courses for advanced students heading to university - Trades schooling to teach a trade. Make high school graduates employable again.

Posted by: Curtis at April 10, 2006 05:30 PM (heo8b)

50 Steve d: You present your arguements as an either or proposition. Exactly. At their most basic, fundamental level, they are inconsistent. Capitalism is based on Individualist ethics. Socialism is based on Collectivist ethics. All our arguments on economics thus far have come down to this. If you don't think so after every proposal you cited from Sweden ask "Why do I want this?". The answer that underlies every response will be "Because I think it will be good for Canada". You say Socialism is right because it is moral. I say it is wrong because it is immoral. We come to inconsistent results on the same evidence because we believe in different theories of ethics. Theories that cannot be "mixed". Eventually a person will have to choose one over the other. Let me try to illustrate the tension for you. Say for example, that 75% of Canadians woke up tomorrow and said Freedom of Speech was a terrible thing and must be abolished. Then Parliament passed a law saying that anyone speaking out against Prime Minister Harper's government would be thrown in jail, or put to death. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that this would be very good for Canada. John Doe, as an individual who believes that rights are inherent in every person and not granted by the government, says that the government's action is immoral because it is wrong to infringe a person's rights. Jane Doe, who believes that whatever is good for Canada is right and moral, (a Collectivist ethics stance) says that it is a moral action to jail dissenters, since it is good for Canada (as I suggested we assume). Since an action cannot be both moral and immoral at the same time a person claiming to believe that people have inherent rights, but also that whatever the collective decides is moral is, in fact, moral must choose between inconsistent results. The choice becomes either/or. Even choosing between 3 or more things is an either/or comparison with multiple stages. As I said, I believe I am a social democrat. You could base the Socialist economic system on any system of government you chose. It makes no difference to me. Its still wrong. Thankfully for me, I'm an American. If you choose wrongly it doesn't affect me nearly as much as your poor fellow Canadians.

Posted by: Regis at April 10, 2006 05:36 PM (ZrYg/)

51 You might want to do some reading on your precious "Scandinavian Model". http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510 In 1970, SwedenÂ’s level of prosperity was one quarter above BelgiumÂ’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place. Here are some economic growth rate figures for 2005: United States 3.50 Canada 2.90 Sweden 2.60 Finland 2.20 France 1.60 Belgium 1.50 Germany 0.90 Italy 0.20 What does this mean? Lets project out to 2036, giving all countries a base of 1 trillion GDP and a population of 25 million. That gives every country a per capita income of $40,000. In thirty years with zero population growth and constant economic growth at these rates per capita GDP will look like this (In US$): United States: $112,271 Canada: $94,302 Sweden: $86,393 Finland: $76,839 France: $64,397 Belgium: $62,523 Germany: $52,335 Italy: $42,470 Economic growth rates vary, but over the last 20 years American GDP growth has been averaging over 3% and well ahead of every major European country. Yep, I'll take my chances with capitalism. As I've said before, I'd rather be a poor man in a capitalist country than a rich man in a socialist one. With these projections a person below the "poverty line" in the US in 2036 will be making about 28,000(US$).

Posted by: Regis at April 10, 2006 06:27 PM (ZrYg/)

52 Careful Regis... between you and I, you don't want to give Steve D. the notion that people not associated with the "left" actual DO perform research. No, because you might offend somebody who thinks that you can only get sunburns in warmer climates.

Posted by: Surecure at April 10, 2006 07:01 PM (uyqvH)

53 Regis I hope you are correct with your predictions. It will be interesting. Let me just observe that it looks to at least that the world including America is going in the direction of Social Democracy. The people are demanding more and more from their government because Corporations cannot be relied upon to provide health care and pensions. Which the employees have given up cash raises to get in the first place. America will increasingly have social programs as will all the countries. It is happening everywhere. Capitalism may provide jobs but little else. Man cannot live by jobs alone. Especially the plethora of low paying jobs. Manufacturing is moving out of North America. The jobs replacing them are lower paying. People are discovering that Capitalism does not answer all their prayers. It failed in most South American countries so they are turning to Democratic Socialism.

Posted by: steve d. at April 10, 2006 08:07 PM (sw5R/)

54 Oh, I forgot to mention...the US Per Capita GDP today is above $40,000 and Sweden's is ~29,800...Those statistics make things look *better* for all the other countries than they actually are because, in reality, they are already at roughly a 20-32% GDP per capita disadvantage.

Posted by: Regis at April 10, 2006 08:12 PM (ZrYg/)

55 That's right Steve D. All the jobs are being replaced by lower paying jobs. I guess pointing out that the average income has risen and that the lower paying service jobs are not increasing as rapidly as many other professions seems to be slipping your reality.

Posted by: Surecure at April 10, 2006 08:59 PM (zF+Gw)

56 Or perhaps Sundin simply likes being in his homeland. I like to visit Aruba which in no way means I don't cherish the land in which I live. "I am mystified though as to why a victim of this status quo would want to defend it" That is your problem...you think of people like that as victims...while people like that think that there is an opportunity to be had. There is a wealth of people that began with humble beginnings whom have exceeded their own expectations. Some people actually take responsibility for their own lives and won't readily accepted a handout simply because it is there. "The people are demanding more and more from their government because Corporations cannot be relied upon to provide health care and pensions" People are demanding more because we have had governments bend over to suit those who beg the loudest always forgetting it requires the capitalist to make the money..to pay the tax..so the coveted social programs can exist...and people like you can prefer the nipple of the state. As for your crime statistic. Those on the left love to spout stats failing to realize that it goes both ways. Gun violence was at an all time high in 2005. Overall crime was down..violent crime was up. What is stunning is your compassion for the convict who serves time for willingly breaking the law and then ready to blame his long sentence for his return to life of crime. Far too long....we have had the left bleed for the convicted failing to acknowledge the life they took...the person they robbed...the person they beat..the person they crippled...the drugs they sold..... One can argue that due to the soft attitude towards crime...the left has allowed violence to rise as the convict snears at the law knowing full well punishment will not be forthcoming.

Posted by: Ownshook at April 10, 2006 09:02 PM (oRm8P)

57 Steve, First, My predictions will only be correct if those countries maintain their current economic policies. Ireland is a great example of what good policy can do in the space of 15 years. Venezuala is a good example of bad policy. If not for $65 a barrel oil their economy would be circling the drain. Second, You have said it multiple times but have yet to support your claim that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs have been replaced with lower paying ones. Different jobs? Yes. Lower paying? I doubt it. Third, let those countries move towards Social Democracy. Their economies will stagnate, just as Old Europe's have. South American countries, apart from Chile, have never given Capitalism a chance. (FYI Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government. Growth in real GDP averaged 8% during 1991-97. Chile deepened its longstanding commitment to trade liberalization with the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, which took effect on 1 January 2004. Chile signed a free trade agreement with China in November 2005, and it already has several trade deals signed with other nations and blocs, including the European Union, Mercosur, South Korea, and Mexico. Record-high copper prices helped to strengthen the peso to a 5½-year high, as of December 2005, and will boost GDP in 2006. Chile's GDP growth in 2005 was 6%) (From the CIA world factbook 2006) Fourth, man cannot live with jobs alone...but man cannot live without a job, or some other means of support. Welfare is merely living off the labor of another man who has a job. If an economy does not create jobs as fast or faster than population grows welfare is unsustainable. Furthermore, if the men who have jobs decide they don't want to work to support others who don't have jobs and leave the country what do you do then? Ask the French and the Germans I think they're having problems with that now. Fifth, Why is it the Corporation's (or small business') responsibility to provide their workers with health care and pensions? I'm a healthy 23 year old. I get sick enough to go to a doctor once every two years or so. What if I don't WANT health insurance? Are you going to require the company I work for to dock my pay and give me something I don't want and rarely use? Or do you want the government to provide me with second-rate care with the taxes they take out of my check? There goes the extra money I was saving every month for my retirement. What a brilliant plan! :-p Thanks, but no thanks. It works out the same for me either way: Badly. A single legislatively compelled plan is NEVER going to be best for everyone. We are simply too diverse in situations and desires. I firmly believe that every man is the best judge of how to use the money he makes. Some insufferable elitist quack buereucrat/legislator in Washington (or Ottowa) has no idea what I (or anyone else) really need.

Posted by: Regis at April 10, 2006 09:44 PM (ZrYg/)

58 Regis If you got cancer tomorrow and couldn't work what would you do? I know a guy who had a heart attack at 29, that is apparently much more common these days. He didn't die because he had Health Care and didn't have to worry about the cost. He could focus on getting better. He was off for a long time. He didn't worry too much because he got Government Assistance to help him pay his bills. He had a business degree and was heavy into capitalism, like you are. I have never had a discussion like this with him since. He has never complained to me about paying taxes or anything akin to "the nanny state" since. This attitude of, "Hey, I'm alright, Jack what's the problem? I'm okay. If I'm okay everything is okay." is fine when you are healthy and young(when you get to be in your late 40's to early 50's you start looking over your shoulder quite a bit). You gotta look past your narrow self interest because, there but for the grace of God go I. Look at quality of life. There is an issue that Capitalism never has dealt with. It is out of there domain, I know. Their domain is fixated on making money. This is fine, but is just too narrow a focus. That is why we need government. The USA would be having to deal with revolution,again, if government was not dealing with the 40 million without health care, the millions unemployed(you do know that unemployment statistics only count those who are actively looking for work, not the ones who have given up). The huge underclass, exposed by Katrina, and now Oprah is doing some shows on it. She just had to go to the outskirts of Chicago to find people living in third world conditions(no running water, no electricity). You are very lucky to some, as pathetic as they are, social programs. Otherwise, your affluent would need to beef up their gated communities into fortress like status. As Ben Harper, the American singer said yesterday,"Katrina showed us there's us, and there's them." The American Dream Mythology is being replaced by a new realization. There are an awful lot of people being left out of the party. The next question is, "What are we gonna do about it?" There are changes coming in America that will move them into more humane and comprehensive social policies. There is no doubt. In Sweden, apparently in the ball park competitively speaking with America, according to your numbers above they have a much higher quality of life. Let me give you a few examples a great many North Americans would die for. 1. Four weeks + 1 day paid holidays for everyone. 10 more holidays per year = about 39 days off. Over 60yrs old you get an extra week! 2. Every child is guaranteed childcare between 2- 6yrs old. 3. Cradle to grave health care(we have this one) 4. When your child is between 2 and 8yrs old you can take a total of 12 months paid leave from work. 5. No minimum wage. It's not needed. 80% of workers are unionized. It is mandated that companies and unions work out their problems. They do. I know this sort of thing makes you ill. But guess what? If they were instituted they would be loved! All this and more. No grinding poverty. They have a social stability that America can only dream of. Would I take a cut in income to have this quality of life?? You bet.

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 08:04 AM (sw5R/)

59 Let me give you a few examples a great many North Americans would die for. -- I wouldnt. How would anything get done? If people are away for 39 days a year. (plus sick time?) Right now, we can't hire enough people to do our work... We have guys working 10+ hours 6 days a week, simply to keep up. You think the company could afford to give people a month off? Get real. Perhaps you'd like a 32 hour work week? If the work week gets cut by 20% wouldnt also the pay cheques? So instead of sharing jobs, we'd end up sharing poverty.

Posted by: Curtis at April 11, 2006 09:22 AM (heo8b)

60 Angry, loved the post today, one of the clearest, and most seemingly unbiased piece on a left/right difference I have ever read. I was amazed at the quality of the comments, as well...at least for the first dozen or so, things seemed to get out of control when arguments with 'Steve D.' began to appear. If we could refrain from such heated and circular discussions, this is where the blogosphere truly excels. I would love to hear your article read aloud in a university classroom or something like that, just to hear what kind of things a Gen X crowd would say. McJobs: What is wrong with the service industry? I started at McDonalds when I was 16, spent 3 years there. After moving to Calgary, went to Tim Hortons where I have survived quite well on my own for the past 3 years, starting at $7.50/hr, never working more than 40 hours a week, even spending 4 school semesters working 24 hours a week and still meeting all my bills and expenses. People today speak of poverty, and how people making under $20k are suffering. If the focus wasn't so much on wealth and status... But it's true, you put effort into a 'McJob' and you will be rewarded for it. I am now a salaried store manager, and I am the one who has to hire new people. If they work hard, they will be rewarded themselves. When I see high school students humbly taking on a low level job such as Tim's, I am encouraged, and when they stick around for a year or two, that shows commitment and that they work hard enough to be kept in my employ. Everyone needs a job, and jobs in the service industry are nothing to be ashamed of.

Posted by: Eldon Murray at April 11, 2006 11:03 AM (nxcOb)

61 Eldon Murray said, "Angry, loved the post today, one of the clearest, and most seemingly unbiased piece on a left/right difference I have ever read." A conservative blogger posts an article explaining why he believes that conservatism is "principled" and progressivism is "lazy" and the article is unbiased? Of course, it's biased.

Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2006 11:29 AM (Rb/e4)

62 Curtis Pay them well and you will have to beat them off with a stick!

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 11:54 AM (sw5R/)

63 Jim, first off, I said 'seemingly' because I knew there would be an argument over that. When I first read it over, though, that is how it came off. As I mentioned, it did not deteriorate into insults and attacks(as you have just posted) immediately as some posts do. We made it to Steve D.'s comment before that happened. (since then it has been back and forth) I cannot say that anyone in this world is not biased. But, Angry put forth solid reasons and examples in a manner that made sense to me. The example of a puzzle works well, as does the correlation with gay marriage. The Liberals push 'equality' as best, yet does not recognize that all men are not the same or equal. Every human life is worth the same, whether just conceived or standing at death's door, but my skills as a programmer do not qualify me for the position of prime minister. Two men or two women cannot properly raise a child, just as one man or one woman cannot properly raise a child. Will that child grow up one way or the other? Yes, but they will have missed something in childhood that cannot easily be replaced. The idea that the Conservative child care plan pushes for higher birth rates by supporting the family immediately stands behind solid statistics and common sense. The Liberal plan for day care means that a woman can have more children and not have to care for them, but does not make it any more likely she will have them in the first place. "I think I'm gunna give birth to this child, not like I have to worry about it", right....

Posted by: Eldon Murray at April 11, 2006 12:06 PM (nxcOb)

64 Eldon Murray The problem is I see a lot of older workers at these restaurants. Many are immigrants and you just know they will never get anything else or it they do it wont be for years. YOU CANNOT live on that income. Its fine as pocket change for a high school kid. You can't tell me the vast majority of people I see during school hours at Tims or Walmart are all students. If it is going to be called a real job and an adult is doing it that adult should be able to live in dignity on the wage earned. These companies pay SUB poverty wages. There is dignity in all work but there is immorality in those that take advantage of others when they are already down economically. Paying only enough to pay for food and shelter is not different than slavery. Just because they can pick up and go to another fast food outlet to make another sub poverty wage does not make them free. Freedom comes with high education and/or high skill or rich parents or luck or a boss that mentors you , but really the vast majority feel stuck.

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 12:12 PM (sw5R/)

65 Steve, I can't agree with your post at all. I don't think you're arguing for conservatism, I think you're arguing for social conservatism - something I don't understand as a basis for political or social policy. Your argument is based upon social conservative preconceptions of what's right and wrong. As a conservative, I don't understand your assertion, "For a liberal, progress is merely being able to say that today is different from yesterday. Yesterday we did not have gay marriage. Today we do. That's progress." I have never seen a liberal take that stand on any issue. The fact that you, as a social conservative, disagree with an issue (such as the example of SSM), does not mean that supporting that issue is unprincipled or supporting that issue is lazy because it represents "change". And, your example that a conservative would want "to increase the birth rate by strengthening marriage, not diluting it" is based on two false assumptions. One, a conservative would want an increased birth rate and for two, that marriage is the necessary precondition to procreation - thereby, any alternative definition of marriage is wrong. Those are socially conservative positions, but not necessarily conservative positions. At any rate, you've failed to identify what's good about being socially conservative - other than the notion that what is socially conservative is correct, everything else is wrong.

Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2006 12:24 PM (Rb/e4)

66 Every human life is worth the same ELDON how can you say every human life is worth the same. You know that is not true. Bill Gates life is worth more than you and I and a train load of almost any other people. The idea that the Conservative child care plan pushes for higher birth rates by supporting the family immediately stands behind solid statistics and common sense Eldon that part just blows me away. Do you expect $900 net a year will be anything more than a drop in a bucket? It won't encourage anything but more spending on "stuff". You know, the kind of spending you do that you are never sure where it went. At the end of the year if you took a survey most wouldn't be able to tell where they spent that $900. I agree single parents have a tough time raising children on their own. That is just one more reason why we need day care! These parents not only need a break from parenting they need a job to pay the bills. How do you do that without day care?

