BHS

According to an article I just read, non-unionized labour in a unionized shop must pay dues under the Rand formula because they benefit from union representation whether they want it or not. Question: Under the Rand formula, can a non-unionized worker in a unionized workplace negotiate his own salary with the employer? Or does he automatically have to accept the negotiated salary levels set by the union contract? Becuase if the latter is true, then there is no difference between being a member and not being a member, and his freedom of association has been trameled. Otherwise the term "freedom of association" doesn't have any meaning. There was a court case in Quebec a few years ago that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, involving construction workers wanting out of the union and claiming that their freedom of association had been trameled. The Court, in a five to four ruling, admitted that a corollary negative freedom (the freedom to not associate) did exist, but that forced unionization of constrution workers was not unconstituional because of the long and byzantine history of the construction industry in Quebec, and the Quebec government's history of periodically updating the law as demand required. Which, quite frankly, sounds like a load of crap to me.

Not my own idea, but has Ralston-Saul been nominated? I figure it's just a matter of time... Trudeau too. Some partisan old biddy will figure out a reason to brand His Swingness an intellectual. (I'm looking forward to replies to this statement.) My best guess: Marshall McLuhan has the lock. Or Gretzky. It's a toss-up. (That's a joke, by the way.)

Did your American friends stitch the Maple Leaf onto their clothing? Did they openly proclaim their American citizenship or did they hide it? Did they carry greenbacks or Euros? I don't doubt that Americans are more disliked than ever in Europe, but that's not my point. We are progressing toward a unified North America identity. The world is becoming indifferent to the minor nuances that we feel makes us special and seperate us from the Americans. As for digging into the archives for extreme positions, I've already read the bulk of your posts. Thanks.

And if the tables were turned (say, a ban on gay marriage or illegal abortion), you wouldn't take the same position? Riiiight... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I'm in favour of gay marriage and indifferent to the legality of abortion (though I'm opposed to it on moral grounds in most cases). But that's beside the point, which is that a topic of current controversy can't be ruled out of bounds just because the status quo was imposed by a court decision striking down a law, or because of a recently passed law that hasn't even weathered a change of government.

The point of the article is (which would be apparent if you had read it, which it appears you did not) that the notion of "leaving the country a better place" is a hopeless pipe dream. Full blown civil war (as oppossed to the low-level civil war that is occurring right now under the U.S.'s nose) is likely inevitable. It may even be necessary. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Everyone who posts here knows what your hopes are for Iraq. Violence and distruction and endless chaos just to prove your little political theories correct. Talk about hubris. If you're on the right side of history, then any dreams for a better future (anywhere) are a hopeless waste of time. Why don't you turn that frown upside down, friend? Everything is going to be just fine.

Did you miss the whole election thing in January? Millions of ordinary Iraqis going to the polls and proudly displaying their ink-stained fingers despite the strong likelihood of terrorist violence?

In my view it falls to these in priority order: 1. Citizens themselves 2. Their friends and families 3. Charities I also only view the obligation as a moral one and only to be enforced by the consciences of the groups above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1) Obviously people on welfare can't take care of themselves, that's why they turn to the government for help. 2) They've already tried this possibility, that's why they end up in this situation. You dream of a perfect world man. Some "families" are abusers and molesters/ 3) Homeless shelters which you view as government charity no doubt have a lot of problems. For one, they discriminate based on age. Someone under the age of 24 cannot stay long term in a homeless shelter. They have to go to what is called a "youth shelter". Youth shelters are not for all people. And I suggest you take a stroll down George street Toronto's sick idea of wellsley street except for homeless people, if you have the balls, and see how many niggaz approach you for drugs and toothless druggies ask you for handouts. It's a mess. Speaking of the far north where you proudly enjoy living, do you know how many homeless shelters there are from Vaughan to Newmarket? 1. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This appears to be a rebuttal for a point that hasn't been made. You asked who had the obligation for providing the citizenry with a reasonable standard of living, to which Renegade gave a good reply. Your rebuttal implies a number of preconditions and inferences that weren't included in the original question. Besides which, your rebuttal still doesn't explain why the government (and by implication the taxpayers) should be responsible for an individual's failure to make a reasonable life for himself. Rather, you approach governmental responsibility to pick up the slack as a foregone conclusion, which it is not. FYI, when I lived in Toronto Jane/Finch in the early 1990's, the dealers who approached me were universally white except for one black guy in a car. The black dealers stay away from white people (whom they regard as trouble) unless you go specifically asking around for dope. Unless racial tensions have cooled off in the interim...

