BHS

A couple of points: I can't prove that capitalism=wealth in absolute terms. I can only point out that the highest standards of living (including per capita wealth, education, freedom of thought/speech/movement etc.) have been achieved in countries that are most supportive of capitalism, while the most inhumane conditions are routinely found in countries that try hardest to rid themselves of capitalist influence. Russia has within it's territory as much natural wealth as either America or Canada has, so why aren't the Russians as rich as we are? Dearth of capitalists, perhaps? And despite lacking these capitalists, their attempts to exploit their natural resources have resulted in some of the worst environmental conditions on the planet. If you doubt me, I suggest you go for a swim in the Volga River. FYI that was the first link on a Google search using "Volga River" as the search parameters. And finally, two points about pollution credits: 1) We can't sell credits to the Americans, even if they were dumb enough to buy them. They aren't participating in Kyoto and aren't subject to any penalties for failing to meet Kyoto's targets. 2) At my last recollection, the other signatories to Kyoto were disputing the value of Canada's forests as CO2 sinks, and when push comes to shove the trees probably won't be worth nearly as much as we'd like to think they are (under that agreement). Even if we could prove by scientific means a high rate of CO2 absorbtion by our forests, it wouldn't matter to the Kyotophiles. Kyoto is not about finding pratical solutions to pollution and environmental damage. It's about strengthening the environmentalist movement's hold on international politics, and transfering wealth from productive economies that were built in freedom to unproductive economies that were built (destroyed?) under authoritarian regimes.

The problem is, well...consumerism. So how could consumerism be used to defeat itself? To save time I will use the word 'pollution' to describe that which mankind creates which is harmful to the environment, and to the life on the planet (including humans) that depend on it. (I realize that CO2 itself is not 'harmful' in certain amounts, but that an excess of it is). The profit motive dictates that goods for consumption need to be made as cheaply as possible and sold for the highest cost possible. To make things as cheaply as possible, and to sell them en masse (also cheaply to entice the consumer) the best way would be to have no environmental laws whatsoever. Dumping chemicals directly into streams, rivers, watersheds, etc would enhance profit by lowering costs. China is a wonderful example of this, India isn't far behind. The only thing to stop this behaviour cannot be found in the consumer, it is unfortunately 'legal regulation'. The 'redistribution of wealth' hokum isn't entirely true, mostly a scare tactic. Large corporations already pick and choose and outsource to the most favourable countries (based on said profit motive) and keep their head offices and distribution centres in the 'West' anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What you and BD seem to be forgetting is that the environmental movement started in and has been most effective in democratic, capitalist countries. We began addressing the problems caused by pollution decades ago, and our pollution control regulations have changed the way we interact with the environment for the better. We have managed to do this by identifying problems, putting appropriate regulations in place, encouraging manufacturers to come up with new techniques and technologies, and encouraging consumers to reward companies that produce cleaner products. Your post implies that consumers are mindless and greedy. This is simply not true. While consumers appreciate low cost and convenience, they also place a high premium on health and the cleanliness of their surroundings. Another part of the redistribution of wealth aspect is the trading of pollution credits. Please note that the idea of lowering CO2 output to 6% below 1990 is related to the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent collapse of their economy. For Russia to produce 6% less CO2 than it did in 1990 it would have to increase it's production substantially. Buying credits from Russia and other former communist countries is merely a ploy to make economic subsidies a permanent part of our government spending.

PocketRocket Sorry I didn't reply directly to your post. It's a good one, and I think I'll just let it stand without comment, except to disagree about the last bit about the oil companies being responsible for a lack of interest in emerging technologies. The oil market is very tight; while it's lucrative, it's also very competitive. If any of those companies could find a way to make wind or solar technology as profitable as oil they be would there in a heartbeat, and I'm sure they've done the research to know if it's possible. I think one of two things has to happen first: either new materials technology (I'm thinking nanotech here) has to be developed to push the energy yield of these sources up to become competitive with oil and coal, or the price of oil and coal has to go so high that wind and solar (and hopefully hydrogen) look good by comparison. It's not expected that the latter event will come true any time soon, so let's hope for the former.