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 12:29 PM (sw5R/)

67 Sorry about your friend, but I wonder if he could have afforded private insurance if the government didn't a) Prohibit it and b) Tax him so much. Seriously, socialized medicine results in two things: Second rate care and beurecratic rationing. The costs of health care are enourmous in every country. To compensate for this in socialist systems governments have two choices. 1) Raise taxes and 2) Ration care (Or both) The politician attempts to remedy the evil by increasing the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder.-- Frederic Bastiat But European governments have tried raising taxes to cover the costs for decades. The burden becomes intolerable, so they turn to choice number two in addition to high taxes. The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.-- Thomas Sowell Having reached the limits of their ability to raise taxes to cover the burden politicians can no longer ignore the first lesson of economics. Which now means that Government chooses whether I can have the surgery I need, or the prescription drugs I want. Since it is trying to cut costs I won't get anything "unnecessary". But I don't get to choose what is "necessary". Since the government has socialized health care I can't even pay for it if I have the means and think it necessary. Hence I get second rate care (because it is cheaper and government has to control costs) after a wait, if I get any at all. Government has to limit access in some way, of course. The price of a thing greatly influences the demand for it. If I was giving away free cars to everyone who asked for one I'd soon run out, even while stealing 15% of every single Canadian's money. But wait, there is more. Government doesn't just cut costs in procedures. It cuts costs with doctors' fees as well. How? By fixing prices at lower than market value. Whereas it hath been found by experience that limitations upon the prices of commodities are not only ineffectual for the purpose proposed, but likewise productive of very evil consequences--resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to repeal or suspend all laws limiting, regulating or restraining the Price of any Article.-- Continental Congress, June 4, 1778 And what are those evil consequences? For Health Care it is lack of doctors and other medical professionals. Or stifling the creation of new drugs. A blog I found said it quite well. "When you take away the incentives to work, by socializing a system that was previously subject to the free market, fewer people will be willing to work within that system." Don't believe me? Its not just Canada. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/504 For almost a decade now, governments have been stifling medical innovation in Europe. Last month the American drug company Pfizer decided not to build a new plant in Belgium because the Belgian government has been constantly raising taxation on pharmaceuticals. The government wants to reduce pharmaceutical expenditure by limiting drugs. They reckon that by limiting supply, demand will go down. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4298145.stm The number of NHS operations cancelled at the last minute in English hospitals increased by almost 2,500 at the end of last year, official figures show. Between October to December 17,402 operations were cancelled at short notice for non-clinical reasons. Liberal Democrat health spokesman Paul Burstow said: "Cancelled operations are a barometer of just how stretched hospitals are." One socialist failure after another. Why am I not suprised? The Marxian dogma according to which socialism is bound to come with the inexorability of a law of nature is just an arbitrary surmise devoid of any proof.-- Ludwig von Mises PS I realize I'll never convince you of anything. You are a hopeless socialist. Even so, I've enjoyed the conversation. Its not often that I get to remind myself just how ignorant of reality Marx was. Or how brilliant the Enlightenment philosophers were a generation before him.

Posted by: Regis at April 11, 2006 12:30 PM (+K/WF)

68 Alberta has $7.00 minimum wage which puts them in the lower 4 of provinces. How many business' actually start at that? Worked as manager in a mcjob in BC when they raised minimum wage continually. Went from 4 people working lobby area down to 1 and 1 only part time because of increased wages. 2.5 jobs not there because of this increase. How much money has been shoveled into Indian reserves? How much into services for off reserve Indians? There's your welfare system in action. You and your "social democrat" compatriots are incorrigible. You will never learn. enough

Posted by: enough at April 11, 2006 12:48 PM (ucHAZ)

69 Regis The thing about Government control vs private control is that private is always more costly. It may be better, that is an open question. What I do know is that Capitalist USA is 43rd in the world in infant mortality! Almost 19 000 babies die in the "superior" because its Captialist, USA than need to. Socialist countries lead the world in infant care. Private care is 25% more expensive,you have to pay the shareholders, administratively. The HMO's try to direct the doctors' care to cheaper medicines. The HMO's try to encourage the doctors' not to give diagnosis' of illness by offering bonuses to doctors who have "healthy" patients. The "free market" drug companies charge more for drugs in the USA than anywhere else. Just because they can. The lobbyists bought and paid for the politicians. This is after government pays for the majority of development costs for drugs. The USA has 45 million with no health care at all. They must hope that if they get very ill(they wouldn't go near a clinic otherwise for fear of the cost) that the clinic or hospital will take them. Humiliating yes, but who cares that is the "free market", thems that has gets more; thems that don't have...good luck to you. America is a great country if you are skilled or well educated or come from a middle class family or if your white or if you have connections. otherwise its more than a bit of a struggle. I picture upwards of 75million Americans frantically swimming toward shore as the Tsunami wave is pulling them out farther and farther. That to me is the essence of Capitalism. It is like a beast that you have to feed just so, or it spits you out. Enough I recently heard two salient facts on the Business channel. Alberta gets 1 penny per gallon of royalty. It costs $1.15 per barrel to retrieve Alberta oil. If these numbers are near true the next time you start worrying about government waste try to think about how much opportunity they are missing by virtually giving away a depleting resource. Oh, and guess what? Companies ALWAYS cut staff. CEO's use it as an easy way to boost the balance sheet so they can look good and get larger bonuses and stock options. In Ontario we've lost about 80,000 jobs over the last few years and our minimum wage didn't go up for almost 10 years. So I would be careful to link cause and effect to your experience. In the average fast food restuarant they pay an hours wage every 1 1/2 customers at lunch. My Tims is perpetually lined up.

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 01:35 PM (sw5R/)

70 Curtis Pay them well and you will have to beat them off with a stick! LOL, these are guys that are starting at $20+ per hour + bennies ... I think we pay well. Alberta has $7.00 minimum wage which puts them in the lower 4 of provinces. How many business' actually start at that? None. Even Burger joints have to pay more than that to get kids to apply.

Posted by: Curtis at April 11, 2006 02:10 PM (heo8b)

71 Sorry Steve D, but your perception on when you have older people working in lower paying service industry jobs is flawed entirely. If you were to take a guess as to their skill level, which of the following jobs would you give them: a) Computer programmer b) Surgeon c) Financial analyst d) Hospitality manager e) Retail sales / food prep And don't give me this line of crap about owners having a predatory nature against workers making lower wages. I once worked at a "McJob" and there was an older lady who simply had no intent of making a forward-looking plan for her life because she was content with where she was. The owner of the store knew that she wouldn't be able to work forever at the job and made every effort to offer assistance for her to improve her quality of life and she CHOSE not to even try! People at these levels often get comfortable and stop looking forward. It is the same at any level, whether you are making $15K, $25K, $45K, $100K or $500K a year. On average, human beings get into comfort zones and when any singular effort they make to push themselves into a higher level fails, they assume it is impossible and stop trying. It is called: fear of failure. And that is the same reason why you see so many people working low paying jobs with no prospect for change. It has little to do with them being unable to get better jobs. It has a great deal to do with people who have found a certain degree of comfort that they can live with, and their fear of failure to improve their lives stops them from even trying. If you don't believe me, do me a favor... go up to then next 50 low-paying service workers you meet and ask them when the last time they applied for a job or sent a resume out for new employment was. I'd be willing to bet good money that 49 would say that the last time was when they got this job several years ago, and the other 1 will say they put out maybe half a dozen resumes a while back but haven't since then because they didn't get a response the first time. But, I doubt you could ever consider doing that to see if your perception of the world is correct. If it is easier for you to live in a world where you can believe that business people are all bad and these people who CHOOSE to work in these jobs are slaves who can't make any choices for themselves and could never make any effort to change their place in life (like put out resumes or apply for a new job), then live in that world. But it is self-serving crap from a defeatist attitude. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Posted by: Surecure at April 11, 2006 02:51 PM (uyqvH)

72 "Capitalism may provide jobs but little else. Man cannot live by jobs alone." Jobs are the source of all else. Without capitalist jobs generating taxes, there is no 'welfare state' or 'safety net'. Those who either cannot or will not work are dependent not on 'the state' but those who work and pay taxes to that 'state'. The state has no money with which to provide services, except that which it confiscates. "People are discovering that Capitalism does not answer all their prayers." Perhaps. But they will certainly discover that without Capitalism, the state will eventually be unable to answer ANY of their prayers. "It failed in most South American countries so they are turning to Democratic Socialism." Wait a minute. Can I now claim that 'real capitalism' has never been tried in S. America, as a reason for their failures? "The people are demanding more and more from their government because Corporations cannot be relied upon to provide health care and pensions" French students and unions are demanding more and more from their government, while the 'corporations' that generate the funds to do so, are either stagnating or fleeing the country. Soon, the government of France will contemplate nationalizing the corporations and they will slide into greater poverty and civil unrest. Socialism willfully denies two entwined realities: human nature and economics.

Posted by: at April 11, 2006 03:47 PM (hkkIN)

73 "Capitalism may provide jobs but little else. Man cannot live by jobs alone." Jobs are the source of all else. Without capitalist jobs generating taxes, there is no 'welfare state' or 'safety net'. Those who either cannot or will not work are dependent not on 'the state' but those who work and pay taxes to that 'state'. The state has no money with which to provide services, except that which it confiscates. "People are discovering that Capitalism does not answer all their prayers." Perhaps. But they will certainly discover that without Capitalism, the state will eventually be unable to answer ANY of their prayers. "It failed in most South American countries so they are turning to Democratic Socialism." Wait a minute. Can I now claim that 'real capitalism' has never been tried in S. America, as a reason for their failures? "The people are demanding more and more from their government because Corporations cannot be relied upon to provide health care and pensions" French students and unions are demanding more and more from their government, while the 'corporations' that generate the funds to do so, are either stagnating or fleeing the country. Soon, the government of France will contemplate nationalizing the corporations and they will slide into greater poverty and civil unrest. Socialism willfully denies two entwined realities: human nature and economics.

Posted by: Randy at April 11, 2006 03:48 PM (hkkIN)

74 Steve D.: SureCure referred to people who remain in lower paid jobs rather than progressing. It reminds me of one of my favorite axioms: "Those who do not have dreams are condemned to work forever for those who do."

Posted by: at April 11, 2006 03:54 PM (hkkIN)

75 Steve D.: SureCure referred to people who remain in lower paid jobs rather than progressing. It reminds me of one of my favorite axioms: "Those who do not have dreams are condemned to work forever for those who do."

Posted by: Randy at April 11, 2006 03:54 PM (hkkIN)

76 Poverty is not a morgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a morgage on achievement - failure is not a morgage on success - suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence - man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone's altar nor for anyone's cause - life is not one huge hospital.-- Ayn Rand To say that the needs of others are valid claims on the labor, ability, and achievement of others is to confess a belief in de-facto slavery. You must work to provide for others. This is the meaning of the words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the maxim Socialism and Communism is founded upon. You think you'll be better off under Socialism, but there is always someone with a "need" that must be satisfied. Remember, they need, and you as a man of ability have the moral duty to fulfill that need. PS For some reason it wouldn't let me post the word "mortgag e" (without the space between the g and the e). I know the word is spelled incorrectly. Why does it prevent the use of that word?

Posted by: Regis at April 11, 2006 04:28 PM (ZrYg/)

77 surecure I never said business people are all bad. They are just doing what any good capitalist would do make a profit. That in and of itself is not bad. Rather it is how you make your profit that may be bad. If you profit by modern slavery such as a less than ten dollar Walmart job and grow to the largest company in the world doing it then I have a problem with that. So people are sometimes satisfied with 8-10 dollar jobs. Teenager yes. Adult no. Oh they usually don't complain, what's the point. They knew what it paid before they got hired. They aren't forced to go back every day. A lot of the southern slaves on the plantation were like that too. They must have liked it most of them didn't try to run away. They got their food and shelter taken care of. They can entertain themselves pretty well. What's the problem? If they didn't get along where they were they could be sold to another Master. There was lots of work at those wages. When they were given their freedom they technically they were free to do any job that existed. He we are one hundred and forty-five years later and what did we see with Katrina? The same old pattern. You see when people are down they are socialized differently. It doesn't enter their mind to be anything more than their dad. To move people up, in theory, is easy. Just put them in a school and everything else will follow. No. It takes a society that has a lot of upward movement socially and then you will get up to 15% moving to the next class up. In other words, these people are lower class or working class, or middle class or upper class and most will remain in the class they were born into. Perhaps in Alberta where employers are desperate for people you will be given a chance at something you are not qualified for, but that is unusual. It makes more sense to ensure that everyone is able to work AND earn a living. Most jobs for the high school drop out or graduate are relatively low paying. The good paying are usually highly physical and their bodies break down at 50 or so. The part about these lower class types not having dreams isn't correct. They dream of doing what dad did, whether its a factory worker, or Walmart clerk. Their dreams are small because their world is small. It wouldn't occur to them to even think they could go to university never mind actually get there. It is a different mind set. Each social class has their own. Your dreams are not as big as Bill Gates or his children. Why not? Are you lazy, or self-satisfied? No, your dreams have limits just like everyone else.

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 04:43 PM (sw5R/)

78 "Capitalism may provide jobs but little else. Man cannot live by jobs alone." A job is to do nothing other than feed you. You are supposed to save the surplus (live with in our means - remember?) and invest it. This is what Capitalism provides. Opportunity. Government has displaces self-reliance with social programs to the point that nobody saves anymore, and we're all in debt upto our ears... Does anyone even have 6 months salary socked away for emergencies?

Posted by: Curtis at April 11, 2006 04:50 PM (heo8b)

79 Curtis I didn't say it wasn't important. It is just not the only thing. That is one of the things I like about the Swedish model. It has more balance, work and play. It is not government that is the cause of no one saving. It is the constant stream of advertising that creates WANT in all of us. I didn't want just a new TV I had to have a HDTV, even though it may be several years before the switchover is complete. Men love their toys and women like their cosmetics/spas and clothes. Advertising drives the want. I remember John Kenneth Galbraith,the economist, making the observation that TV was the saviour of marketing. It was so powerful that it could create an instant market. Business now had a way of controlling the demand.

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 05:12 PM (sw5R/)

80 Look at the saving rates of the industrialized world, from the 30s forward, when Social security plans where first being introduced. Iam sure you'll find a declining saving rate as these plans became more generous.

Posted by: Curtis at April 11, 2006 05:20 PM (heo8b)

81 Steve, I have all kinds of wants. I've also got responsibility and sense enough to know that I have to choose between them. You know, prioritize. You make it sound like everyone is a hopeless addict who has no control over his actions. Nobody forces you to buy the expensive TV. Just like nobody forces a smoker to smoke. If someone can't control themselves and lives self destructively that is their own fault. Don't go making businesses scapegoats for their irresponsible customers. The businesses have as much control over their customers as you have over me. Less even, considering "Consumer Protection" laws. Responsibility is an important part of life. The earlier people learn that lesson the better off they will be.

Posted by: Regis at April 11, 2006 06:35 PM (ZrYg/)

82 Curtis Here is a quote from someone from the Federal Reserve Board website; Since the early 1980s, the personal saving rate has fallen steadily; on average, a household today saves only about 1-1/2 percent of its disposable income, compared with about 11 percent in 1984 The middle class incomes began to stall and fall behind inflation. Couple the stall in real income with the easy availability of credit via credit cards and I think you have the real reason for the zero saving rate. People have been slowly sinking ever since while trying to keep up their standard of living on credit.

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 06:45 PM (sw5R/)

83 Regis I am not making business a scapegoat I am merely stating fact. You can draw your own conclusions. You are totally free not driven or influenced by commercialism. Except when you want to be. Which is probably every time you buy something. Or are you one of these NO LOGO types? I have a sneaking suspicion that if I went through everything you own I would be swamped by BRAND names. But I am sure you and you alone decided to buy them and not some noname item.

Posted by: steve d. at April 11, 2006 07:51 PM (sw5R/)

84 FYI, every product has a brand name. Go ahead, look around. You won't find an exception, I guarantee it. And it would seem you have no concept of the difference between Force and Influence. Government uses Force. Businesses use influence. Force removes choice, influence does not. force ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrs, frs) n. 1. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain in·flu·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nfl-ns) n. 1. A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort. 2. Power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, or position. If you want to be free from influence I think you are out of luck. Every bit of human interaction exerts influence on you. Even alone you cannot be free of influence of your environment. Heat, Cold, hunger, thirst. These are all influences. Your concept of "freedom" from influence is inherently flawed. When I say you are free to make a choice I mean you are not being compelled to choose through physical force.

Posted by: Regis at April 11, 2006 10:22 PM (ZrYg/)

85 Steve...This is off topic of our discussion, but do you mind answering these questions? 1. Is reality dependant on Consciousness? 2. Is Human choice an illusion? 3. Is Happiness possible on Earth? 4. Do you like "Modern Art"?

Posted by: Regis at April 11, 2006 10:42 PM (ZrYg/)

86 Socialists are learned fools. Thus begins this post at No Pasaran! To resolve this argument I can recommend Thomas Sowell's book, A Conflict of Visions. He says that Socialists and Conservatives are after the same ends, they just have a different vision on how to get there. The Socialists think they're so damn smart that they can direct everything and everybody to attain their Utopian state. The Conservatives, contrary to some of the comments here, are more humble in their aspirations, thinking the world much too complex and human beings not smart enough to have all the answers and that a society evolves more sanely and productively if people are allowed to make their own decisions. Difficult to put into a couple of sentences, great book.