Hmm, yes, some peace activist and Gary Trudeau. Guiding lights of foreign policy, to be sure. You started this thread as if disengagement isn't already a goal, which contradicts everything that the Administration has been saying and doing since the end of major combat operations in 2003. There's a difference between disengaging with care and leaving the country a better place, and doing the old Saigon cut'n'run. But repeating 1975 would just make all of the Left's comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam that much more accurate, wouldn't it? Making your own predictions come true?

Yep. Political issues are only issues until they're resolved to the satisfaction of the Left. Once that happens, the issue is solved for all times and is off-limits. Abortion isn't an issue, because the Left likes the unregulated status quo. If you disagree, you're just beating a dead horse.

As long as I don't have to be subjected to Government of Canada TV commercials (paid for, in part, by me) telling me how wearing a dress and heals will make me a better person, then I could care less. I'll wear a dress and heals for my own reasons, thanks.

I note that in the original post their was no mention of illness, just a wish to die made twice in a short span of time by someone "appearing" to have control of their faculties. Was this an omission, or are they proposing that the medical establishment go into the business of putting down healthy people with a death wish? There's a big difference between "do not rescucitate" - allowing a terminal patient to die without interference - and intentionally killing them. Giving someone a lethal dose of drugs isn't "letting them go". This is a cavalier, overly simplistic attitude towards life and death and killing. Why do we spend so much time fretting about the execution of axe murderers by the most humane methods possible, and then applaud the speedy, remorseless killing of the ailing innocent as if it were some sort of victory? I see all of this as a symptom of a larger problem - the aggrandization of loss and victimhood. I see posts on the web every day of people trumpeting their "fear" of people and things that they don't like, as if this were a virtue. "I'm afraid of what President Bush is doing". "I'm afraid for the future of the planet/my country/my demographic/my special interest group." JFK said there was nothing to fear but fear itself, in another time, to a different generation of liberally-minded people. What ever happened to fighting to win? Fighting to make a better future? Fighting to beat cancer, even as it lays you out for good? When did these things get replaced a desire for condolence and pity?

That's right, Newbie. Everybody's extreme except you and the people you agree with. It is true that in decades past that Americans sewed the Maple Leaf onto their backpacks, and perhaps some still do. But Canada's reputation in the rest of the world for being "not America" is a fading fact. Don't like it? Tough.

But surely Alberta's "goo" doesn't fetch as much as Saudi's "sweet"! Does it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct me if I'm wrong, Yaro, but different grades of unrefined petrol run at different prices on the international oil market, and that's the only consideration - the identity of the buyer or seller is irrelevant.

The heart, in fact, has its own "pacemaker" and does beat on its own. Breathing is controlled by a reflex located in the brain-stem. So is swallowing. So is dilation of the pupils in response to light. Eye movements, tongue movements, and various other movements of the head that Schiavo supports said "proved" she was not brain-dead. None of this indicates the presence of any activity in the cerebrum, the part that of the brain that provides the functions that we think of as thought and personality and emotion and identity. The CT scan that was widely circulated during the controversy, and later the autopsy, proved conclusively how severely atrophied her cerebrum had become. At any rate, the differences between the circumstances of Terri Schiavo and DeLay's father are similar enough that you'd think DeLay might have some empathy instead of running around the country calling Michael Schiavo a barbarian and a murderer. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So where does the brainstem end and the brain begin? BD's assertion was that she had "no brain", not that she had lost that part of her brain associated with cognative function. Only the autopsy could conclusively prove to what degree she her brain had deteriorated and what her true capacity was. Too bad you can't autopsy while the patient is still alive. Let me restate my original point, that DeLay allowing his father to die at or around the time of his injury is a great deal different that keeping your wife alive for eight years (and thereby creating a new status quo regarding the quality of her life) and only deciding to follow her wishes (such as you can recollect them) when the fact of her existence inconveniences you.

Michael Schiavo had "moved on" with his life, and formed a common-law marriage with another woman, by whom he had two children. This isn't bigamy? This isn't grounds for a divorce? Under any other circumstances his spousal rights would have been extinguished long before he "remembered" that his former wife had casually mentioned she didn't want to live on life support.

You are incorrect. Autonomous breathing and heartbeat can't be sustained without some degree of brain function. Schiavo's body did not merely "cease to function". She was intentionally starved to death, plain and simple. Not hysterical. The law in Florida states that a spouse's right to make decisions for the incapacitated outweighs the rights of other family members, even if the spouse is a bigamist. This spousal authority is derived directly from state law. Courts' interpretations of this law led to Schiavo's death. It couldn't have happened in many other locales. Besides which, your response doesn't address the statement you quoted at all, except for the name-calling.