Global warming is no more "faith-based" than evolution: that is, the scientific community's consensus is overwhelming. But I see you concede that point. Right. Far better to trust the opinions of the oil industry-backed global warming denial lobby and popcult "experts" like Michael Chricton. I'll take my chances with the geeks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong. You'll actually be taking your chances with the status quo. Kyoto was never intended to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the case can be made that even if Kyoto were fully implemented, polluting industries would just move to countries not required to comply. As such, the argument can and has been made that it's really a wealth redistribution scheme masquerading as environmental protectionism. Besides which, neither Kyoto or it's proposed successors look likely to ever be fully implemented. Part of the "faithful" nature of the environmental movement is it's faith in government regulation being the ultimate solution to all of life's problems, but that's almost a topic for another thread.

That's an interesting comparison. On the one hand, you have people suggesting that human error is the source of a blight on the world, and suggest that humanity rise up in the spirit of self-purification to take action to correct the problem, or face terrible consequences. There is no proof to back up this belief, other than the concensus of self-appointed experts of environmentalism that this theory is correct and the punishment for inaction is unavoidable, if in fact it isn't already too late. I'll change the word environmentalism to consumerism, On the other hand, you have the view that the position we are already taking to protect the environment is rational and sufficient and more drastic action to ward off an unlikely doomsday scenario isn't necessary. again change the word environment for economy, It's interesting how you tie the two sides together, by placing the unbelievers in cahoots with or in thrall to the evil-doers. It's a nice touch, and perfectly in keeping with the environmentalism as religion concept. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and finally change the word environmentalism for corporate/globalism. big money copulation, yes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting, but I disagree. There are two very different approaches to problem solving being compared here. People who favour Kyoto are advocating massive government interference in the private behaviours and preferences of individual consumers. Kyoto is an agreement created in a top-down fashion that purorts to have identified the cause for a problem and assumes it can be fixed by government regulation. There is no evidence that the problem exists, and in any case Kyoto was not designed to be a solution, but rather the first step toward a series of more and more intrusive international regulations. (Say, who're the globalists here?) People who favour the market-based (consumerist) approach to solving problems place their trust directly in the choices made by individuals, counting on their collective choices adding up to the right decision. While this approach isn't as sexy as big, save-the-world international hug festivals for jet-setting politicos and their NGO counterparts, it does have a history of actually providing a working solution to whatever problem it is applied to.

So, uh, what is your real response then? Don't keep us in the dark, chum.

There will always be sect of boobs who have 'fugues of enlightenment' and think that they can apply them immediately, without thinking things through. Besides, my "benevolent gov't's" role would be to offer tax breaks for those that produce more for 'common good' than for 'consumption'. I believe an economy (as well as a person) can serve a purpose greater than itself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're placing an awful lot of faith in the type of people who brought you Adscam to determine what constitutes the "common good" as opposed to mere consumerism. Personally, I have more faith that the collective result of a large number of individual choices will come to the best results, as opposed to choices made by a small number forced onto the population collectively. You also imply that charitable work (or whatever you mean by "greater purpose") somehow lies outside of the economy, when in fact all human interaction ultimately falls within the scope of the economy. It isn't all just stocks and bonds and biscuit trusts.

That's an interesting comparison. On the one hand, you have people suggesting that human error is the source of a blight on the world, and suggest that humanity rise up in the spirit of self-purification to take action to correct the problem, or face terrible consequences. There is no proof to back up this belief, other than the concensus of self-appointed experts of environmentalism that this theory is correct and the punishment for inaction is unavoidable, if in fact it isn't already too late. On the other hand, you have the view that the position we are already taking to protect the environment is rational and sufficient and more drastic action to ward off an unlikely doomsday scenario isn't necessary. It's interesting how you tie the two sides together, by placing the unbelievers in cahoots with or in thrall to the evil-doers. It's a nice touch, and perfectly in keeping with the environmentalism as religion concept.