Posted by: ligneus at April 11, 2006 10:53 PM (VXfAZ)

87 People, people. We must understand that Steve D. will never reconsider his beliefs. It is dogma. Nonetheless, we must try. "So people are sometimes satisfied with 8-10 dollar jobs. Teenager yes. Adult no." Assumption. In my experience, teenagers who don't understand they no nothing, have greater expectations than adults who have learned their limitations and thus, have come to terms with their value in the marketplace. "They knew what it paid before they got hired." Exactly, Steve. They knew, they agreed - that's the deal. If they don't like the deal, they can seek another, more lucrative opportunity. Unlike Cuba, nobody is telling you what you are or are not, allowed do be in life. "It doesn't enter their mind to be anything more than their dad." So that's it then? Because they fail to dream, plan and do the necessary work, I'm responsible for improving their standard of living by diminishing that of my own family? I don't think so. My father had a grade 9 education and never owned a home. We lived in what you would call poverty, but what I called happy and loved. Why am I not like him? "To move people up, in theory, is easy." Assumption, again. You assume it is our duty to "move people up", whereas I believe people have a duty to take advantage of any opportunity to "move themselves" up. Example: an acquaintance in her early 50's who continues to enroll in program after government sponsored program because attached are all kinds of living allowances, clothing allowances, computer allowances (believe it or not, she was upset they wouldn't pay her cable!). At the end is usually a brief, government created job that expires in six months. Then it's on to another program. This isn't circumstance. It's a game plan. "Most will remain in the class they were born into." True. But those who study, work hard, exceed expectations and embrace opportunity will not. The rest? C'est la vie. By your reckoning, it's my job to work harder for those who choose not to. "Most jobs for the high school drop out or graduate are relatively low paying." Well, duh. Kind of a good reason not to drop out, don't you think? If you choose to drop out, who should pay the price? You or your fellow Canadians? "The good paying are usually highly physical and their bodies break down at 50 or so." Wrong. Good paying jobs are "usually highly" intellectual, technical or dangerous. Pushing a wheelbarrow doesn't pay like it used to. And if you don't want to be pushing a wheelbarrow at 50, get some skills and move up the food chain. Leave the wheelbarrow for someone with less ambition. "They dream of doing what dad did, whether its a factory worker, or Walmart clerk." Yeah, so what's your problem with the wages paid/accepted? If they are fullfilling THEIR dream, why is it any skin off your nose? Who made you commissar? "Their dreams are small because their world is small. It wouldn't occur to them to even think they could go to university never mind actually get there." So let's pay them more money because it didn't occur to them to study hard in high school in order to attend college/university/technical trades? Let's take MORE money from those who did the right thing, in order to better the lives of those who either made bad choices or no choices at all! "No, your dreams have limits just like everyone else." Ahhh. The finite pie of the Canadian socialist. WHAT THE MIND OF MAN CAN CONCIEVE, THE HAND OF MAN CAN ACHIEVE.

Posted by: Randy at April 11, 2006 11:01 PM (hkkIN)

88 Steve D. "Many are immigrants and you just know they will never get anything else or it they do it wont be for years. YOU CANNOT live on that income." "These companies pay SUB poverty wages." First off, Steve, I have lived quite easily on that income, as have many of the people I work with. You just have to know how to use your money properly and how to live without the newest and biggest. I have been making $7/hr to $10/hr for the past 3 years since really starting to live on my own. I have purchased two cars, have an HDTV with full surround sound, a nice computer, lots of furniture, etc etc. My point here is that I have never worked more than 40 hours a week, making what you believe nobody can live off of. I completed schooling here in Calgary as a computer programmer, yet I CHOSE (and not out of laziness) to stay on and manage the store. There is nothing wrong with that. Maybe it is simply because I do not drink or smoke that I save so much money... Second - immigrants. Trust me, I have worked with them all, the owner of my store does not like to hire people with big degrees, because they are overqualified. I have seen engineers, teachers, doctors, fully schooled managers (who cannot manage the store) and more. Currently, most of our immigrant staff are wives/mothers whose husbands are working a full job elsewhere and they work there during the day. I have seen them come, take evening classes while working, and leave. The food services industry is not the black hole you perceive it to be. "you say every human life is worth the same. You know that is not true." Unfortunately, I do not know that. As a Christian, I believe every man, rich or poor, will stand before the judgement throne of God, and every man and woman will stand equal under God. You say Bill Gates is worth more than me? Why does he have to pay more taxes. Rather unfair, no? As with everyone else it seems, I'll ask a question: Steve D., have you ever worked a 'McJob'? What do you do now?

Posted by: Eldon Murray at April 11, 2006 11:05 PM (nxcOb)

89 Steve D. You missed my entire point completely and must have been in a rush just to argue. Are you trying to win? The fact that you are talking about a boss who is doing exactly what any "capitalist" would do reveals your inflexibility to reason. You are so engrained in thinking in terms of the elements of a "capitalist" environment that you can't think in terms of the individual. Was my "McJob" boss a part of your capitalist model? Hell yeah! But, did that make him a compassionless slave driver? Hell no! You seem to come from the mindset that all bosses at a "McJob" environment are heartless, money grubbing freaks... who are doing exactly what good little "capitalists" do. Give me a break. As I said, go and ask your average employee at a "McJob" the last time they tried to go out and get another job. I already know the answer because I worked in that situation and know exactly what adults who work in "McJobs" are like: they want money now, and aren't ACTIVELY looking for advancement. In all honesty, answer me this one question: do you think a person at a "McJob" is going to have somebody come up to them in the store and offer them a job right then and there? If you take the time to answer that question honestly, you'll see right there the problem. Most people in those jobs are NOT actively looking for more gainful employment. Most people in those jobs are not actively looking to accentuate their skills. Most people in those jobs are there because they provide a means to a certain level of comfort that they don't entirely mind living at. You said: "So people are sometimes satisfied with 8-10 dollar jobs. Teenager yes. Adult no." I'm sorry, but I don't know anybody -- teenager or adult -- who is satisfied with 8 to 10 dollars. It's not a question of SATISFACTION. It is a question of COMFORT. Can a person find a liveable level of comfort at 8 to 10 dollars an hour? Oh yeah. It's not a fulfilling position in life (what I believe you are mistaking for "satisfied") but it is comfortable. And anybody who is comfortable with their life will seldom do anything to change it. Ask Tony Robbins for God's sakes! His entire philosophy and the general philosophy of most self-help professionals is the same: the only things that inspire change are inspiration or desperation. When a person has a level of comfort, whether or not it is great by anybody else's standards, a person will ALWAYS and I repeat ALWAYS fall back to that level of comfort. Why? Because it isn't causing any REAL pain and because your average person is not going to be inspired to be the next NASA moon walker or Bill Gates... or even the owner of the tire store on the corner. One has to have goals and aspirations before one has change. Do you really think an adult who works at a "McJob" and never puts out a single resume or takes a single night school / correspondence course has aspirations? Don't delude yourself man. It ain't happening. And the reason it isn't happening is because they simply can't get inspired enough to do it. How do I know? Because I was there. I'm not anymore and the only reason is because I DECIDED TO! I TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY OWN FREAKIN' LIFE AND DID SOMETHING WITH IT! And believe me... anybody at any McJob who wants to change can change. But it isn't going to happen until THEY upgrade their skills or THEY put out resumes to look for a new job. And you know they aren't putting out resumes. How am I certain that you know it? Because you're avoiding that issue. I think that you know damn well that the only time one can take your defeatist, endless cycle of "McJobs" for adults position on this issue is when you ignore that one defining element: personal responsibility. You know in your heart and mind that the overwhelming majority of adults in so called "McJobs" (which I mentioned before you are 100% incorrect on your stance that it is the fast growing job market out there right now) are there solely because they are doing absolutely nothing in terms of putting out resumes for new jobs or upgrading their jobs skills.

Posted by: Surecure at April 11, 2006 11:36 PM (zF+Gw)

90 And BTW Steve... Randy's point made me think about this... If we make a "McJob" a completely satisfying experience that one would want to do for their entire life with an equivalant pay to any other average job, what is the incentive for anybody to go out, get an education and contribute more than just flipping burgers / selling clothing and retail? It isn't our responsibility to make life simple for anybody except ourselves. Name one great thing done by a person who DIDN'T experience a certain degree of pain? Every single scientific, medical, technological, artistic or humanistic accomplishment was born out of the same thing: pain!!! Do you think we'd have insulin unless one of its creators didn't have a friend who died of diabetes? Do you think we'd have computers if somebody didn't get sick and tired of all the effort one had to make to do long, involved calculations? Do you think we'd have any great art unless artists had an insatiable need that was not being fulfilled by anything else? Do you think we'd have the radio or telephone unless somebody was tired of how long it took to communicate over long distances? Do you think we'd have electricity unless somebody didn't like being in the dark? Come on! That's the problem with the mindset of those who think that we must make all jobs equally fulfilling. They don't realize that when you eliminate pain and frustration, you eliminate the desire to improve oneself. And this all leads back to the top of this post. Steve Janke is correct that the Liberal mindset that any change is progress is problematic at best. The only real change is that which arrives through a specific need, not simply because one thinks it is good to change. Humans only empower and enrich their own lives when they have experienced enough pain to want to change. Just wanting something is rarely enough to get a person off their butt to actually do anything. The true motivator of human action is pain. And when you make everything equal, and make the supposed "McJobs" of this world truly satisfying -- in the sense you use the word -- you eliminate the drive for REAL CHANGE. I really wish more people like you might start to actually think about this and realize exactly how poor of a model of thinking your position on this matter is. Then you might realize that, while it is true we shouldn't allow for an impossible stepping stone to improved wealth (which we don't in our present tax and social structure model), it would be a huge mistake to try and make those lower paying jobs anything more than what they are, which is just a comfortable stepping stone from which either one can live or one can improve. That's all. Anything more and you risk true forward momentum in all avenues towards human improvement because you take away the primary driving force for all humans: pain.

Posted by: Surecure at April 11, 2006 11:55 PM (zF+Gw)

91 SteveD, Good luck comparing the Sweden model to the US, in fact you can't - no socialized based economy w/ a population over 200+ million can survive for long, much less achieve anywhere near the GDP, unemployment rate or accomplishments that the US has. This is why China & India have adopted the more capitalistic approaches to generate income. As far as Sweden or Canada, the populations are not congruent nor their GDPs to the US. A fairer, more realistic comparison to either Sweden or Canada would be the state of California. CA has about 3 million more people than Canada & is the 4th-6th most productive economy on the planet. I have been to almost every communist country (Cuba, China, Soviet Union in the 80Â’s - except N. Korea) & a majority of socialist countries - including Sweden, UK, Canada, Germany, France, etc - where in each there is a more defined social class system & the standard of living, unemployment & productiveness is so much lower than the US all are piss poor comparisons. Care to compare the standard of living in any of them, including Canada to just California, Texas, Arizona or New York (4 of our more populace states)? I have seen how most of the countries or examples you can bring forth live & none of them come close to the educational, medical treatment, cost of living, economic opportunities available, etc. Care to compare the higher educational systems of California to Canada? While you admittedly have some excellent schools there, in California alone we have UCLA, Stanford, U of Cal, UCSB, UCSD, Harvey Mudd, California Inst. Of Technology, U of San Francisco, USD, etc & that is just a few of the universities in California alone. Care to compare the unemployment rates of Europe to the US? How about youth unemployment rates alone? What would your standard of living be in Canada if you actually had to support, field & have a modern, effective standing military, navy or air force? Your debt per capita is almost that of the US, your tax rate a lot higher, your sales taxes almost double what our is (some cases triple) & Disney Land still has a bigger submarine fleet. I apologize for the snarkyness of that, but sometimes it provides a wonderful point. We pay less & have more & the fundamental difference is our economic & taxation systems in place. You arguments against the US healthcare system are totally inaccurate & false. The US has a more responsive, larger, faster healthcare system than any other country on the planet. I guess you'll also over look the fact that most capitalistic countries also lead the way in Medical research (most not funded by the government) & have produced more revolutionary & useful medical advances as well. Compare to compare the medical advances or discoveries of the US to all of Europe, Canada, China, India & Cuba in the last 40 years? Also your views on costs in the US are completely false. I live in CA & pay about $140 a month for full healthcare coverage & I do it alone since I am self employed. If you go back & look at costs in the US over time, you will see the most dramatic raises in price vs. population happened when the government decided to get involved into the healthcare industry w/ the formulation of Medicare & other federally or state based assistance. The other change that occurred was that service diminished as well unfortunately. But there is no waiting for operations, unlike in Canada or Britain. Hell, California has closed over 82 hospitals in the last 10 years & they are still more responsive to a larger population over a smaller area than Canada is & that is including 6 million illegal immigrants. Sure we donÂ’t financially coddle those on the lower economic levels as other countries do, but we generally donÂ’t reward people who make bad decisions in life & offer just enough. In fact, weÂ’d prefer that they choose to raise themselves up without assistance, since the opportunities are available to everyone here. Another over looked & forgotten thing that the US does is that we invest & offer more aid to other nations then all of the other countries on the planet combined. Care to compare the average amount of after tax foreign donations given per capita to that of Canada or Europe to that of the US? We fund almost 30% of the UN budget, supply the most troops & materials used by the UN & respond quicker & more effective to other countriesÂ’ natural disasters. Care to compare the contributions of the US to every other country on the planet to the Tsunami disaster? Which communist or socialist country or countries even gets close in 4 years to what we provide & give to the world as Americans in 1 year? Sure there are problems, changes to be made & poverty here, but which other nation has a lower amount or accomplishes more? The difference between us in the US & everyone else is that we still have freer markets & less government involvement in our lives. While ideal communism has never existed, look what its perverted forms have accomplished compared to what the water downed versions of capitialism that have existed. I don't recall any person or group of people risking their lives to get to China or Cuba.

Posted by: PMain at April 12, 2006 12:05 AM (JRbzK)

92 Wow...if it hadn't already the thread has now taken on such a wide range of topics it will be impossible to make any progress. Which means we should either stop completely, or start at the bottom. i.e. philosophy. All serious conversations gravitate towards philosophy.-- Ernest Dimnet

Posted by: Regis at April 12, 2006 12:15 AM (ZrYg/)

93 Actually, Regis, if you read my last post you'll see that in fact most all of this goes right back to the topic Steve Janke created this thread about: progress vs change. Especially when it comes to Steve D.'s comments. PMain's last comment certainly underscores my point that when you have a perfect equilibrium in a socialist state, even though the bar is so much lower, you have less progress all around because everybody knows that everybody else is on the same plane and there is no possibility for improvement... so why try? That's the problem with forced equal social structures. One has to be motivated by some kind of deficiency in their lifestyle they don't like, but also they have to see the possibility for improvement. If you make lower paying "McJobs" a place of complete comfort, why would anybody change? And if we forced taxation and income limitations so that one could not have incredible success, why would anybody try to attain anything better than the status quo? After all, it's like saying, "We'd like to invite you to put insane amounts of effort into achieving this great goal! You'll never prosper because of it, but at least you'll be helping the state!" Yeah, that's really good incentive. And while Steve D. isn't necessarily suggesting that we become a socialist state (he may feel that way, I don't know) his misconceptions about so called "McJobs" and what the income of those jobs can bring in terms of general living quality really pulls the steam out of his argument. He's wrong about "McJobs" being the fastest growing area of employment. He's wrong that high paying jobs in our country are being lost in favor of lower paying jobs (just look at how income levels have risen and tell me how that equation makes sense). He's wrong that a person working at a "McJob" can barely get by. And his attitude that such jobs should be forced to inflate their pay simply bypasses the reality that these jobs are not supposed to be the stopping point in one's life forever. Just because some people choose to make it such doesn't mean we should rearrange society to make that fact a little easier to swallow. I'm glad my "McJob" wasn't worth sticking around, otherwise I probably would have. But the truth is, all the negatives from that occupation gave me enough incentive to change my life and now I am working a fantastic job and making a hell of a lot more money because of it.

Posted by: Surecure at April 12, 2006 07:01 AM (zF+Gw)

94 "I remember John Kenneth Galbraith,the economist, making the observation that TV was the saviour of marketing. It was so powerful that it could create an instant market. Business now had a way of controlling the demand." "I am not making business a scapegoat I am merely stating fact. " JK Galbraith, was an economist - thats a fact - his observation about advertising driving demand - is an opinion. All economist have are opinions, its an entire industry made of opinion. You cant point to any economic argument as a fact, because economics is an expression of political philosophy. Not to mention that the flawed political implementation has pretty much devastated Galbraith's economic theory. Great post, PMain. I disagree with you on some points. No country in the world, could afford the military lay out, the United States has. Not just Canada... Canada's Military has been improving, and will continue to improve, but will never match the United States in any category. I do agree, that the United States is the most generous, most helpful and thoughtful nation on earth. The Tsunami is a prime example of this aid, that largely goes unappreciated by the governments who receive this aid.

Posted by: Curtis at April 12, 2006 09:34 AM (heo8b)

95 A lot of very interesting comments I must say. Gentlemen Yes, the American economy dwarfs any other. Yes, America is the richest country in the history of the world. That being said, let me draw your attention to todays newly emerging reality. First, the idea that $170 a month pays for Health Insurance is more than a little low. Here is an excerpt from the NYT from a few days ago; At the start of every negotiation, management points out that New York's building-service workers are the highest paid in the country, and the union responds that New York is one of the most expensive places to live. The workers' base pay is $717 a week, or nearly $37,300 a year. In addition, management contributes $9,700 annually per worker for health insurance. I think $9,700 sounds more like it. I am willing to bet that this isn't your deluxe health care package either. My bet is that this is fairly basic coverage. Every expert I've heard or read of over the last five years has said that Canada's health care is 25% cheaper than American, largely because of administration costs. Don't forget 45million Americans are not even covered!!! Every Canadian has Health Care. Like every great power of history there is a decline and then the fall. No one wants America to fall because everyone would be negatively affected. Especially in the short run. It would be a Great Depression II. There has been a startling disconnect between the performance of the corporate sector and the overall economy. Median incomes have barely budged since 2000, while corporate profits have nearly doubled. In theory, corporate profits are supposed to stimulate investment, which leads to job creation and rising consumer demand, which in turn drives up wages. But that process is broken within North America because of globalization. Capital is strong and labour is weak. In the last 5 years corporate profits as a percentage of the GNP has risen from 7 to 12% , a huge jump. The companies are keeping the money not doling it out in wages. While the unemployment rate is low there are other measures from hours worked to employment-to-population ratio, that show employment less than robust. Compnies are investing their money in foreign countries. So employment is foreign. They are not investing in North America. It is increasingly difficult to say a particulare company is American. Vodaphone, a giant telecommunications company, ha more than 80% of its sales and employment outside Britain. Indeed, the largest 50 multinationals had 55% of their employees and 59% of their sales outside of their home countries. McDonald's gets only one third of its revenue from NA. What this means is that jobs that used to be created in North America are not there. Last year there were 1.1million more Americans living in poverty than the year before. The number of poor has risen 17% in the last 5 years. 50 of the 77 babies that die every day in America die because of poverty. North Americans are desperately trying to maintain their standard of living by buying on credit. In America last year they spent 57% more than it earned. So American companies aren't investing in America the people are, with borrowed money. So where is America headed? With the deficit now at 9trillion and medicare and social security costs coming due Americans have two choices. Huge tax increases, or depression with huge unemployment. Take your pick. But don't wait too long to decide, lest your path be decided for you.