Schiavo couldn't swallow on her own (I read that one Dr. Hammesfahr claimed she could, but this was the same chap who also claimed that Schiavo was not in a P.V.S, a claim later debunked by the autopsy), therefore the tube was what could be called a form of mechanical intervention to prolong life. Nor could she be "prompted" because her brain was jello. Whther you can face it or not, there are a numbe rof similarities between the Schiavo and DeLay cases: both patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine, and neither left a living will. In any case, this is just one example of DeLay's hypocrisy, corruption, immorality and avarice. There are more. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Another difference: Tom DeLay followed his father's request when the full extent of the injuries were known. Teri Schiavo was in a vegetative state for eight years before her husband first made clear his intention to have her executed by court order, only then revealing his remembrance of her desire to be spared the "indignity" of living with brain damage. The fact is simple: there exists, in the State of Florida, a set of circumstances wherein a husband can have his wife executed by the state for the crime of having become an incovenience. Take a moment to consider the ramifications, not for Teri Schiavo personally, but for all people with brain damage: they are one step closer to having their lives terminated based on a third party's arbitrary evaluation of the quality of their life. Fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable to kill someone who could be maintained on life support. The dictum "Do no harm" meant, ultimately, that doctor's had no choice but keep a person alive by any means necessary, because death was the ultimate harm. But medicine progressed, and it was realized that a hearbeat could be maintained long past the point where any other semblance of life remained. The practice of "pulling the plug" gained acceptability, in cases where the patient was no more alive than the machine that maintained them. Concurrently, the practice of overdosing terminal cancer patients to end their suffering also gained an underground acceptability. Schiavo is a new step down the road to manditory euthanization. Here we have a patient who, while techinically braindead did not require what is normally termed "extraordinary measures" to be kept alive. Breathing and heartbeat occurred autonymously. Only feeding and hygiene maintance were required. Schiavo was for all medical intents and purposes no different than an infant suffering from an inability to swallow. So "pulling the plug" to end Teri's "indignity" was not an option, as there was no plug to pull. Overdosing was likewise not an option, as she was suffering no pain and didn't require medication. So the only option left to the state was to order her starved to death. During the protracted period of time that marked her death I saw a short snippet of Larry King's show on CNN. He was taking callers, and the woman who called in was clearly brain damaged. The terror in her voice was palpable. She wanted to know if she was in danger too. That really sunk in. This wasn't just about a single jello-brained unfortunate in Florida. This was about how we, as a society, view a whole unfortunate demographic. Fifty years ago, abortion and starving brain-damaged people to death were illegal and morally repugnant. Today they are both legal, precedented and accepted by a large swath of society. Fifty years from now will the state be mandating euthenasia for the sick and injured, young and old? Who knows?

The CBC strike is over? I hadn't heard. I guess I'd have to watch the news on the CBC to find out, but since the CBC was on strike...well, you get the idea. Not like I care. I didn't miss a thing.

Big money copulation. I like it, kind of has a ring to it. I'm going to change my signature to include it. I'm guessing you came from a household where nobody smoked. Lucky you. The secularist segment of the Republican party (It's true! They exist!) knows that they're never going to win on the big social issues that the Dems get all frenzied up about. For instance, the "right to privacy" (what eureka calls the "natural right" that gives Roe v. Wade it's authority) discovered in the Constitution by Justice Blackmun and his cohorts isn't going to be overturned any time soon, and they aren't serious about trying. The religious wing of the party will be trying to put an end to abortion forever, but they need the secularists to win elections, and the secularists will withdraw their support if the religious types get too uppity. It's all understood in a "below the radar" way. The common front is an illusion to meant to make the Dems crazy. And apparently, it works. Organized labour is dying all by itself. The purpose of organizing was to win acceptable wages and working conditions for "the working class" (scare quotes because America and Canada are classless societies, ahem). All of the greatest hopes of the original labour movement were realized long ago. But just shutting down is against the nature of any successful movement, and so it continued to perpetuate itself by coming up with exciting new demands, many of which have also been met by it's various corporate victims over the years. Many of those victims are now deceased, or struggling on life support: the steel industry, the auto industry and the airline industry are three economic sectors where unions had their greatest successes, and those industries are now in trouble because of their inability to remain competitive. Who wants to be in a union anyway? Every union member I've ever met (except for the professional unionists, who were without exception total commie rhetoric-spouting scumbags) hates the union even more than they hate the company that employs them. And I've never met a union member who didn't hate his employer with a passion. What a magnificent way to spend the bulk of your adult life. I have nothing to say about "environmental regulations", because I have only the vagues idea of what you might be refering to. Other than to say that a lot of environmental regulations that have been put in place over the years were founded on junk science and eco-paranoia, and rightly belong in the dustbin. Like safety regulations, it's easy to go overboard, precisely because it's conversely difficult to argue against "safety" or "a cleaner environment". Prosecuting blah blah blah cheap pharmaceuticals: So you think Americans (or Canadians) should be allowed to import drugs from any other country, operating outside of our national regulatory oversight? Isn't that kind of making all of our regulations about how pharmacies operate moot? Because that's essentially what you appear to be in favour of. Why should American regulators, and the voters who put them in power, trust us any more than they trust the Chinese? Whatever. When your cheap cancer drugs from Paraguay turn out to be Tic Tacs, well, you know why. You've pretty much run the gamut of reasons why the Americans (read the Republicans) are trying to push back progress, so I can't imagine what other reasons you might be thinking of.