I mean it is a step along the road to anarchy( you are correct, though, that being somewhere is a step in no direction), though one on that journey is hobbled by two things. Morality and Law. Remove those two fetters from the human spirit (of self-gratification) and you'll have anarchy. Well, I can't really name it because it hasn't been tried yet. Sort of a cross between anarcho-syndiclism and Marxism-Fleabagism, with a healthy but moderate dose of Buddhism. Democratic Socialism is similar in theory, but has been bastardized so badly by some few that is has made them dirty words. My personal 'fascism' isn't exclusive, it includes all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure how modern capitalism (with it's reliance on bizantine contract law and complex financial transactions involving everything the world's most advance communications technology has to offer) is closer to anarchy than, um, anarcho-syndicalism, but there you go. Also, I don't see why individuals making their own rules and forming small, clan-like alliances need necessarily act less morally than they would in a highly structured society. I saw a documentary about a group of anarcho-syndicalist types who started a squat in downtown Montreal. You should see it if you get the chance. It might give you second thoughts about that whole philosophy. Personally, I found the film both funny and depressing, like a tragedy where you guess the ending in the first 10 minutes.

(Actually, my last post was just me being facetious. I don't really accept the Lancet study as proof of anything other than the left's willingness to swallow anything that makes the American military look bad. I just thought I'd point out that there's a completely different way of looking at the results of the study that the study's defenders have apparently overlooked.)

No, no, the Lancet study was perfectly correct. Most lefties choose to go with the high figure of 100000 civilian casualties. I'm going to choose to go with the low figure of 8000. If the Lancet study is acceptable proof of the high figure, it is of the low figure as well. You can't argue it both ways.

Ah yes, the fastest and most exciting way to personal gain. All legal and ownership disputes settled by the law offices of "Gimme, Gimme and Blam!". Mind you, this is a step in that direction. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seeing as how Canada is already a capitalist country I don't think it's a step anywhere. I notice you didn't mention your own preference.

Balls to the wall anarchy. Though, I liked Cameron's answer better.

eureka I put you on my ignore list a while ago, but I periodically read your posts just to confirm my theory about the meaninglessness of what you write. After your penultimate post in this thread I decided to just ignore you completely. So I have no idea what you wrote in your last post. You know, when you repeatedly imply that someone else is greedy and evil without any explanation other than their refusal to bow to your views, it tends to be a little off-putting. If the moderator were as serious about stopping ad hominem attacks as he periodically claims he is you would have been banned a long time ago. As would I, no doubt. (Heck, I'll admit I've said some pretty nasty stuff about other posters, mostly Black Dog. My only defence is that I try to keep it at a minimum, and I try to agree with him when I genuinely agree with what he's posted.) But if I were to get kicked out of the forum I'd at least have some comfort in the knowledge that I contributed a little bit of original thought, and made a few arguments that at least tried to persuade the other members. Though you've managed to rack up more posts here than everyone except Argus, Black Dog and August, your writing is as stale and unconvincing as it was in your first post. And remember, I've gone through your posting history to confirm this. I haven't quite decide yet, but I'm thinking of playing a little game from now on, where I follow up your posts with my own guess as to what you actually wrote (keeping in mind that I can't actually read your posts unless I specifically opt to read them, which I am henceforth unwilling to do - everyone has their limits). I'm thinking about calling this game "the tripe-o-meter". I'm not going to even try to guess what your last post contained, because my insults probably sent you off on a rant to places I wouldn't hazard to guess about. But at least now you'll know what I'm up to, if you see it in the future. Enjoy.

eureka Once again, blather and meaningless bollocks. You clearly don't know your head from the hole in the ground you stick it in. When are you going to give it up?

And every time I read someone blame Mike Harris for long waits in public healthcare I thank them for demonstrating the blissful ignorance of youth. Assuming you are in fact young, and not the victim of some sort of brain damage affecting long term memory. If which is the case, my condolences. Last I checked, the social safety net is still there. Not exactly luxury accomodations for layabout drug addicts, to be sure, but then it was never intended to be luxurious. I don't understand the comparison make in your last paragraph at all. Pointing out someone's flawed past as they lay dying is akin to speaking ill of the dead. What this has to do with healthcare policy is beyond me.