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 01:48 PM (sw5R/)

96 Poverty in North America is a myth, if you wanna see real crushing poverty, go to bangladesh, Pakistan or Haiti. We dont have poverty here. Sure we have poor people, but not poverty. I think liberals want poverty to mean "only gets basic cable". Realistically we only have 1 choice. End the Ponzi scheme known has the "Canada Pension Plan" and allow workers to keep the money they earned.

Posted by: Curtis at April 12, 2006 02:13 PM (heo8b)

97 Curtis Weren't you the one deploring the lack of saving these days? So you want to modest amount taken from your paycheck to be left in. We both know what would happen to that money. There is a very descriptive name for what most would do with it. It would be "pissed away". Oh I have seen real third world poverty in the US. There is no doubt it is there and increasing. I haven't seen it in Canada, yet.

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 02:31 PM (sw5R/)

98 The Canada Pension Plan a "Ponzi scheme?" You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you?

Posted by: thickslab at April 12, 2006 02:37 PM (dm2oi)

99 Yes, I know exactly what a Ponzi scheme is. A ponzi scheme uses funds 'invested' by new investors to pay off previous 'investors' in the fund. This is exactly what CPP is, current contributors to the plan pay for current withdrawals by retirees. Their is no investment fund like a real pension plan would have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme If you must demand that works save some money for their futures, then these funds should be under the control of worker, not the state. A forced RRSP program, perhaps.

Posted by: Curtis at April 12, 2006 02:55 PM (heo8b)

100 Socialists live with a victim complex. The rest of us need to be protected by government. Those special few in power will take care of us. I reject being a victim. I can do it without having to be saved by all these champagne communists. Look after yourself, Steve D. Let people look after themselves. Get out of the way. enough

Posted by: enough at April 12, 2006 03:07 PM (ucHAZ)

101 There is a very descriptive name for what most would do with it. It would be "pissed away". People have the right to do what they want. I know the concept must shock you, but they do. Its better that I have the money to use, as I see fit, than to have some minister of pissing it away, piss it away.

Posted by: Curtis at April 12, 2006 03:09 PM (heo8b)

102 enough Thats fine for you. But what about the 50% who have nothing saved for retirement. Let them go to hell???

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 03:17 PM (sw5R/)

103 >"Progressive" in the political sphere means an individual or group who promotes policies leading to their goal of positive social change based on human rights. The pre-eminent human rights are life, liberty, and self-fulfillment. These are individual rights. True progressives are those most closely following the vector leading to maximum individual freedom, including maximum reciprocal respect for individual freedoms. This in turn requires maximum choice and minimum compulsion. True progressivism has always been a simple problem: to help individualists see their biases and realize that their view of "human" must be wider than, for example, "Englishmen" or "men" or "white men". No one can be "progressive" without first understanding and accepting the moral imperative of individualism. After that, the rest is simply a matter of reason. Collectivists and statists of all stripes are in fact regressivists. Just because you think you can make things 1% better, or even if you really can, does not give you the right to compel others to implement your idea. This is the moral failing of collectivists. Collectivism ultimately can only infringe human rights. steved, you don't have to support corporations. Don't work for them. Don't buy their products. You are perfectly capable of being self-supporting. You owe them nothing. They owe you nothing.

Posted by: lrC at April 12, 2006 03:29 PM (XDL9B)

104 SteveD, Wow so almost 14% of the US population isn’t covered & what exactly are the demographics of those uninsured again? Most people in their 20's & 30's choose to not have health insurance & we mustn't forget the 11 million illegal aliens that don’t qualify for it or have to pay a larger amount since they are not citizens – so most go without. What percentage of people without coverage are on welfare & use Medicaid or Medicare for healthcare instead of private health insurance? I can’t help but notice that you completely gloss over the fact that health insurance & care is a choice here, paying for it is a choice as well. It isn’t forced upon us. Canadian health care costs can’t be 25% less than the US, since Canada has no standing military or costly defense budget, care to explain where the majority of Canadian tax revenues go? In the US, the cost of health insurance varies from state to state, just like auto insurance does as well. My monthly payment through Healthnet is $140 (Blue Cross & Shield range from $120-155 & have lower co-pays) & my rates were just recently raised a couple of months ago, not the $170 you claim – originally the account cost me $99 a month. If I belonged to a group or HMO, I’m sure my monthly payments would be less, but this plan has dental as well & most others do not; or require an additional account be setup. The NYT was talking about unionized healthcare benefits & I can assure you that union benefits are not the bare minimum ever, especially city or government workers. Their retirement & health benefits are generally better than the highest end available to the general public. That is one of the attractive parts of working for a city or state government here in the US & if added to the payroll, places government jobs well above the private sector. Here is San Diego that was a point of contention in the last mayoral election when it was released that the local city government workers actually made more than their privately employed counterparts. We are not talking skilled labor, but the janitors & sanitation crews. That is why one of the fundamental changes our newly elected, Republican Mayor is making is to out source to private companies which are more efficient & less costly in terms of payroll, healthcare & retirement (our real crux). The state of California has surpluses this year after being 9 Billion in debt, all without raising taxes & employment is going up. As far as where the US is heading, once again you are dead wrong. I guess you forgot about the surplus of tax revenue that has come in every year since the Bush tax cuts & the Federal Government is expecting another increase of almost an additional 200 Billion this year alone. They are talking about reducing the National Debt by possibly an addition 10-15%. The 9 Trillion deficit is a “trade deficit” & the major of any additional spending costs are directly related to having a 2 front War (Troop reductions expected in late 2006), the worst fire season & destruction in the Western US (Arizona, California, Texas, etc), the worst Hurricane season in Florida (prior to Katrina), the destruction of New Orleans & the Gulf Coast (Katrina), 9/11, the reorganization & creation of the TSA, creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, the failure & rebuilding of the entire East Coast Power Grid & increased oil costs. All of which, except oil costs, will diminish in costs over the next couple of years & dramatically reduce the estimated deficit. The deficit, as I am sure you realize, is a projection - much like Clinton’s surpluses were - projected over a 5 to 10 year economic period. Amazing how people insist we will have higher un-employment since the rate just dropped to 4.7% & they were not your heralded “Mc Jobs” but higher level & paying jobs. The US has kept a resounding 3-3.7% economic growth over the entire time & is constantly raising the Fed to prevent any inflationary reaction within the market. Employment figures are constantly being upgraded because initial projections were too conservative. Home ownership is up & the housing market & home owner ship is still at all time highs. Care to compare the un-employment rate or rate of growth in the US to Sweden or Canada? The prime motivating force behind these increases was the capitalistic move of lower taxes across the board. Once again showing that, in fact, capitalism works. Which socialized economies over the last 40 years have maintained that level of un-employment again? Hell which socialized state has less than twice that amount now? Which socialized economies have grown over 2 percent, consistently for at least 2 or 3 quarters, much less 6 years? As far as the 50% that haven't saved anything for retirement, maybe you could start by lessening their tax burden & allow them to invest as they see fit. Private investments generally pay a lot more than government run ones do. Lastly I would like to say I do appreciate you civil tone & must say it is quite refreshing to be able to talk to & argue civilly w/ someone that has differing viewpoints. For that I thank you.

Posted by: PMain at April 12, 2006 03:30 PM (JRbzK)

105 It won't encourage anything but more spending on "stuff". Oh please. Is THAT the rationale behind full government daycare? It is called "personal responsibility". If you lack that...you deserve to be on the short end of the stick. Only I know what is best for my family. These past post lamenting on about the need for constant government involvment in my life is enough to make me vomit. High taxes and social programs...please tell me where the incentive is to do and achieve more! Is doing it for the "group" supposed to make me aspire for more? I should work harder to help pay for those who CHOOSE not to? Mere days ago...OCAP wandered through Rosedale where one of the organizers proclaimed: "I think it's time for people who are wealthy to have a serious dose of trepidation when it comes to the anger of poor people," "The amount of money one millionaire gained in tax breaks under the Tories is equivalent to the amount of money taken from 17 families on welfare," While I believe we have a responsibility to take care of those that CAN NOT help themselves...the rest who choose to accept handouts....some whom have done NOTHING to entitle them to it....can be put out to pasture. The term used, "taken", like it is rightfully theirs to be taken...is laughable. I highly doubt it is the fault of the rich that these people are in the position they are in. What makes Sarah Vance, the organizer responsible for the above quotes, believe that the rich should feel trepidation for the poor is beyond me. Perhaps she believes the "group" mentality is failing on the rich.

Posted by: Ownshook at April 12, 2006 04:33 PM (oRm8P)

106 enough Thats fine for you. But what about the 50% who have nothing saved for retirement. Let them go to hell??? Yes. Iam one of those 50%. I think a lot of people who think they'll retire at 55 are going to be rudely surprised on the 54th birthday. I dont plan on a retirement. "Hell is a surprising place, on a good day it resembles Los Angeles" "In Russia, I was a slave. At least the work was steady" "if your retirement plan involves lottery tickets ... you maybe a redneck"

Posted by: Curtis at April 12, 2006 04:38 PM (heo8b)

107 With the deficit now at 9trillion and medicare and social security costs coming due Americans have two choices. LMFAO!!! Medicare and Social Security: the pre-eminent Socialist schemes of the 1930s New Deal and the 1960s "Great Society". These are the biggest threats to America's economy today? You hold up these programs as failures and ask us to implement other Socialist policies? Yeah, we'll buy into that, sure. Any man under 30 could take the money from social security (the most regressive tax we have, btw) and put it in a simple bank account. At 65 he'd have more money that way than with Social Security checks. The current rate of return for someone of that age is ~1.5%! I'll take option number 3. Elimination of Social Security for those below 25, raising the age minimum, and cutting benefits. Oh, and means-testing too. Anyone making $200,000 or more gets no benefits. How's that? In 40 years it'll be gone for good and we won't have to raise taxes.

Posted by: Regis at April 12, 2006 05:07 PM (ZrYg/)

108 25? I think thats too low. More like 45. My mom is 55, and doesnt plan to see any money from CPP. -- not that she wouldnt take it, just she doesnt think it'll be there...

Posted by: Curtis at April 12, 2006 05:15 PM (heo8b)

109 My mom at 40 years old realized that she hadn't planned properly for retiring. Instead of moaning about it...she found ways to cut back in spending...cigs, coffee on the way to work and stopped buying her lunch every day. She picked up a part time job for a year and put all that money away. She put that part time money plus the money she was wasting away and retired fine at 62. She planned well....volunteers.....goes away twice per year. She doesn't live in luxury but enjoys her life and is quite happy she does not have to rely on handouts to survive. She sacrificed..and it paid off. ..oh...and raised 3 kids by herself without handouts nor any help from my father.

Posted by: Ownshook at April 12, 2006 05:49 PM (oRm8P)

110 Steve D, Yes, they can go to hell. I am tired of these victims who depend on the government. Off of their butts and do it for yourself. Can't afford to retire? Family members to mooch off or do not retire. Once upon a time charities and churches provided help to the poor and needy. Then the government stepped in and took over. With typical government overhead the poor and needy get less but at greater cost to you and I. Whatever happened to candy stripers in the hospitals? Volunteer work. No more. A further symptom of the socialist mentality. enough

Posted by: enough at April 12, 2006 06:19 PM (ucHAZ)

111 PMain You understand I have difficulty, even with volume discounts, how $2,000 a year buys you Health care. But if you say so. The taxes you are not paying now will have to be paid sometime. America is living on credit. The government and the people. The interest on your debt are taking away your governments ability to do its job. Tax cuts that give 80% to the rich have never done anything for any economy. These are the guys that take the money out of the country or hide it. Reagan tried trickle down economics and it almost broke the government. He finally had to raise taxes, by closing loopholes, etc. He ended up raising more taxes than he cut. Bush hasn't done this. The next President will. He will have to. The economy is doing fine. The stock market is doing better than fine. The upper class has never been so happy. When they do polls to ask if people think the economy is doing well, or if they think Bush has good economic policy the polls are always negative. Why? The people don't see it. These good times are missing a majority of people. Remember real wages have increased only about .06% in real terms in the last 5 years. When you consider who is better off unemployed a Canadian, a Swede, or an American, the American would always come in last. The unemployment rate is not horribly different, Canada 6.3%, Sweden 5.9%, America 4.7% , especially when you consider all the constant rebuilding that goes on because of Hurricanes, floods and wildfires. If all this rebuilding wasnt going on our unemployment would be at similar levels. Again, if we compared which of the three countries had the most grinding poverty America would be it. America is a great place if you have everything going for you. However, for the majority if they could feel the way we live in Canada and Sweden, I think they would want similar services by their government. But the American government doesn't serve the majority only the minority. The ones that send the 68,000 lobbyists to Washington. Those are the people that are served. Not the little guy. The little guys life is more precarious so he wants the government to provide services that protect him and his family from the cold realities of Capitalism.

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 06:31 PM (sw5R/)

112 Regis Your social programs are not failures just the government that either spends the people's pension money rather than raise taxes, Or underfunds the Medicaid program because they don't really want it to work. They don't believe in it because they want to keep private health care insurance robust. In America, the government puts in programs because the people want something done and the lobbyists turn the politicians around to fix it so they get their share of the program and milk it. If it fails they just go back to private lucrative health care. The any man under 30 arguement is a hollow one. Over 70% of people live from pay check to pay check. When a young guy with a family thinks of what his needs are he rarely thinks of pension. They are swamped with bills due NOW. I like the idea of cutting those that don't need Social Security right out of the picture.

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 06:45 PM (sw5R/)

113 Curtis The CPP and the Old Age Security pension will be there for her. It is well funded and very secure.

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 06:49 PM (sw5R/)

114 enough When I was going to high school and then later in University I had several McJobs. Over about 8 years I worked with a lot of low wage workers. I was impressed with how almost all of them, especially women, would dig in and work as if they were getting big wages. I often thought how lucky I was to have met these people. Many were much older and they never complained. Today when I pay my big taxes I remember them. I think of all the people that have replaced them. I feel grateful to pay taxes to help people like that. They are the salt of the earth. They are the people that make any country work. I know these companies didn't have pensions except for the minority full time workers. So if there were no Canada Pension these people would be literally out in the cold. These people work little jobs all their lives and can't afford anything but their most immediate needs. They don't have the confidence or education to go for a well paying job but they do know how to work, I know I have worked with them. So please don't begrudge them their small Canada pension.

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 07:06 PM (sw5R/)

115 Steve: Question: Why has there never been a famine in a democracy?

Posted by: ward at April 12, 2006 08:07 PM (CjcOZ)

116 No man is rich until he realizes he has enough......

Posted by: at April 12, 2006 08:33 PM (/ikHx)

117 ward The Great Depression was very rough. A lot of farmers lost their farms. A lot of families lived on what they could grow. Democracy is no defense against bad government. We had it in Ontario a few times. They have it in the US now. If the next President acts like the present President America will experience another depression. They will go broke. I am not kidding. If the nextPresident doesn't raise taxes to begin to do what Clinton did, get rid of the deficit, America will be in deep financial trouble. You don't have to believe me, do some reading, you will see.

Posted by: steve d. at April 12, 2006 09:31 PM (sw5R/)

118 SteveD, I am beginning to wonder if you are just making stuff up or that detached from reality. According the latest US based statistics, the average growth rate of income per American (not the top 10%, but everyone) last year was 2.2%. The top 10% of income earners in the US still pay almost 80% of the tax revenues generated or received by the federal government. The problem w/ this argument is you are either reading some totally biased or falsified sources or you are simply making things up. Maybe this is why you have the opinions you have, because if what you believed to be true, was, I’d probably be a socialist as well. Healthcare here is not the product of taxes, it is an industry. If you don’t believe what I pay, simply go to Healthnet.com, look up the cost for a general PPO coverage for a single male in California. W/o Dental, the starting price was $60 a month & that was w/ a $500 deductible. The reason it is so much cheaper is 1) there are more people in the US than Canada, 2) The government doesn’t run our healthcare, 3) Insurance companies & service providers have to compete against each other. You may also want to check out the sites of einsurance.com or the web-sites of BlueCross or BlueShield – two of the larger insurance providers in the US. For me locally, I can also sign up for Kaiser Permente which runs around $100 for full coverage & there are thousands of HMOs & local group healthcare centers that run about $25 a visit here as well. The costs are not off set to anyone else or by the government, they are run as a business. Something you are having trouble w/ grasping. The only government sponsored healthcare is Medicare or Medicaid – both of which are steadily running straight to bankruptcy & both cost more than the US spends on defense. The last US budget is spending only about 3.7% of GDP on defense. As far as an unemployed person being better off in Sweden or Canada, I disagree. That person has much more opportunities to start their own business or find another job somewhere else – mostly because everyone else here is actually working & the government isn’t involved in setting up a business. That is why the unemployment rate is almost 2% lower here. You do realize that almost additional 2% percent of your entire population is unemployed compared to the US & that is a 32 year low, whereas 4.7 is almost the average for the last 20 years – give or take a year. Canadian unemployment was almost 8% in 2003. Your understanding of economics, mush less Reganomics is similar to your figures… completely made up or totally false. If you’d like, I could argue about the Great Depression, its causes or why Reagan raised taxes & how he raised them. Explain to me how America is heading for a depression again, before you answer about the deficit, please remember that the US has had higher deficits in relation to its GDP several times & none were preceded by a depression, ever – other than the last Clinton inspired recession, but even it wasn’t a depression.