1) Marijuana is a weed species. It grows everywhere. Like beer, it's easy enough to make/grow at home. Unless legislation specifically treats it as a controlled substance, the farmer's markets will abound with pot. It's the laws controlling growing and manufacturing and distribution that make the tobacco and alcohol business interests rich, not the free market. Lay the blame where it belongs, with big-government regulation freaks. Further, RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris are American tobacco companies. Wouldn't Imperial Tobacco or MacDonald Tobacco be a more apt reference? I mean, Philip Morris can't even sell it's signature Marlboro brand in Canada because Imperial already owns the trademark here. 2) It's interesting to me that you see "social progress" as being confined to the narrow terms of your own special interests, like pot legalization, and that this would lead you to the conclusion that the US is anything other than progressive. All of the concepts of modern labour law and publicly funded medical care that the world's "progressive" movement like to go on about found their first footing in the US. In fact, it's hard to find a single "progressive" concept that the US hasn't already embraced at one time or another, in one state or another, for at least a trial period of time. The world's leading lights in NGO peacenik/eco-concious/progressivist organisations all have their headquarters in the US. It's the freest country in the world, in every way that counts.

Um...if sopmeone's brain is reduced to Jello, to the point where the only way they can survive is through external feeding tube simplanted in their stomach, I'd say that's a case of using mechanical intervention to prolong life. In other words: same difference. As for the Bug Man, well, I'm with Argus. (I know. I know.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The tube was inserted to facilitate feeding. It's a common practice for people with injuries that prevent them from swallowing. Terri Schiavo was capable of swallowing when prompted, but the tube was easier for her and her caretakers. A feeding tube is a long, long way removed from a ventilator. Only an ignorant crank would equate the two.

The CEO of CIBC received 50 million in bonuses and resigned a week before CIBC announces a 2.5 billion payment to clean up a mess created by that CEO. Where was your outrage then? The CEO does't work for me. The board doesn't work for me. My money is not in CIBC. I don't invest in CIBC. The Liberals are public employees. They work for you and me. It is our duty to supervise them, even if from a distance, by watching what they do and how they do it and clobbering them when they do it wrong. If Canadians had been more resolute in this duty we'd have better government now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks, Argus. I was reading throught this post and was hoping someone would make this point eventually. Sparhawk, comparing private companies to government is completely inappropriate. No one is required to invest in a private company, not even pension fund retirees. If you are unsatisfied with the way a company is being managed you put your money elsewhere. (If you have the luxury of controlling a large bloc of voting stock you can make your displeasure known directly to the board of directors, whos' jobs probably depend directly upon your support). It goes without saying that I can't pull my money out of paying taxes, and decide to put it to a different use. The government has a monopoly on the services it provides. The free market doesn't apply. It irks me to see this comparison being made. I've heard it argued that MP's salaries should be in line with corporate executives salaries, to "attract talent". "If they paid more they'd get better people". What nonsense, even if the vast majority of MPs weren't rubber stamps for the PMO. There's nothing I've ever seen an elected official do that couldn't be duplicated by volunteers on a stipend. All of their technical/legal expertise is derived from their hired staff. An MP's job boils down to yes/no decision making, most of which is either completely partisan politics or just plain common sense. The same argument carries into political appointments. The government isn't in business to make a profit, so there's no need to reward good performance, especially at the upper levels of management.

How, precisely, do you calculate the value of noise and air pollution?

Are you saying he's a hypocrite because he "pulled the plug" on his own father? That's the superficial charge I've seen levelled against him elsewhere. What's ignored is the very large difference between taking someone off of life support (in otherwords, ceasing to use mechanical intervention to prolong life) and intentionally starving someone (who doesn't require extraordinary medical intervention) to death.

Judging by this and previous posts, you seem to have a very narrow view of what acceptable Christian behaviour and opinions should be.