Sorry to piss on your parade; Don't you think this will do more harm than good, at least in the short term? The Liberals won't have nearly as much trouble corralling the NDP to vote against the government as the Conservatives will have marshalling the Bloc to support them. Meaning the Conservative minority will be completely ineffective and a non-confidence vote can't be more than another year or so away, which gives the Liberals just enough time to clean house before getting voted back in, perhaps as a majority. And then it's five more years of the same-old same-old. Silver lining: even a short-term Conservative government will innoculate the public against the idea that the world will end when the Conservatives take over. Meaning that after that dreadful five years there's a reasonable chance the Conservatives will win a majority of their own.

I'm sorry to say this, but what Ralph Klein says is essentially irrelevant to people in Ontario and Quebec. Most don't even know who he is. I noted above in this thread that I heard him on local Montreal radio last week. He was talking about health care. The way he delivered his message may work in Alberta where apparently he has a reputation for calling it as he sees it. To my ear, he just came off as a buffoon. I think George Burns said: "The most important thing in life is sincerity and if you can fake that, you've got it made." I guess I'm just innately suspicious of the folksy, Honest-John politician. Chretien used that schtick too. The world of politics is anything but simple black and white, right and wrong. It is more often a world of choices. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hate to disagree, chum, but anyone who follows politics in Ontario at all knows who Ralph Klein is, due to his association by reputation with Mike Harris. For the record, though, most people don't follow politics in Ontario, and couldn't even name our current Premier. Old whats-his-name. Sad looking fellow. Yeah, I've always thought that Klein comes across better in print than he does in person. He does have a sort of goofiness to him that doesn't fit with his reputation. I have to disagree with your last statement though: democratic politics is entirely about breaking everything down to simple black/white yes/no distinctions. House of Commons members don't get to vote "Qualified Maybe". What you're thinking of, maybe, is how politicians use the media to spin and manipulate and offer shades of nuance to every situation. Which not necessarily a bad thing, and helps to mold public opinion, but is more or less superficial and inconsequential when the actual decisions get made.

Without having read the article to confirm your numbers, you're saying that 18.5% (50% of 37%) of the total number of Iraqis killed thusfar were children killed during American airstrikes. In a country where the bulk of the population is (apparently) children. I guess I'm confused about what your definition of "a lot" is. 0.5% of 25000 casualties is a lot too, if you're not concerned about statistical likelihood or historic casualty numbers. By the by, since everyone's so keen on looking up stats for me, does anyone know what percentage of Serbs killed were children, when Clinton decided to start dropping bombs on that country? Also, how about Vietnam? Just out of curiosity, since there doesn't seem to be a big fancy website dedicated to the child casualties of wars started by Democrats. Thanks in advance.

Missed a "T" there, chum. That's okay, but I'm not sure if we should alter it a bit further to be "PokeyRocket". That's about my speed in the morning My apologies, PocketRocket. I'm still in morning mode myself. The keyword from my post was the qualifier "sufficient" which is why I specifically included it. Solar and wind power are good alternative energy sources, but they don't supply nearly enough energy and are inherently undependable. There are other problems to consider. Solar cells are clean while in use, but they have a limited lifespan and the materials they are made of are toxic, which need to be dealt with when they are no longer in service. Windmills are expensive to build and maintain (not cheap) and have a nasty habit of killing birds. Not to mention that they're an eyesore and take up huge amounts of land. There's a difference between uproven and unprovable. For instance, aspects of physics predicted within General Relativety were unproven until experiments were devised to prove them. Other aspects of quantum mechanics remain unproven, until suitable experiments are devised to provide the proof. But these are small, relatively easy to control sets of actions and reactions. If an oil refinery fire in Texas produced a solid week of warm rain in Toronto every time that would be proof. But of course nothing like that happens in the real world. My conjecture is that it is beyond the scope of human ability to reliably predict how global climate will change from year to year and decade to decade. There are too many unknown variables. Thus there is no way of predicting how human interaction with the environment affects climate change. I don't consider our current public policies or lifestyle to be gambling with the environment. I understand your point and the goodness of your intention, but if good intentions were all that mattered we'd live in a perfect Utopia. A step in the wrong direction is not an improvement. I'm not saying that I have a better solution. I'm saying I don't think a better solution is required. You have to swallow the man-made climate change theory hook, line and sinker to believe that a Hummer is worse than a moped. And I don't. And in my experience, the most ludicrous, reckless, ostentatious displays of wealth are to be found in the most horribly impoverished countries, where leaders spend international loans on new jets for their harems while ordinary citizens starve a few hundred feet away. Bill Gates has more money than Robert Mugabe could ever dream of, but which of them do you think owns the most and biggest vehicles? Who do you think cares more and has spent more of his own money on the people and environment in Zimbabwe? Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for the good discussion. This has been a fun thread.