Posted by: PMain at April 12, 2006 10:06 PM (JRbzK)

119 You don't have to believe me, do some reading, you will see. I don't believe you. I have done plenty of reading. I see you're full of fecal material and Koolaid.

Posted by: Mac at April 12, 2006 10:27 PM (TaDbz)

120 Steve.d Your allowed to invent your own opinions, but not your facts. "Tax cuts that give 80% to the rich have never done anything for any economy." Completely totally & utterly false. If you look at the Regan tax cuts in the 1980s, government revenues for that period rose dramatically. The Regan deficits where caused by congress who spent too much. You are a victim of left wing LSD induced propaganda. Read something not published by the Toronto Star, and find out how the world really works.

Posted by: Curtis at April 12, 2006 10:54 PM (Uagor)

121 More generalities Steve D. ? USA is the richest country in the world? Depends. The richest countries in the world per capita are 1) Luxombourg, 2) Norway and 3) the USA. If you are talking about GDP as a measure of wealth, yes the USA has the highest GDP. But it's GDP is $12.4 Trillion. When you compare that to the European Union's GDP of $12.1 Trillion and China's GDP of $8.1 Trillion, the USA ain't "dwarfing" anybody. And does that really matter? The position of richest nation in the world fluctuates with the time. Thirty years ago, the richest nation in the world was Switzerland. By 2015, the richest nation on Earth will be India. So what? Sorry, I'm tired of the generalities and ignorance that began with your tirade on "McJobs" and how they are the fastest growing sector of jobs, blah, blah blah. And don't even get me started on retirement. Curtis is right... the idea that retirement could be perfected is a joke. Do you even know where they got the notion of 55 being the average age for retirement and how one could prepare enough to retire by 55? Easy: at the time 55 was chosen at the age of retirement, the average life expectancy was not much higher than 55. In other words, the expectation is that a person would retire and then immediately die! You know what? Forget it. I'm done.

Posted by: Surecure at April 12, 2006 11:13 PM (zF+Gw)

122 Sorry... that should have been 65, not 55. The age of retirement was originally set at 65 at a time in history where life expectancy feature 87% of the population dead before 70 (only 5% made it into their 80's).

Posted by: Surecure at April 12, 2006 11:18 PM (zF+Gw)

123 Sorry Steve D. You avoided the question. Despite the Great Depression which was worldwide, the US (nor any other democracy) did not experience famine. Can you not provide an answer that answers the question directly - why has there never been a famine in a democracy?

Posted by: ward at April 12, 2006 11:38 PM (CjcOZ)

124 My goodness. Where does one start in the refutation of our dear friend Steve D? Poster DMain and others have done a fabulous job, but here's my two bits: "Every expert I've heard or read of over the last five years has said that Canada's health care is 25% cheaper than American" A common, oft repeated factoid of the left. How do we know this when we have no idea of the full costs of a hip replacement, a stint insertion or a kidney replacement? Health care eats up nearly 1 in 3 tax dollars in Canada, with substandard results. "Don't forget 45million Americans are not even covered!!!" In addition to the illegals and young invincibles mentioned by another poster, how many are people like so many renters who get burned out and have no insurance. Too many are prepared to play the lottery, rather than pay their premiums. And then we should support them when the game turns against them? "Median incomes have barely budged since 2000, while corporate profits have nearly doubled." I'm so glad. I was born 'poor' in a family of eight. Worked my ass off, made good choices and a little at a time, bought shares and mutual funds. Let's see those profits double again, because as a small business guy, they represent much of my retirement. "In theory, corporate profits are supposed to stimulate investment, which leads to job creation and rising consumer demand, which in turn drives up wages." Gosh, Steve. That's exactly what's been happening where I live, and throughout much of the country. Sorry it's not happening in your community. Maybe you should talk to your Mayor and Councillors about making it a more business friendly environment and try to attract both capital and jobs. Was in Home Depot today, saw a sign "Hiring: All Depts. Interview dates ..." "Capital is strong and labour is weak." Give us a break. The BCTF is weak? CAW is weak? If so, only because of internal squabbling and politics. And let's not forget 'labours' affiliation with everything from the Canadian Federation of Students to the Council of Canadians and the International Socialist Movement. Capital receives it's strength from individuals acting in their own self-interests, which invariably benefit others. It may be wounded from time to time ie: France, but it will always prevail because it is synchronous with natural human nature. "In the last 5 years corporate profits as a percentage of the GNP has risen from 7 to 12%,a huge jump." "The companies are keeping the money not doling it out in wages." Only 7 to 12%? What a shame. Those profits end up as dividends and increased share prices in the portfolios of tens of millions of average people (including public sector workers) who rely on 'profits' to supplement their retirement income. For most of us that means CPP and OAS. For public sector workers, it's in addition to a generous pension plan as well as CPP and perhaps OAS as well. "McDonald's gets only one third of its revenue from NA. What this means is that jobs that used to be created in North America are not there." As someone who detests Mc'D's and their McJobs, why are you suddenly concerned about domestic revenue streams or some strange illusion that we're outsourcing McJobs to India? "50 of the 77 babies that die every day in America die because of poverty." Babies don't die of poverty. They die of infections, poor nutrition and a myriad of other reasons. They are usually related to bad parenting as no one, absolutely no one, has any reason on Canada or America, to not provide the basic necessities to their child. Their are sufficient programs, agencies, charities and family resources to assure that. People smoke, drink, use crack, drink too many latte's or a thousand and one other things, instead of doing the right things. "North Americans are desperately trying to maintain their standard of living by buying on credit." I agree that too many are living on credit. No question. But rather than 'maintaining' a standard, people are using cheap credit to live a life to which they are not entitled. IOW, they haven't earned that big screen TV, but want it anyway. I just bought a 42" plasma for $2,600 and bought it with a credit card. Paid it off 30 days later, having EARNED interest on the $2,600. I can do this because I bought the TV at age 56 and not 26. A life of little 'right' decisions means I get to enjoy the rewards today. "Americans have two choices. Huge tax increases, or depression with huge unemployment. Take your pick" Possibly. But unless Americans turn out to be like the French, I doubt it. "We both know what would happen to that money. There is a very descriptive name for what most would do with it. It would be "pissed away". Funny thing about socialists. They're always out for the 'little guy', but oddly, they never trust the little people to make their own decisions. When a previous Premier suggested meeting treaty obligations by giving natives privately owned tracts of land and a one time only cash settlement, our former NDP MLA said exactly the same thing:, quote: "the natives would just piss it away on pickup trucks." unquote. "You understand I have difficulty, even with volume discounts, how $2,000 a year buys you Health care. But if you say so." Steve D., you maintain the illusion that you're receiving 'free health care'. If you, like most of us, pay in excess of $20k in just income taxes, remember that 1/3 goes for health care. You could be paying $5 - $7k a year whether you use the system or not. Cut my taxes and let me buy my own services. "The taxes you are not paying now will have to be paid sometime" What taxes he's NOT paying? Like the excess EI premiums - an extra tax on both employees and employers? Like the CMHS program that took in several billion dollars while paying out only 51 million? Like the EXCESS taxes resulting in years of huge surpluses? Unchain the economy if you want opportunities for the poor. "When you consider who is better off unemployed a Canadian, a Swede, or an American, the American would always come in last. The unemployment rate is not horribly different, Canada 6.3%, Sweden 5.9%, America 4.7%" Your glass is half empty. Your figures show that as an American, you're 26% LESS LIKELY to be unemployed in America (4.7%/6.3%). OTOH, in America you are more likely to be encouraged and rewarded for success. "consider all the constant rebuilding that goes on because of Hurricanes, floods and wildfires. If all this rebuilding wasnt going on our unemployment would be at similar levels." Nonsense. The disasters have a minimal effect on employment. In fact, the additional construction jobs are offset by the dislocation of the disaster itself. "America is a great place if you have everything going for you." Close. America is a great place if you have ANYTHING going for you. It is still the quintessential 'rags to riches' truth. "Over 70% of people live from pay check to pay check." Nearly 70% of people are stupid then. It doesn't matter if you're cleaning a McDonald's or a teacher. PAY YOURSELF FIRST. It's an elemental ingredient to success and whether its' $5 dollars or $500 dollars a month, put it away. 90% of those you describe are authors of their own circumstances. Harsh? Maybe, but the truth sometimes hurts.

Posted by: Randy at April 13, 2006 01:06 AM (hkkIN)

125 Great post Randy. "infant mortality rate in the United States reached a record low of 6.8 per 1,000 live births. Overall, about 27,500 infants died in the first year of life in 2001, compared with 27,960 in 2000. The three leading causes of infant death were congenital malformations, low birthweight, and sudden infant death syndrome, which together accounted for 44 percent of all infant deaths." Gee steve.d, I dont see poverty listed in there. No way can poverty be the cause of 65% of infant deaths.

Posted by: Curtis at April 13, 2006 12:12 PM (heo8b)

126 Not that it really matters much, but I incorrectly asserted in my last post to SteveD that in the US the top 10% pay almost 80% of all tax revenue, the number is really almost 65%, it is the top 20% that pay almost 80%. So I guess those whining, cry-baby fascists aren't really paying thier fair share since they pay almost 2/3 of the taxes collected.

Posted by: PMain at April 13, 2006 01:43 PM (C0Gmj)

127 Oh yeah, according to the US tresure Dept. the tax revenues this year are up 10.6% over of last year (2005). Which in SteveD numbers means the rich paid less & the poor paid more, but funny have all US taxpayers are still paying a smaller percentage in federal income tax, due to the Bush tax cuts. Care to explain this SteveD?

Posted by: PMain at April 13, 2006 01:57 PM (C0Gmj)

128 Oh yeah, according to the US Treasury Dept. the tax revenues this year are up 10.6% over of last year (2005). Which in SteveD numbers means the rich paid less & the poor paid more, but funny have all US taxpayers are still paying a smaller percentage in federal income tax, due to the Bush tax cuts. Care to explain this SteveD? Sorry about the double posting, but I caught my spelling accident a little too late.

Posted by: PMain at April 13, 2006 01:58 PM (C0Gmj)

129 The American left (and presumably) the Canadian left, as well, use static models when they try to calculate the value and effect of tax policy on the economy. Unfortunately, its a dynamic world. When the taxes change people's behaviour also changes. So tax cuts normally generate more revenue. Kennedy proved it, in the 1960s, as did Regan, Bush I and Bush II. (Bush I proved it, with a luxury tax, that destroyed the small shipyard industry on the eastern seaboard) Iam in favour of a GST tax cut. This will help everyone in society, especially at the lower end of the income bracket, who often dont pay income taxes. Iam also in favour of income tax cuts. In short, I have never heard of a tax cut I couldnt support.

Posted by: Curtis at April 13, 2006 02:19 PM (heo8b)

130 Curtis forgive me if I am incorrect, but wasn;t the GST a sales tax? If so I seem to remember lots of places either offering to pay it for them or simply didn't charge it altogether. I'm not sure repealing a sales tax would generate the income that long term income tax cuts would. That is again assuming that I am right about it being a sales tax.

Posted by: PMain at April 13, 2006 07:46 PM (C0Gmj)

131 Its a Value Added Tax. Its more complex than a simple sales tax, but thats a fairly accurate description. I think a GST tax cut from 7% to 6% then to 5% will be a net positive to everyone. Because a lot of lower income people already don't pay income tax, this is the only tax reduction that can help them. (granted a 1% tax cut isnt much) I also believe that the tax cut will be stimulative to the economy, for example it will make it that much easier for people to buy a home, car or other major purchase. (That 1% cut, just made a new house $1500+ cheaper) -Its true that there are "no GST" sales, where the company will pay the GST on large ticket items, but these are special occasional sales and not a normal business practice for most companies.

Posted by: Curtis at April 13, 2006 08:53 PM (Uagor)

132 Curtis, I also have never seen a tax cut I couldn't support. *But* I will also demand lower spending to compensate. Otherwise governments just print more money. Inflation increases more rapidly when they do so and the value of my money goes down, defeating the purpose of lower taxes in the first place. Lower taxes and lower spending should be corrollaries (though, as previously mentioned lower taxes will increase growth so spending will not require proportional cuts).

Posted by: Regis at April 13, 2006 09:28 PM (ZrYg/)

133 Though the left always claims the 'rich' don't pay a fair share of taxes, it is a self-defeating argument. Fewer rich people means more taxes for the middle and low income earner. A home in Victoria is for sale at $25 million dollars. It is a second home for a 'rich American' (the horror, the horror!). Steve D. would probably not approve, given that in his view, the American clearly has more than his share of the pie and doesn't 'need' a second home. However, he also pays $45,000/yr in property taxes, which benefits everyone in the community. The politics of pragmatism would say, "lets have more rich people", while the politics of envy would prefer to appropriate and 're-distribute' others wealth to their own ends.

Posted by: Randy at April 13, 2006 09:32 PM (hkkIN)

134 Randy, That rich American pays the same percentage of property tax as someone else in the community. In Steve D's world that is unfair. He should be paying a higher percentage. That is how the socialists think. enough

Posted by: enough at April 14, 2006 12:22 AM (6sAMe)

135 I also have never seen a tax cut I couldn't support. *But* I will also demand lower spending to compensate. Otherwise governments just print more money. Compensate for what? Lower taxes, generate more revenue. The government holds the line on spending then surpluses continue.

Posted by: Curtis at April 14, 2006 01:44 AM (J4tR+)

136 You got only half the message Curtis: "though, as previously mentioned lower taxes will increase growth so spending will not require proportional cuts." Increased growth increases revenue, yes, but that takes both time, and has diminishing returns as taxes get closer to 0. Spending cuts will be required short-term to prevent deficits and inflation that will de-value the money from the tax cuts.

Posted by: Regis at April 14, 2006 12:01 PM (ZrYg/)

137 PMain If the cost of living is 2.2% and you get a 2.26% increase how much ahead of the game are you? Treading water stops you from drowning but it doesn't get you anywhere. The Star did a piece on Health Care in todays paper. Canadians pay about $3000. per and Americans $5600. Private insurance works best if you don't use it. If you have had a few car accidents you will know what I mean. It is the same with health insurance. American employment is good because a lot of the poor have given up looking for work and they have so many natural disasters that they are in a constant state of rebuilding. The Canadian Pension money is now being invested in the equity markets. America is living on credit, the government and the individual. The reason they can is that countries like Japan and China have been buying American bonds. Well, the Japanese have virtually stopped buying. As a result the cost of money is going up to 7 or 8%. This will affect consumers and home owners alike. The government will be paying increasing amounts in interest. This added cost comes at a time when the government is carrying record debt. As it stands before the increases in cost they couldnt maintain their current standard of living. Because of the tremendous weight of debt, governmental and personal, I predict a hard landing for the economy starting within the next year. I hope I am wrong but the evidence is in. Once the Chinese stop buying American bonds then the slide will be steep. All this info is easily found if you dont believe me.

Posted by: steve d. at April 14, 2006 01:21 PM (sw5R/)

138 Randy Harsh? Yes. Look up the word "empathy" you need some. Why? Because there but for the grace of God go you. If you were blessed to be born into a family with the middle class protestant work ethic, and a middle class high value on education, and your family brought you up to believe you can achieve your dreams through hard work then count yourself lucky and blessed. If you are born lucky and blessed, does it follow that those who weren't are merely inferior and stupid? Can't we just say they live in a different environment with a different set of beliefs and attitudes that work against their own interests but are unconscious of the fact. I was born and raised working class. My father worked shift work in a factory for thirty years. Never once did he say the word, university. I don't even know if he knew the word. He valued education but to him education stopped at grade 12. I have distinct memories of wanting to follow my dad into the factory at 16 years old. That was my dream. That was the extent of my dream. He never complained, he raised a family, so hey, what else is there? My older brother was dating a "gifted girl" who was on her way to university. My brother loved her and so she convinced him he could go too. When my brother started going to university and was successful it was like a whole new world had opened up to me. I remember the day. I think the best way to describe the feeling is the way I imagine people feel when they are "born again" as christians. It is a life altering revelation. It was sudden insight. An amazing feeling to discover this place of higher learning that you hadn't even been aware of all your life now appeared out of nowhere and became a doorway to a new existence. Very few working class people get this "jolt". Indeed, my brother and I are the only one of all the kids we played with growing up who went to university. So my sudden insight was a gift of sorts. It has made my life very rich beyond anything I could have imagined in my wildest dreams. But I will never forget how fortunate I am compared to everyone else. I know these people. They work at least as hard as you, usually harder. They don't benefit like you and I because they live in a different world, literally. Even though they are in your world they are not OF it. They have a different awareness, different and modest dreams and hopes. Maybe one of the reasons I "moved up" was that I could tell this story in the hope that the "upper class" would understand in some small way that we are not simply and conveniently classified as either smart or stupid, hard working or lazy. That is why I believe that given a hand up more would succeed like I did. I don't resent or begrudge them. I know they have earned every single social program we have given them(and us) and more. Ironically, the middle class use health care more than the lower classes. Perscriptions cost money and they don't have a lot left after paying bills. One of my best friends killed himself as a result of depression because he couldn't afford the anti-depressants nor the talk therapy. He would tell me he was getting better and would put on a brave face. However, later I found out he couldn't physically handle the job anymore. His body was wearing out. He had arthritis and decided suicide was the only way out. I think I'd better stop this is running on too long.