eureka: Funny, I don't feel any shame about the way aboriginal children were treated in religious schools, any more than either of us does about how non-aboriginal childred were treated in religious schools (which isn't a sexy enough issue to make the CBC). I guess, since we're each of us voting citizens with an equal say in how things should be, that my sense of self-righteousness and lack of concern cancels out your self-loathing. newbie: In all of your research I guess you missed the part where native leaders were all for residential schools back in the day, and in some cases fought to keep them open when they were to be closed. Selective reading, maybe.

Link?

jonah Are all of your posts going to be this incoherent? The idea of a forum is that you present an idea for discussion in such a way that other people ken your meaning and have a chance to respond on topic. This just isn't fair to anyone else trying to participate. PS - You read like you're too drunk to walk. I'm amazed you can type at all.

PockeRocket: I'd love nothing better than if a perfectly clean and cheap method of producing sufficient quantities electrical and mechanical energy were discovered tomorrow. I'd love almost as much if we discovered new ways of making dirty energy sources cleaner. But of course - who wants to live in a dirty environment? I'm all for the government pouring the money they currently piss away on gun registries and advertising themselves to Quebecers into clean energy research. But - Using unprovable theories about impending environmental catastrophe, that in every way resemble the apocolyptic ramblings of a religious text, is an unsound basis for changes in public policy (not to mention an ironic violation of the principle of the seperation of church and state, as the Left currently understands the meaning of that principle, judging by their attacks on public displays of religious belief) - An international agreement that purports to address the problem by setting arbitrary emissions targets and establishing a pollution credit trading scheme that benefits those countries that are historically (in the case of the former USSR countries) and currently (in the case of Southeast Asia) the worst polluters is doomed to failure It's a simple fact that democratic, capitalist countries with the highest standards of living also have the cleanest environments and are doing the most to address the pollution issue. Wealth and freedom are the solution to pollution. Letting the issue be co-opted by undemocratic international agencies and NGOs who are aggressively anti-globalist and anti-capitalist is exactly the wrong direction to take. You asked, "Is it a proven fact?" and then answered yourself "Depends on who you ask." I'll restate that my opinion is that it is NOT a proven fact regardless of who you ask. FYI, it was computer geeks, not science geeks.

bambino: Your fire-extinguisher analogy is telling. True, fire extinguishers aren't meant to be used on a day to day basis. But they still have to be tested periodically, to ensure they work properly. Your stated conjecture is that an appointed representative would be more effective in a "constitutional crisis" (civil war perhaps?) than an elected and politically involved head of state. But in our current circumstances we have no way of knowing that, do we? How can we be sure that the fire extinguisher still works? How can we be sure that a CBC talking head, with no political experience, will take action to exercise her constitutional authority in a time of crisis? How can we be sure that she wouldn't wait it out until it was too late? How can we be sure that anyone would pay attention if she did take action in time, or that if they paid attention it wouldn't just enrage and alienate them further? You haven't addressed any of this, preferring that we just accept that because it is written, it is so. How distressingly weak.