Posted by: steve d. at April 14, 2006 02:21 PM (sw5R/)

139 Canadians are living on credit too. Enough of the anti-american crap. And you read the article wrong. The US spends 5600 percapita. Means per person, paid by the government. So the evil US spends more moner per person on healthcare than the Canadian governments do. RTFA. Also "Health policy analyst Michael Rachlis cautioned that the report's results are based on patient self-reporting and the answers "could mean different things in different countries" The numbers are open to interpretation and guess which way the red star reads them? American employment is good and they have given up looking for work BECAUSE THEY HAVE JOBS! Do you read what you type? Do you really believe this? A hard landing for the Ontario economy because you have more lying socialist running the show. You guys bought it, wait for the provincial election to return it. enough

Posted by: enough at April 14, 2006 02:22 PM (ucHAZ)

140 Steve....Your flashes of "insight" may be weird and convoluted, but they are also erroneous, as are the premises on which you base your argument. For example: "Conservatives are inherently hard-working,liberals are inherently lazy." What evidence do you have for that assertion? "Liberals seem to think the status quo is generally bad." Then:"For a liberal, progress is merely being able to say that today is different from yesterday." Again, what evidence? I suppose one can argue any point if their argument is based on assertions one has pulled out of one's ass. The change to legalize gay marriage is not change for the sake of change, but PROGRESS towards the laudable GOAL of equality of all Canadians.( part of the Conservative Party's platform, if memory serves) Nor does gay marriage dilute the institution of marriage. Nor do you demonstate how,if by denying gays the right to marry the institution of marriage was stenghthened, that, in and of itself would lead to an increase in the birth rate. Using this analogy, the conservative agenda would be to mask their bigotry under the guise of increasing the population.

Posted by: maryjane at April 14, 2006 03:25 PM (XmxnC)

141 Marriage means something to many people. There are people who refuse to consider divorce. People who do not live together before marriage because of that concern. People who do not leap into marriage. Divorce is not considered much of a bad thing now. The term starter marriage is used. People expect you to live together before marriage. Pregnancy out of wedlock is not frowned on. Common law marriage is legally the same as marrriage. Multiple bastards to common law relationships. The list goes on. Same sex marriage is just one more thing in a long list of watering down of marriage. And to top it off they generally do not want to get married. The marriage rate for homosexuals is tiny, even with it being in the news and so much being made over it. It does seem like another attack on what was a norm of society just because. They do not really want it but society has to accomodate them just because. How very bigoted to say this. enough

Posted by: enough at April 14, 2006 03:45 PM (ucHAZ)

142 enough...Society has to accomodate equality, even if you don't like what is being accomodated. To only accomodate that which you agree with is lazy, sloppy right-wing thinking.

Posted by: maryjane at April 14, 2006 04:47 PM (XmxnC)

143 enough They have jobs, most do. I just saw today's Oprah show. Wow. 30 million American are working full time and living below the poverty level. The mimimum wage is $5.15 an hour and has been for 10 years! Many are making more than the minimum but even at 7,8,9 dollars an hour their lives are desperate. They have no health coverage, none. If they take a day off they lose a days pay. If ANYTHING happens financially over and above the basics of life(the same as those offered slaves, food and shelter) they have no way of dealing with it. I am talking, assistant teachers, receptionists, ambulance workers, hospital assistants. These are people whom we interact with daily in our working and private lives. They are working doing productive things but are not valued at all. I meant a hard landing for the American economy but of course we will be affected big time too.

Posted by: steve d. at April 14, 2006 04:56 PM (sw5R/)

144 Society has to accomodate what YOU say it does. Equality has different meanings for different people. Equal pay for equal work means a nurse gets payed the same as a doctor? Means we lower the standards for firefighters so women can be accomodated? Lower standards so that minorities can get accepted? It is an everchanging definition according to you socialists. Chip away at what you currently don't like. Only the lefty definition is correct. Running into some problems nowadays with that aren't you? Going to start running into some mutually exclusive equalities soon. Let's see this unsloppy lefty thinking then. enough

Posted by: enough at April 14, 2006 05:59 PM (ucHAZ)

145 Steve, This no healthcoverage is hooey. Charity hospitals, donations, free health centers etc. No plan but there is access. I can think of that movie Patch Adams. You are so hung up on this class system thing. Ya gotta move on. It is you and your union brothers and sisters that have this fixation. People in Sudan are desperate. People in LA are not. No HBO counts as desperate? Bah. Create your own valus Steve. Do not depend on others to define yourself. enough

Posted by: enough at April 14, 2006 06:08 PM (ucHAZ)

146 enough... Wrong. There is only one definition of equality in the context of this post and that is equality under the law.

Posted by: maryjane at April 14, 2006 06:34 PM (XmxnC)

147 The liberal left are anything but progressive. They are typified by arrogant centralist autorcrats like Martin Ignatieff and the a hole Klander. Their agenda is to retain the centralist control of the country for their own agrandisement. What is progressive about forcing people into a failing health system which forbids the individual to seek professional help wherever they wish?Who wishes to go to Vancouver General Hospital where the emergency doctors hand patients letters telling them the hospital is not safe?No doubt Steve will be able to justify this funamental repression of individaul freedom as defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Posted by: Gary at April 14, 2006 06:57 PM (Y26yA)

148 Maryjane, Moving the goalposts again. Equality under the law. Let's reinterpret the law to your suiting first then when it says what you want, we'll start it all over again. Gay marriage. Next is polygamy. If marriage (which has been defined as 1 man, 1 woman for 1000s of years) must now include any 2 people, why not any 3 or 4 or more? Goalposts moved again. We are catching on to this slow creep game of yours and maybe it is time to stop it. enough

Posted by: enough at April 14, 2006 11:11 PM (6sAMe)

149 SteveD, Once again I think you have failed to understand how things work in the States, much in less in reality. First, the minimum wage is not $5.15 & can either fall under federal or state guidelines - generally which ever is higher. In California, the minimum wage is different than it is in New York or New Mexico. Most minimum wage jobs are not created for people to live off, they are in fact "minimum" or basic jobs, that require little experience or no skill. They are mostly for high school kids or the elderly, etc. They are not meant to be a career. One would assume that if one is working a job that does not pay an amount that is needed for one to survive, one would look for a job that does. Or that one would garner the skills it takes to get a job that pays better through experience, education or developing the skill set required to advance. It is their choice. Healthcare is a choice here. If the job you have doesn’t supply it, then you must get it yourself – like auto insurance, like owning a car, like getting food, etc. I'm not sure how the $1680 I pay annually becomes $5600 - since my healthcare is in no way subsidized by anyone, much less my government. I would imagine that the figures you used relate to the inefficient government spending in the area of healthcare & rather proves the point most of us here are making, that the government shouldn’t be involved in it. Please notice that under the capitalistic model employed here in the US, my yearly health insurance is under $2,000 a year. The costs associated w/ it are mine & mine alone. Because the insurance companies compete w/ each other, the prices remain competitive. Under a system where the prices are regulated, they are the same. That is why I pay less a year for auto insurance than most of my Canadian friends, even though I drive about 10,000 miles more a year then they do & live in a city of over 5 million+ people - which raises the costs of my auto insurance. My mom who lives in a different state & much smaller town (I have more people in my neighborhood than her entire state), pays less than I do. This is why gasoline in Europe has generally been more expensive than here in the states & why it will continue to be so… it isn’t regulated. The trade off is the prices are not static. This is why Canadians pay $3000 & I pay $1680. I am self-employed & if I take a day off I lose a day’s pay as well. I just make sure that I can afford to take that day off, like I make sure that I can pay my health insurance, car insurance, etc. I was forced to work my way through college. My parents didn’t pay for any of it & since I didn’t qualify for any scholarships, I was forced to work full time & take out student loans throughout. So what exactly is your point? The fires & hurricanes didn’t even displace 1% of the population so your argument doesn’t even “tread water” & the unemployment rate is at 4.7%. A rate that is better than the average of the last 4 decades. While you can believe that America is heading for doom & gloom, people have been predicting that since well before I was born & yet our economic growth is still above 3% of GDP & that’s w/ the natural disasters, a weak dollar, rising oil prices, a 2 front war going on, Europe collapsing economically & rising Indian & Asian markets. I did I also mention our foreign aid burden, suppling the UN w/ almost 1/3 of their budget, etc.

Posted by: PMain at April 15, 2006 03:42 AM (C0Gmj)

150 Also, the more you argue, the more you are proving the author's point - which sparked this debate.

Posted by: PMain at April 15, 2006 03:44 AM (C0Gmj)

151 >"Conservatives are inherently hard-working,liberals are inherently lazy." What evidence do you have for that assertion? That's an interesting question. Suppose we are confronted by a problem: in which group do we typically find people whose general attitude is "People should do something", and in which group those whose general attitude is "Government should do something". I put it to you that the latter are lazy and refuse to take responsibility for the problem. Now it only remains to figure out whether believers in Big Government tend to be (modern) conservatives or (modern) liberals.

Posted by: lrC at April 15, 2006 04:12 AM (/d+Z0)

152 Enough...The state of marriage confers upon the couple a status not available to, let's say, roommates, such as tax advantages i.e. income splitting, spousal dependecy,spousal health and dental benefits from employment, inheritance rights, child custody rights for a surviving spouse etc. The law applies equally to all married couples without regard to sexual orientation. Equality under the law. Polygamy is equally proscribed for all persuasions. But since the hypothetical "goal" in this post was to increase the population, maybe the hardworking conservatives should not concern themselves with banning gay marriage(which would have no effect on population) but should be actively promoting polygamy (just an observation but polygamus families seem to have a lot of children) and promiscuity. I'm not moving the goal posts, I just refuse to put them in an easy convenient place of your choosing that would enable you to score a point. .

Posted by: maryjane at April 15, 2006 11:58 AM (2rP3k)

153 lrC.... Maybe we should define the terms of reference. By conservative I mean those who belong to, support, or vote for the Conservative Party. By liberal I mean those who belong to, vote for or support the Liberal Party or the NDP. Now conservative voters give a lot of lip service to the notion that "people should do something" as opposed to "gov't. should do something", but when it comes down to acting on that proposition, I can't see where there is a dimes worth of difference between libs or cons. You put it to me that "the latter are lazy and refuse to take responsibility for the problem" but you make that assertion without any evidence. Give me an example big gov't. liberal special interests and I'll give you an example of big gov't. conservative special interests.

Posted by: Maryjane at April 15, 2006 12:40 PM (2rP3k)

154 'smatter nuf, had enough? Come out and fight. It is a good day to die.

Posted by: Maryjane at April 15, 2006 05:11 PM (2rP3k)

155 PMain We are working under different assumptions. You assume an employer creates a minimum wage job as a temporary way station for the young or the old. I assume an employer creates a minimum wage job because that is what he thinks he can get away with paying. He doesnÂ’t care if they are legal or illegal, old or young as long as they get the job done. You assume he will pull himself up by the bootstraps and move up either by getting a better job or getting better job skills. I assume he will go from one low paying job to another making little or no headway financially. I assume he is poorly educated and left school because he couldnÂ’t relate to a middle class norm and now his life of long hours at low pay and long bus rides is too exhausting to think about bettering himself. You assume that if someone wants health care he just goes out a buys it. I assume they make so little in their jobs that they can barely afford room and board much less health care. You assume because you pay $1680 a year for health care that everybody does or should. I assume you pay so little because you are young and have not been ill. I assume there is much competition for young healthy men and women in the health insurance business. I assume that when your health starts to fail, as it inevitably will for us all, that your rates will increase considerably. I also assume that if you are suffering serial illnesses they will dump you. I assume they operate on a cost benefit analysis kind of system. If you cost them too much you take away their benefit. Sorry, but that is just good business. It is all about the bottom line in the end. You assume we are paying too much for insurance. I assume we donÂ’t pay too much unless we have a few accidents. I havenÂ’t had accidents so I pay a low rate about $1200. a year. I paid more when I was young because young people are assumed bad drivers until they reach about 25 or so. Apparently Saskatchewan and BC have publicly owned insurance and as such are easier on young drivers. You assume you decided to go to university. I assume you are blessed to have had an upbringing that instilled the value of a university education, you went because it pleased you, and it pleased you in no small part because it pleased your parents and then to start your own business. You worked for it but I am sure your parents planted the seeds. Very few successes are born they are created by their environment. WouldnÂ’t it be nice if everyone could have a family like yours? You assume the American economy will withstand all the bad management because they have in the past. I assume bad management is endemic and will cause real pain to a lot of people especially the most defenseless. I know that if it can happen once, in the thirties, it can happen again.

Posted by: steve d. at April 15, 2006 08:16 PM (sw5R/)

156 Maryjane, Gays have been given these benefits you speak of. What they wanted though was not just the rights but also the same word as a definition. It was not just good enough to be equal and have the equal rights but also the terminology. The British model gave all the rights but just not the word marriage. And yes, we do know words matter. As an avowed lesbian I am sure you have been the brunt of many not nice words. Goal was to increase the population? In a roundabout way maybe. Prevent the disintegration of western way of life better describes it. Mark my words on polygamy. It is all but law in BC with one remote group. BC government refuses to charge. Being gay is not a persuasion. More in the way of a fetish caused by abusive and traumatic childhoods. A reaction to horrible sexual abuse more often than a choice. Not something born to. Not something to hate but to feel sorry for. Nice day to play but to die? I have a life. Family, things to do. Enjoy my Easter. Be patient. enough

Posted by: enough at April 16, 2006 10:48 AM (6sAMe)

157 Steve D. says, "I was born and raised working class. My father worked shift work in a factory for thirty years." I'm not here to get in a 'poverty pissing match' with you Steve, but as one of a familiy of six kids, a stay at home mom and a father with a grade nine education, I can remember cleaning the parking lots of local shopping centres at ten o'clock at night, right along with my father and brothers. We all have and make choices, for good or for bad and mustlive with the consequences or rewards as they may be. I'm a paper millionaire at 56 because I recognized that if I didn't do something with my life, my future would be that of my fathers - and as dearly as I love him, that's not what I wanted for myself. For people of the left, their is no personal responsibility and consequences are not of one's own making because they call all be attributed to one's 'circumstances'. I've never made a lot of money. In fact our combined family income has never exceeded $45K in 2006 dollars. Nonetheless, we owe nothing, have considerable amounts of stocks and bonds, cash in the bank and a comfortable lifestyle. It has nothing to do with the family I was born into, 'luck', or anything else other than making wise choices, personal sacrifices, foregoing immediate rewards and putting away just a little money at a time. And I don't think I'm any more than average in brightness. I'd wager that at least 80% of people who are having difficulties, do so because of making poor choices throughout their lives. Success is a result of doing the LITTLE things CONSISTENTLY right over a long period of time. A question for you. My mom-in-law scrimped and saved her whole life. As a widow she moved into a seniors hi-rise that had both 'market' rentals and subsidized seniors housing. Her rent, because she had some savings, was $800/mth. Meanwhile an acquaintance whom she had known her whole life, who had saved nothing due to proclivities that included smoking and a bingo habit, lived in an identical apartment for less than $200/mth. The question Steve, is do you think this is fair? The person who saved pays four times the amount as the person who squandered, yet the outcome is the same. Under your 'socialist safety net' where is any incentive to look after ones self?

Posted by: Randy at April 17, 2006 01:10 AM (hkkIN)

158 Steve D. says, "I was born and raised working class. My father worked shift work in a factory for thirty years." I'm not here to get in a 'poverty pissing match' with you Steve, but as one of a familiy of six kids, a stay at home mom and a father with a grade nine education, I can remember cleaning the parking lots of local shopping centres at ten o'clock at night, right along with my father and brothers. We all have and make choices, for good or for bad and mustlive with the consequences or rewards as they may be. I'm a paper millionaire at 56 because I recognized that if I didn't do something with my life, my future would be that of my fathers - and as dearly as I love him, that's not what I wanted for myself. For people of the left, their is no personal responsibility and consequences are not of one's own making because they call all be attributed to one's 'circumstances'. I've never made a lot of money. In fact our combined family income has never exceeded $45K in 2006 dollars. Nonetheless, we owe nothing, have considerable amounts of stocks and bonds, cash in the bank and a comfortable lifestyle. It has nothing to do with the family I was born into, 'luck', or anything else other than making wise choices, personal sacrifices, foregoing immediate rewards and putting away just a little money at a time. And I don't think I'm any more than average in brightness. I'd wager that at least 80% of people who are having difficulties, do so because of making poor choices throughout their lives. Success is a result of doing the LITTLE things CONSISTENTLY right over a long period of time. A question for you. My mom-in-law scrimped and saved her whole life. As a widow she moved into a seniors hi-rise that had both 'market' rentals and subsidized seniors housing. Her rent, because she had some savings, was $800/mth. Meanwhile an acquaintance whom she had known her whole life, who had saved nothing due to proclivities that included smoking and a bingo habit, lived in an identical apartment for less than $200/mth. The question Steve, is do you think this is fair? The person who saved pays four times the amount as the person who squandered, yet the outcome is the same. Under your 'socialist safety net' where is any incentive to look after ones self?

Posted by: Randy at April 17, 2006 01:12 AM (hkkIN)

159 "Mark my words on polygamy. It is all but law in BC with one remote group. BC government refuses to charge. Being gay is not a persuasion. More in the way of a fetish caused by abusive and traumatic childhoods. A reaction to horrible sexual abuse more often than a choice. Not something born to. Not something to hate but to feel sorry for." I have to take issue with you on the causes of being gay. I dont know what makes people gay, and Iam sure their are a few that choose to be gay, but as a whole, these would be the minority of the gay population. I dont think their have been any definitive study that says gay people have been molested or had any more traumatic childhood, than the general population... I do agree with you on polygamy. It will be the next social frontier. We're on the slippery slope. The reason the BC wont charge anyone in Bountiful BC is that they know the law wont stand a constitutional challenge. I only have this to say, "what good is a law that we refuse to enforce?" if the law wont stand a challenge, change it, enforce it.

Posted by: Curtis at April 17, 2006 09:22 AM (heo8b)

160 Randy You and I have a lot in common. You were given good money skills through your parents. I was neglected because my parents had a lot of emotional problems. There were five kids though. I never learned how to take care of money until a little later. Luckily, because my brother went to university three out of five of us went. This enabled us to have more comfortable lives. In my mind all this is just luck. You were lucky you learned to make the most of your money I wasn't. I pissed away a lot early but eventually learned and had the income to make up for lost time. So I won't have to sell pencils on a street corner for sure. What about those that don't learn anything about money management from their parents AND never get a middle class education? They weren't as lucky as you or I. I have two choices. I can just shrug and think too bad for you those bad choices screwed up your life and your "golden years" as well. My other choice is to realize that I came very close to being in the same boat as those people. Realizing that it is just fate that I was born in Canada, in a working class family, had a brother who somehow broke the mold and went to University thereby showing me a way up the social ladder. I don't feel superior, or better in any way, just lucky. To me, the lady who smoked and played bingo was looking for way up too. She smokes because of low self-esteem. She plays bingo because she has her little dream of a win that will make her life happy for awhile. She didn't have parents who showed her the value of a dollar like your parents or an older sibling to show her another more certain way up, education. I can't wish her anything but the best and I am glad that she has Health Care and the CPP and old age pension(such as it is). I wish that she could have been shown the way up like we were, but she wasn't. The "socialist safety net" as you call it merely ensures that no Canadian will live like the poor in Third World countries, with no shelter, or plumbing or electricity and no health care. Surely you don't begrudge them that. As for fairness, there is no fairness there is only dumb luck. My parent-in-law thought she had her bases covered but she didn't count on having a stroke that would incapacitate her for twelve years. She could afford care for the first 10 but then she ran out of money and the "socialist safety net" had to click in. Lets hope that doesn't happen to us. For the vast majority, living at the "socialist safety net" level is nothing to aspire to. But somehow it is nice to know that if my luck runs out I won't die in the street. Wow, I wasn't allowed to use the M word so I had to change it to parent!

Posted by: steve d. at April 17, 2006 12:56 PM (sw5R/)

161 Randy You and I have a lot in common. You were given good money skills through your parents. I was neglected because my parents had a lot of emotional problems. There were five kids though. I never learned how to take care of money until a little later. Luckily, because my brother went to university three out of five of us went. This enabled us to have more comfortable lives. In my mind all this is just luck. You were lucky you learned to make the most of your money I wasn't. I pissed away a lot early but eventually learned and had the income to make up for lost time. So I won't have to sell pencils on a street corner for sure. What about those that don't learn anything about money management from their parents AND never get a middle class education? They weren't as lucky as you or I. I have two choices. I can just shrug and think too bad for you those bad choices screwed up your life and your "golden years" as well. My other choice is to realize that I came very close to being in the same boat as those people. Realizing that it is just fate that I was born in Canada, in a working class family, had a brother who somehow broke the mold and went to University thereby showing me a way up the social ladder. I don't feel superior, or better in any way, just lucky. To me, the lady who smoked and played bingo was looking for way up too. She smokes because of low self-esteem. She plays bingo because she has her little dream of a win that will make her life happy for awhile. She didn't have parents who showed her the value of a dollar like your parents or an older sibling to show her another more certain way up, education. I can't wish her anything but the best and I am glad that she has Health Care and the CPP and old age pension(such as it is). I wish that she could have been shown the way up like we were, but she wasn't. The "socialist safety net" as you call it merely ensures that no Canadian will live like the poor in Third World countries, with no shelter, or plumbing or electricity and no health care. Surely you don't begrudge them that. As for fairness, there is no fairness there is only dumb luck. My parent-in-law thought she had her bases covered but she didn't count on having a stroke that would incapacitate her for twelve years. She could afford care for the first 10 but then she ran out of money and the "socialist safety net" had to click in. Lets hope that doesn't happen to us. For the vast majority, living at the "socialist safety net" level is nothing to aspire to. But somehow it is nice to know that if my luck runs out I won't die in the street. Wow, I wasn't allowed to use the M word so I had to change it to parent!

Posted by: steve d. at April 17, 2006 12:56 PM (sw5R/)

162 To me, the lady who smoked and played bingo was looking for way up too. She smokes because of low self-esteem. She plays bingo because she has her little dream of a win that will make her life happy for awhile. Maybe she smoked because she enjoyed the mild buzz of a cigarette? Maybe she played bingo because she enjoyed the socialization with her friends? No, we're all victims... except those bastard capitalists who enslave us all. Right, steve d? What's with all the double posts?

Posted by: Mac at April 17, 2006 09:22 PM (TaDbz)

163 Mac No Mac we are not all victims. A close reading of my last post we reveal that Randy and I are doing quite nicely. We joined the party and I for one am quite happy. Life has been good to me. Along the way I have witnessed a lot of exploitation too. Real people get screwed and I refuse to like it, shrug it off or blame the victim. The system is skewed to the well off. The well off don't need the system skewed to them. They can do quite well without extra special benefits over and above those they already have. Just watch the tax cuts and see who gets the largest share. They don't need a few thousand more but they will get it. Why not give it to the bottom earners working andliving in poverty? Is that so awful??? Why do want to step on and grind these people down with your heel??

Posted by: steve d. at April 17, 2006 09:53 PM (sw5R/)

164 Steve D. - first, I wish to thank you for maintaining a civilized and frank discussion of our differences. I appreciate that you have not resorted to the name calling that is rampant in many such threads. However....with this statement, you make an assumption: "You were lucky you learned to make the most of your money I wasn't." How could my parents teach me about money, when they never had any? Sorry my friend, my acumen with money came from simple observance of the real world around me. People who spend as if they're rich are soon poor, while those who spend like they're poor, tend to become rich. And secondly, you state: "As for fairness, there is no fairness there is only dumb luck." I could not disagree more. I characterize this as Law of Accident, which states that life is a series of random occurrences and things just happen by accident. Unfortunately this law is really a psychological principle that is accepted without question by most people. If you believe something to be true, even if it is completely false, you will think and feel in such a way that it will be true for you. (Actually,an apt description of socialism!) When you give away control, BY NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for your life, you make the Law of Accident become a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the same time, you provide the PERFECT EXCUSE for any lack of personal success. American Author Kenneth Hildebrand said, and I agree, that "Success is not due to a fortuitous concourse of stars at our birth, but to a steady trail of sparks from the grindstone of hard work each day." As for luck, I'd have to agree with the words of Lucille Ball (aka 'I Love Lucy'): "Luck? I don't know anything about luck. I've never banked on it, and I'm afraid of people who do. Luck to me is something else: hard work -- and realizing what is opportunity and what isn't. Lucille Ball 1911-1989 American Actress, Producer BTW, going back to the lady with the subsidized rent, it would appear that equality of outcome is a greater priority than equality of opportunity, since she could (and should) have made the same common sense decisions as my mom-in-law regarding looking out for her own well being. But then she was perhaps the smarter in recogizing that she could fritter away her income, knowing full well that the nanny state would 'even out'her future anyway.

Posted by: Randy at April 18, 2006 12:34 AM (hkkIN)

165 Why not give it to the bottom earners working and living in poverty? Is that so awful??? Why not, indeed? I grew up in the Maritimes in poverty. As kids, we went to the potato fields and picked up the spuds at the end of the rows that the harvester machines missed so we'd have food in the winter. I didn't feel sorry for myself but I knew others had more than me but I don't want to talk about me. I want to talk about one of my schoolmates. His mom raised him and his siblings on welfare. Their house didn't have running water until the last couple of years but at least they had a house. I expect it was bought by the taxpayers since she never had a job. She was never married to my knowledge. I was visiting when she finally qualified for old age security. Basically, she rolled from one trough to another. She was delighted as this meant she no longer had to meet with those "bastards" from Welfare but she said she was going to go back to visit one last time to tell them to shove their cheques up their... well, you get the point. This woman never contributed a dime to Canada. My buddy lived at home until he got married. He works seasonally but only long enough to qualify for "Employment Insurance" and then he gets "laid off" but if things are hard, he heads to the Welfare office because he knows they'll cut him a cheque. I asked my buddy why he doesn't get a better job so he doesn't have to go to Welfare. He says he's happy; he doesn't need much and he's getting by. I asked him if it bothered him to take their money. He says it's their job to give it to him... that's all that matters. I don't hate these people; quite the opposite really, but I know they'll never break the cycle of poverty. They have no incentive to work hard and, as you can tell by their reactions, they don't appreciate what is given to them. Now, ask me again why I don't want to give the tax dollars which are taken from me to bottom earners? It's easy- no problem is ever solved by simply throwing money at it. Short-term feel-good solutions cause more problems than they solve but you can't see that because you've see bottom earners as slaves and top earners as exploiters. Why do want to step on and grind these people down with your heel?? Nothing could be further from the truth. I want all Canadians to succeed but, unlike you, I recognize that a gift isn't always a gift. To truly appreciate something, it must be EARNED!

Posted by: Mac at April 18, 2006 02:56 AM (TaDbz)

166 I also dont want to give tax money to poor poeple. Primarily its ineffecient. We have massive social wefare offices to divide out the spoils. Why not, instead, make the first 15 000 or 20 000 of income tax free? No taxes -No CPP -No UIC (and yes CPP is a tax) Wouldnt this do so much more to lift the working poor out of poverty than any government Robin Hood program? Wouldnt this give the 'working poor' a leg up? It may come as a shock, but its not the governments job to be Robin Hood. Its the government's job to provide nessessary public services to the people, and to pay for these services with taxes that should be collected in the least economicly damaging possible way. Something that isnt happening in canada at all.

Posted by: Curtis at April 18, 2006 10:35 AM (heo8b)

167 Steve, Fundamentally you have to go a step further. Liberal "progress" is away from status quo, because things "as they are" do not put the liberal in question on top of the moral heap. They seek meaning in their lives, given that for most of them God does not exist or has no interest in them and they do not wish to change themselves for His sake. The meaning they seek very quickly becomes a need to be seen as good and moral. In order to be seen this way, a contrast is needed, and so if there are no "evil" people, then some are made to LOOK evil. If they are the "bad guy", then I look like the good guy in comparison. That's the liberal credo on a less than conscious level.

Posted by: Dave at April 18, 2006 11:26 AM (muQw2)

168 I'm sure this thread will grind to a halt shortly, but Easter Monday got me thinking about another question for our friend Steve D. Steve's been talking about the 'plight of the poor'and the need for gov't to serve them. But Monday got me thinking about how we really serve gov't workers themselves. Libraries, Gov't liquor stores, records offices, schools, colleges and constituencey offices were all closed on Monday, while small and large businesses were open, serving the public and collecting sales taxes. Given that Easter has ALWAYS fallen on a Sunday, why are gov't workers given yet another statutory holiday on the Monday? It seems to me that gov't workers who generally earn $50K or more (plus all benefits) are taking advantage of all of those who earn far less - working in retail and Steve's dreaded 'McJobs'. Steve - can you justify this Robin Hood reversal , where the haves are being supported by the 'have less'? Or even the justification of giving all civil servants an unearned days pay because of a Christian holy day that falls on what would otherwise be a weekend day off? And I'm sure you believe in a system of secular gov't, so how can you justify this pillaging of the public purse in the name of religion?

Posted by: Randy at April 18, 2006 11:43 AM (hkkIN)

169 >Posted by: Maryjane at April 15, 2006 12:40 PM >'smatter nuf, had enough? Come out and fight. It is a good day to die. >Posted by: Maryjane at April 15, 2006 05:11 PM You're a bit of a jackass if you don't think I have better things to do on a long weekend than check in here every 5 hours. I am sure there are Conservative and Liberal special interests, but that's not what I wrote about. Conservatives are not in general seeking to solve problems with national programs. Are they? If so, what is all the fuss over tax cuts and spending cuts? steve d., you don't have to assume people on minimum wage totter along on minimum wage forever. Assumptions are unnecessary. There are ample studies, including long-term ones, which demonstrate that few people spend most of their working lives earning minimum wage. Most ramp up quickly to enjoy substantial incomes during their peak productive years and then decline again as they take lower-paying part-time post-retirement work.

Posted by: lrC at April 18, 2006 03:02 PM (XDL9B)

170 lrC .... Pardon me but I'm somewhat confused. The' come out and fight" thing was addressed to enough, or are you also enough? Besides, it was just a bit of a joke, you know, "Little Big Man". Check it out if you don't know what I'm talking about. A great movie in a decade of great movie making. As to your point that conservatives are not into solving problems with national programs, I offer you the conservative constituency of agriculture, whose demands on the public purse know no bounds.

Posted by: maryjane at April 18, 2006 11:27 PM (gmDQM)

171 And the constituency of agriculture is a special interest. It's not the government.

Posted by: lrC at April 19, 2006 06:47 PM (XDL9B)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm fed up with the word progressive:

Another effort [to define a new vision for the Liberal Party] is being made by a group co-chaired by former deputy prime ministers John Manley and Anne McLellan, called the Canada 2020 conference. The conference, which bills itself as non-partisan but is heavy with Liberals, will bring 150 business, government and academic leaders together June 13 to 15 to look at policies to keep Canada "competitive and socially progressive" in the 21st century.

As the last election showed, the Liberals tried to appeal to everyone by competing with the Conservatives on tax cuts and with the New Democrats on child care, giving voters the impression they had no clear direction and that their priorities were each compromised by half-measures.

To avoid that, Liberals should seek progressive policies that focus on social reform, economic growth, poverty, cities and the environment.

It is not enough simply to champion the cause of the poor or to stand for better social programs. Candidates must spell out clearly what it means to be a progressive on the international stage, and what it means for a broad range of economic and social policies here at home.

This is the challenge, as it was almost 50 years ago when Lester Pearson won the leadership by uniting Liberals and ultimately the country behind a progressive plan in which many Canadians still take such pride.

How did the word "progress" become the property of the liberal left? Conservatism seeks to conserve, on the principle that if it works, don't fix it. But by definition, if it is working, whatever it is, it is doing so because it continues to serve a purpose and achieve progress as it is measured. For instance, conservatives were generally against tinkering against the definition of marriage because they feared that if the concept of marriage subsequently lost all meaning, the institution would no longer act to progress the interests of a stable regenerating society.

But instead, that became regressive, and to be progressive, you had to support changing marriage (by including gay unions and in doing so eliminating the notion of children and basic human procreative biology from the definition of marriage) to be counted as progressive. But progression to what?

How can you call yourself progressive if you can't define your goal? If you don't have a goal, how can you measure your progress?

Somehow, "progress" became synonymous with "change", or more accurately, "change for the sake of change". That's not progress, that's chaos.

Moreoever, "progress" somehow demanded government intervention. Two different groups could have the same goal. A cleaner environment, for example. One group could argue for the use of free market mechanisms (strong property rights, for example, to encourage people to keep their investments clean and so valuable). Another group could argue for massive government intervention, supported by increased taxes, and punitive criminal and civil laws to force compliance.

There is a goal. Both approaches is attempting to make progress to that goal, which to me makes both plans progressive. Each takes a very different approach, and presumably over time we could measure which approach is making more progress, both in absolute terms and relative to the resources expended to achieve the intermediate results measured.

But somehow, the "progressive" policy is the one that involves the hand of government, the heavier, the better. That makes no sense. Progressive should have no connection to the means by which progress is achieved. It is either attempting to affect a change or it isn't.

I know it's too late to fix things now. If you are a conservative who believes in individual empowerment over government intervention, a liberal will sniff and accuse you of not being progressive, regardless of what you are trying to do or how. We'll just have to live with it.

But having to tolerate it doesn't mean having to believe it. Personally, when I see or hear the word "progressive" being tossed about, I tune it out.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:13 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I would take issue with the notion that Conservatives don't fix it if it ain't broken. I was just looking at Statistics Canada July 1995 crime stats. The evidence shows that Property Crime,by far the most common type, has been going down since 1991. Violent Crime has been constant,neither increasing nor decreasing. So overall Crime is in decline. The Conservatives see Crime and Punishment as a major problem and are investigating spending an estimated 5 to 10 billion on more prisons. This is in order to have a place to put the increased population of prisoners. We are apparently going to either find more criminals or keep the ones we have in longer. Will keeping them in longer make them better human beings? What we have is a trumped up "problem". The answer to decreasing crime is to increase punishment and build more jails?? This isn't conserving, nor is it progressive. It is pandering to a hot button issue. The media play up crime because that is what media does. Unfortunately, people get to thinking crime is getting worse when in reality it is decreasing. To retain marriage as the union of man and woman would retain a bias, prejudice, inequality that has always existed in law against gays. For whatever biological reason it has always been with us but we have never treated them as equal human beings. To include them in recognizing their relationships as just as valid and therefore equal with ours allows them to have social and economic benefits that had been denied. It shows we are progressing in our humanity towards one another. On the issue of environment. As in most issues Government didn't get involved until AFTER the free market mechanisms had created environmental disasters. Free enterprise capitalism is all about maximizing profit. Cleaning up after yourself costs money, therefore, less profit. It is not in their economic interest to clean up. Just as it is not in their economic interest to pay extra to ensure worker safety. Even laws are not enough. During the Conservative government Harris years in Ontario, the worker safety laws were not enforced and inspectors were laid off. Worker injuries and deaths increased alarmingly and now the government is looking to hire more workplace safety inspectors. I contend that miners in Saskatchewan got out of a mine disaster alive because the government had strict laws and enforced them. The miners in the US and China were not lucky enough to have a government there to protect them from free(?)(for whom?) enterprise.

Posted by: steve d. at April 08, 2006 12:00 PM (sw5R/)

2 Awesome post! Well said.

Posted by: Jonny_eh at April 08, 2006 12:06 PM (kAfMK)

3 Steve, I don't have a problem with Liberals using the word progressive. It is merely important to remember the standard by which they measure progress. If you never forget that their progress is measured by advance toward socialism in the economic sphere and "progress" towards the devaluing of Western Civilization in the social sphere (through multiculturalism) it shouldn't bother you either. Their progress is progress towards "equality" in an absolute sense, which is progress towards failure. Socialism has lead to death and decay everywhere it has been found in proportion to how pervasive it was. See France, China, Former Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam. Their de-valuing the ideas of the Enligtenment that have advanced more of humanity out of poverty in 250 years than all the thousands of years previous is par for the course. Like Socialism, Multiculturalism sees the mere existence of something (in this case a culture) gives it value equal to any other without regard to (in fact despite of) its characteristics. This is what I mean when I say progress towards "equality". It matters not to a multiculturalist if the culture promotes cannibalism, ritual sacrafice, and slavery or if it is one that promotes reason, science, and freedom. Just like it does not matter to a socialist whether a person is a hard working man rather than a lazy criminal. By their mere existence they have equal value. "Progress" has no meaning without knowing the standard by which it is measured. Whether Liberals know it or not (most do not explicitly understand this) their progress is measured by the standard of equality. A standard that has always lead to failure when adopted. Thus I have no problem with the use of the word "progress" by Liberals because I understand that it is impossible to have progress without some standard and they have chosen the wrong standard.

Posted by: Regis at April 08, 2006 12:13 PM (ZrYg/)

4 Liberals emoting, all emotional, & blah, blah, re the "progressive" Liberal with the "energetic fresh face"; socialism masked as a "progressive Liberal". Beware the word "progressive". George Orwell's warnings are relevant: white is black; black is white, words mean what we say they mean. Remember the Red Queen from Alice! Draft Gerard Kennedy for Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada It is a reflective and exciting time to be a Liberal in Canada. Gerard Kennedy is a progressive Liberal, an energetic fresh face, with impressive political ... www.draftkennedy.ca/ - 12k -

Posted by: maz2 at April 08, 2006 12:26 PM (o1pCq)

5 Steve d, "Will keeping them in longer make them better human beings?" Is making them a better human being the goal of prison? To include them in recognizing their relationships as just as valid and therefore equal with ours allows them to have social and economic benefits that had been denied.It shows we are progressing in our humanity towards one another. I agree that their relationships are valid and deserve to have all legal rights marriage does. I'm just curious what you mean by "progressing in our humanity"? "Just as it is not in their economic interest to pay extra to ensure worker safety." Any smart business would recognize that it is in their interest to pay extra to ensure worker safety. Why? To avoid massive tort litigation costs and judgments against them by those workers who are injured. Those businesses that don't take all reasonable steps are likely to soon be out of business.

Posted by: at April 08, 2006 12:32 PM (ZrYg/)

6 Sorry, previous post was me...and I thought the comments would use HTML tags. Oh well.

Posted by: Regis at April 08, 2006 12:34 PM (ZrYg/)

7 I wrote an article along the same lines last month: http://www.boundbygravity.com/2006/03/mangling-english-language-progressive.aspx 46 comments on there that are worth reading as well. Political "progressives" in Canada are not even using the term properly. I'm more politically progressive, as are you, than 90% of the "progressive bloggers" (who fight hard to maintain the status quo).

Posted by: Andrew at April 08, 2006 01:07 PM (y7Pex)

8 They can, Regis, you just have to use the greater-than / less-than signs rather than [ ]. And Preview is your friend

Posted by: Ed Minchau at April 08, 2006 01:20 PM (pPVQ0)

9 Having "progressive" in the partisan sales pitch of the nation's 3 old line parties (PCs, Dippers and Lieberals) is a simple case of a robber diguising himself as a philanthropist. The 3 old line parties under a banner of "progessivism" have forged the most civilly and economically regressive policies this nation has endured in the modern era....regressive taxation systens that claw back needed income from the poorest citizens...tax their food, clothing and megre dwellings, stifling consumption taxes that stagnate the economy, regressive regualtory regimes that emperil property ownership and civil liberties, state owned marketing monopolies that tampers with free market access by the individual and ensure we never pay the real cost of our goods without a rich cut for the state and its cronies. Yeah I've seen enough "progressive" policy in my lifetime to tell you that Freank and Jessie James thought they were progressives too.....every politically inbread autocratic backwater run by some rustic kleptocratic dip shit thinks they're progressive....or at least use the term to hide their crimes.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at April 08, 2006 01:54 PM (sdMWv)

10 Rumour has it that McLellan, Manley et.al. named the conference "Canada 2020" because that's when they next figure the party will be in power.

Posted by: Andrew at April 08, 2006 02:14 PM (p1agh)

11 Thanks Ed! P.S. I used Preview first too! *grin*

Posted by: Regis at April 08, 2006 02:34 PM (ZrYg/)

12 Regis(i think) If keeping them in prison is only about punishment and doesn't have an element of rehabilitation then we are only in denial of the fact that almost all prisoners are released sooner or later. If we treat them like animals and simply cage them, then we can't be too surprised when they return to society more animalistic than when they went in. "progressing our humanity" means that the more we come to realize and acknowledge the "other" as fully human just as we are, with the same emotional and physical needs, then that not only frees them to be who they really are but also frees us to know that percentage of humanity that is "other" than we are. This acknowledgement of the humanity of the other allows the him to see us as more human. I read about an army vet who just got back from Iraq. He said they called the Iraqis "hallij" (or some such) like the Vietnamese were called "geeks"during the Vietnam war. He said this help dehumanize them so it is easier to shoot them. There are lots of ways of dehumanizing groups or individuals. Just as there are lots of ways to humanize them. I think the latter makes us all more human. I understand that it makes sense to take care of worker safety except that is not what happens in real life. I am sure it happens without laws, but I just can't think of an example. However, I can think of many examples of workers rights and safety laws being violated. It even extends to customers. If a product is unsafe and the company knows about it but the general public doesn't then the company does a cost benefit analysis. If the projected costs are less than a recall they will say nothing and do nothing and settle the few lawsuits with "silence" provisions. Whether you are talking Corvair cars or Vioxx or whatever it all comes down to cost/benefit vs people. People come in second most all of the time. Capitalism is about making money not social work. That is why governments have to take up the social work aspect. That is the reason for its existence, to take care of those things we cannot take care of ourselves. In an era where unions are almost non-existent, governments will be asked to step in protect workers more and more.

Posted by: steve d. at April 08, 2006 03:07 PM (sw5R/)

13 Steve, Certainly prison is not only about punishment. The goal of prison is to protect those who are innocent from criminals. I see punishment as an introduction of discipline, a part of rehabilitation. One of my favorite quotes is "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent". I think I might understand what you mean about progressing our humanity. There are two ways to interpret it that I can see that leave me uncertain. One being progressing towards the idea that we are all equal in value and, accepting that, therefore refusing to pass moral judgment. The second would be progressing in our respect for the fundamental natural rights of others. By "rights" I mean life, liberty, property in the classical liberal sense. Not false rights to a house, a job, or anything like that. I firmly reject the first as rediculously misguided moral relativism of the kind I see throughout modern philosophy and leftist politics. The second I embrace wholeheartedly. I can think of many examples of workers rights and safety laws being violated. I'm confused. What "rights" do workers have that non-workers do not? That is the reason for its [government's] existence, to take care of those things we cannot take care of ourselves. Which includes Health Care, Education, Poverty, Providing day care for your children, and keeping a registry of all those people with guns that criminals don't bother to register on, right? What, pray tell, can people handle themselves anymore? Government regulates nearly everything ad nauseum. P.S. Thank you for bringing up Vioxx. That is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. They took a risk. They are now losing massive tort suits. Killing your customers isn't good for business. It certainly isn't going to make you any money. Government got involved only in two places in that situation. 1. The FDA permitted VIOXX to be sold (Go big government protection!) and 2. In adjudicating the suit.

Posted by: Regis at April 08, 2006 06:53 PM (ZrYg/)

14 Regis You don't have to pity the criminal. BUT YOU DO HAVE TO RELEASE HIM BACK INTO YOUR WORLD TO LIVE WITH THE VICTIMS AND EVERYONE ELSE. The question is what kind of man is being released? Someone who has been simply punished or someone better able to cope in society? These words like fundamental natural rights, life, liberty and property are easy concepts to like. But they are doled out very differentially. If you are born into a rich family these concepts mean you get to keep what your family has earned. If you are born poor you get poor housing,clothing,food and education. I would say the rich guy wants the status quo and the poor guy may just want a few changes. We are not all created equal. Since we live in a society wherein the rich are gaining increasing amounts of the property and the poor are sinking ever lower we have a problem. It will be fixed one way or another. The distribution of wealth is becoming like it was in France before the French Revolution. When you realize that 48.6% of the families live on less than $40,000 a year you begin to see how far along this erosion has come. These people will continue to demand more and more from their government because the Capitalist system is funnelling increasing amounts away from them to the top 5% of income earners. The masses are less and less able to take care of themselves and if the government won't do it then you have shut off the rich classes safety valve. The only thing keeping the masses passified are the social programs. Without them the majority would have nothing to lose but their chains. You know, those millions who work at the McJobs. They make enough to eat and pay the rent, if they are careful. Government doesn't regulate everything adnausum for everyone. There is a social class who have virtual ownership of the mechanisms of government and business. The Vioxx example. They took little risk. They used massive lobbying to gain passage through the FDA. Government has been coopted by business. There are over sixty thousand lobbyists in Washington playing the Corporate tunes to Government. Government is bought and paid for by Corporate America. Killing customers isn't good in the short run but people have short memories. Advertising is very effective. Like the massive court payments ordered by courts from the Cigarette companies most of these cases will be overturned on appeal. A few big Vioxx suites have already come to nothing. Another sad fact is that if you have billions you can afford the best legal minds in the world. The defense merely has to give the jury reasonable doubt that a victim died of a heart attack for any number of other reasons than taking a pill. These companies always do a cost benefit analysis and the victim almost always loses. Remember, these people at the top of corporate America have virtual ownership of Government and business.

Posted by: steve d. at April 08, 2006 11:14 PM (sw5R/)

15 I want to share two quotes and comment on one thing and then I'm done with this thread. That something happened to you is of no importance to anyone, not even to you. The important thing about you is what you choose to make happen - your values and choices. That which happened by accident - what family you were born into, in what country, and where you went to school - is totally unimportant.-- Ayn Rand When you realize that 48.6% of the families live on less than $40,000 a year you begin to see how far along this erosion has come. You sir, have lost all perspective on how fortunate that 51.4% is to live in a country where it is possible, through a man's own effort, to rise up to riches impossible to the great mass of humanity stuck in non-capitalist countries. The poorest 10% of people in The United States make more than the average person on the planet does and has access to opportunity they can only dream of. If given the choice between living a poor man in America, or the richest man in Cuba, or any other socialist "Utopia" I'd pick America every time. America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.-- Ayn Rand

Posted by: Regis at April 09, 2006 12:32 AM (ZrYg/)

16 Whoa! Half the population lives below the median income! Lefties, spring to action to correct these inequities. Fight the power.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at April 09, 2006 12:03 PM (I2WRZ)

17 Regis Ayn Rand is flat wrong. She is writing about a fictional country. She is writing from the perspective of the industrialist. She is glorifying the industrialist. She is mythologizing the industrialist. You need to read something from the other side of the tracks because that is where most people lived. Today 51.4% of Canadian families make more than $40,000 whoopie. My wife and I made over $100,000 last year and we didn't feel well off. It is expensive just to exist never mind actually LIVE. The fastest growing job market is in the service sector where all the MCJOBS are. It looks to me as though more families are going to find life more and more of a struggle. Globalization(corporations using virtual slave labour in third world countries), has cost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Unions used to represent over 30% of workers now it down to less than 15%. In other words the Cult of the Individual has arrived. Its every man for himself. Capitalism has won. The interesting part may be about to unfold. MARX claimed in his thesis that when the owners of production finally control all the wealth the people will rise up and take it back and redistribute the wealth. We are almost there. Last time I looked the top 1% owned over 50% of everything. Telling people that no matter how bad it gets here it is still better than most other countries just won't cut it. Not when people like Bill Gates have accummulated $50BILLION in wealth and people get 15million a year for reading news. Society is out of whack. Too few at the top have too much while millions on the bottom are deep in debt trying to keep the American Dream on MCJObs offered by the rich.

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 12:12 PM (sw5R/)

18 Thank you. Regis. The fact that a family making $40K per year is considered underpriviledged is laughable. Maybe in the half dozen largest cities it's more difficult, but in other areas, 40 thou is quite comfortable. I think the big problem is people feel they, to quote someone we know and love, "are entitled to their entitlements." I've had good years, and bad, financially. A little common sense: put something aside in the good years. If the bad continues, rectify the problem, whether it means changing jobs, careers, city, etc., DO something. Maybe postpone that vacation, or park one of your cars, or buy fewer luxuries. In this country you do have the opportunity to advance. It usually requires only hard work. But DON'T sit on your ass complaining while expecting De Guv'mint to tax someone else's earnings and redistribute it to you.

Posted by: dmorris at April 09, 2006 12:20 PM (0/8vq)

19 Speaking as someone who made 42 large last year, and my spouse about the same, I still feel fortunate. See, Steve, I know that I am struggling from day to day because I haven't been the success I should have been. I settled for a better family life rather than work stupid hours. I settled for what made me comfortable in the workplace, rather than striving hard, and yet, I am doing ok. I have a good home, drive a decent car, live in a good neighbourhood. I do not need some socialist twit to come in and take from the rich to give me...what? What could he give me? Money? Hell, get the damned government out of my pocket, and that will be more doable and fair than stealing from some guy who invented something or created something. Socialists always want to make eveyrone equal, but as it has been shown, we will be equally miserable. When will people like you Steve understand that it isn't a crime to be rich? The government should make a set of rules for all employers to live by, ensure safe working conditions and a system where a union can protect a worker if the worker's want it, and then let the capitalistic system work. The more government screws around with the economy, the worse they make it. Steve, if you have learned nothing, it is obvious the government often makes things worse. As for your feelings that keeping people in prison is a bad thing, remember that about 50% of the people you toss in jail TODAY are laughing at the system. They go there as a time out to learn new tricks, get new "partners in crime" and do some good drugs. My family has an ex-corrections supervisor in the family, and while he says jail isn't easy, don't be fooled these guys are all nice guys who have just gone a bit astray. Most of em deserve every damn day they serve, and not a minute less. I didn't ask them to commit crimes, so they better not ask me to treat them as if they were just misbehaving little 5 year olds who were caught stealing candy bars either. Crime isn't "up" in this country, but it seems violent crimes have gone up, and I suspect a lot of crime is unreported because the police cannot be bothered and ergo, the homeowner isn't even reporting some thefts. After my home was broken into, I was astonished how little the police do or care about such things..... The system is broke bud...

Posted by: Mark in Bowmanville at April 09, 2006 03:37 PM (25/54)

20 Mark in Bowmanvile No, socialists don't want to make everyone equal they just want everyone to live in dignity. They want everyone to get the chance to work, get medical care, make a living wage, have education available to all, even university. When you are old you can live and die in dignity. We are halfway there now. The wages of a lot of people are ridiculously low. No one should work 35-45 hours a week and make less than poverty level wages. No pensioner should have to live on $10-14,000 a year. No lower class student who has earned the grades should have to pass up university because of the cost. You see, we don't have too far to go really.

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 04:15 PM (sw5R/)

21 Mark in Bowmanville By the way I don't think it is a crime to be rich. I just think that if you are going to need help getting there that the people who help you earn enough so that they can all live, if not in opulence like you, at least in dignity. What the WalMart Walton family did was a crime. Better to grow more slowly and treat your workers with respect than to grow quickly treating them like "cost objects".

Posted by: steve d. at April 09, 2006 04:22 PM (sw5R/)

22 How do three or four disgruntled liberals create a HUGE mud-slinging Epaper with no overhead? Easy….One website …….and One Email address. http://My.Opera.com/T-G/

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 10, 2006 12:19 AM (2GVBQ)

23 If "conservatives" are so progressive by your definition, then why were conservatives adamant on removing that part of their name when the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party merged? Ted Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at April 10, 2006 12:19 PM (9l8Vc)

24 Once upon a time there was a progressive party of Canada, and a conservative party of Canada. In order to stop a liberal minority government these 2 entities got together and formed a coalition government... Thus the Progressive Conservative party of Canada... Now there is a "progressive" party in Canadian politics, its called the Liberal party, and if people want a "progressive" government, they can vote liberal... For years and years, Canadian democracy has been floundering, because for all this time, both main parties had been marketing themselves as "progressive" now there is a choice. The "progressive" liberal party, and Conservative.

Posted by: Curtis at April 10, 2006 12:40 PM (heo8b)

25 This is a new twist everyone should be aware of before keying any sensitive data. Malware lurks at gate-portal to log data. http://tinyurl.com/s6x9h TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 10, 2006 07:13 PM (2GVBQ)

26 Just substitute "collectivist" wherever you see "progressive" and the meaning will be clear.

Posted by: lrC at April 12, 2006 03:33 PM (XDL9B)

27 >Will keeping them in longer make them better human beings? No. Nothing will make them better human beings. They will always be what they are. The purpose of incarceration is to prevent them from exercising their instincts to abuse others.

Posted by: lrC at April 12, 2006 03:35 PM (XDL9B)

28 Thank you! http://jaejfwng.com/cybw/xxdl.html | http://xbystrzv.com/ccuh/zjdc.html

Posted by: Justin at May 08, 2006 12:49 AM (/rZ30)

Hide Comments | Add Comment