BHS

Good answer, comparing Suharto's Indonesia to Canada. Actually, considering that Suharto and Chretien were buddies... I've never worked a union job. (Okay, I worked at UPS for three weeks while I was in school, but it hardly counts because a) I was a socialist back then and I wasn't there long enough to be involved in union politics.) I can say that, without exception, I've never worked in a non-union environment where management asked me to take a pay cut. Nor do I know anyone who has ever had this happen. My wife worked for a time in a variety store, thank you very much. She made more than minimum wage. She ended up managing the store for a short while, and I can tell you most of the employees are part-timers earning a second income for their families. None of them were "desperate". You really should write about things that you actually know about, instead of denigrating people out of hand. Hell, make minimum wage $17 per hour. Do you know what will happen? The cost of everything will skyrocket as companies are forced to pay for their increased payroll demands. Which means that the buying value of a dollar will decrease, which means making a higher wage won't mean anything. In a world where all labour was unionized, their wouldn't be any benefit in having a union job, for this very reason.

Do you really want to be taken seriously, quoting from a work of children's fiction and applying it without regard for facts or reason to a real world situation it bears no resemblance to?

Good work, Shady. You beat me to all the punches. Left my knuckles itchy, though.

I've been watching the progress of the nomination and review process in the news, and judging by what I've seen so far this guy should make it through without a filibuster. No one on the left has any serious concerns about him. Correction. No one on the left who actually has an opinion that matters (eg. is elected and isn't part of the Democratic miniority that have been driven insane by Bush fever) is concerned about him. I read a quote today from a Democratic strategist who described him as "the best stealth nomination I've ever seen". So much for trying to make a controversial issue out of this, guys.

Are you thinking of the Progressive Conservatives or the NDP? Because, I mean, the NDP's stellar performance in office didn't win them any fans either. Both parties have held majorities in Ontario and neither have a shot at ever running the federal government. The difference is that the Progressive Conservatives don't exist as a federal party anymore.

PS "illegal" embargo? Please. How many times have you been prevented from vacationing in Cuba?

(Side points) USSR - Bankrupted by cold war with United States. CUBA - Economically choked by ongoing illegal US embargo A parasitic existance.... you guys really seem to have it out for anyone who is paid enough to survive.... $34K/year... you begrudge that income... and call them parasites... (It only makes me wonder how much money you guys make, and following this, how come you don't have a job that pays a huge take-home pay of about $2000/month... not enough for a mortgage on a shack if you have to buy diapers an pay to run an automobile)...... perhaps a reflection on your mean-spirited conservative attitudes, or perhaps jealousy) I think it is a good thing that the government doesn't embrace slave labour (minimum wage labour), and that the government's wage reflects the cost of living... not how badly you can get away with paying someone... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pretty ballsy to be making assumptions about other people's lives that way, dude. Pretty presumptuous. I find it's a common trait among NDP types, to take an argument they can't win to a personal level, where more often than not they're just as wrong. Of all the people I've ever known who've worked a union job, the vast majority either hate the company they work for or the union, bust most often they hate both. Their entire work lives have been made bitter by poisonous management/union relations that are forever being made worse by ridiculous grievances and unreasonable wage and job security demands, which is all the unions have left to justify their existances in this day and age in the industrialized world. The only people who like the unions are the true believers, the people who get in tight with the union power structure early in their careers, becoming shop stewarts and spending most of their work time fiddling around with union crap instead of doing the jobs they were hired for. And if they fiddle long enough and with enough vigor they move up the food chain within the union, becoming regional or national "leadership", bargaining on behalf of people doing jobs they know nothing about under conditions that don't really concern them, trying to get the best "deal" which as often as not is factored heavily on how many dues paying members they can sign up. Since you've decided to go personal and make assumptions about my life, and since you've spoken of having a "good job" and I've read nothing that suggests the contrary, I'm going to go out on a limb an assume you're one of these people. If you aren't, then you know how I feel about the post I'm responding to. If you are, then you know how I feel about you.

Interesting post at Belmont Club.

I suppose I could ask the same question of you. I mean, what makes you think I don't read a broad spectrum of views? That's pretty presumptuous of you. I'll have you know that I sometimes even sink so low as to read the local free papers whose editors are card carrying Trotskyists, if only for a good laugh. Buzz Hargrove is paid a luxurious wage to argue everything from his union's point of view. He is as objective about the topics he choses to write about as is a lawyer arguing a legal case. I don't feel the need to subsidize his income by buying a Liberal-owned newspaper that feels the need to act as his podium in an effort to provide a balanced view. There are plenty of socialist writers out there who come by their views honestly, that could have been hired instead, but they chose him. I strongly disagreed with this decision, and so I cancelled my subscription. I still do buy the paper from the stand on occasion, and if his article is in the Financial Post I typically read it.

Good post, anyway. It didn't hurt to have it all said twice.

First of all, thanks for the laugh. Putting Belinda Stronach in charge of renewing people's trust in Canadian democracy is the single greatest piece of comedy fodder in the new millenium thus far. I expect big, big things from Air Farce. The CONS as you call them have been screeching about democratic renewal since the earliest days of the Reform party. Here are some personal favourites: -Elect the Senate -Institute third party review of judicial candidates -Scrap the monarchy, become a republic, leading to a -Seperately elected head of state with authority to approve or veto legislation instead of a meaningless appointed figurehead Don't think of this as an effort to make our federal government more American in nature. Think of it as trying to make the federal government into something other than a charade to rubberstamp decisions made in behind the closed doors of the PMO.

The Pat Robertson jab is positively loopy, my friend. Every one of these papers has at least a modicum of socialist content. I guess your idea of "right wing" means "not so far to the left as to be economically unviable". Whatever. It depends on which of Izzie's son's you're talking about. I don't know anything about Leonard, but I remember reading David's defence of Chretien in the Post in 2001 which made it clear how he felt about the Liberal party. Here's Peter Worthington writing his reponse in the Toronto Sun at the time (first article I found via Google, haven't got all day you know): Peter Worthington

I was all geared up to respond, but then Renegade did such a bang up job that I lost all my urine and vinegar. (BHS - doing his part to reduce vulgarity in the forum since 2005!!)

The National Post, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Sun... The Financial Post.. Anything that Conrad Black owned: Accorging to the CBC, "By the 1990s Hollinger controlled 60 per cent of Canadian newspaper titles, as well as hundreds of dailies in the U.S., England, Australia and Israel. " However, I don't recomend that you read them, as their obvious bias and distortion of facts could have you leaning to the right.... I recommend the Toronto Star.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Financial Post is part of the National Post, which has been seriously watered down since the Aspers took over and is hardly worth reading now. I cancelled my subscription the first day that Buzz Hargrove had his new weekly column introduced in the Financial Post. I'm not paying money to a paper that validates unionist trash talk. The Globe and Mail should get some sort of award for "Most Boring Paper In Print". Even their crossword puzzle sucks. They switched to a colour format to match the National Post. Should have stuck with the old black and white. Calling the G&M "right wing" is like calling pablum spicy. The Toronto Sun used to have some interesting columnists, almost all of whom were picked up by the National Post when it premiered, and almost all of whom have now moved on to other things. It's 90% advertising, 8% sports and 2% crappy articles about life in downtown Toronto, with the odd acknowledgement of major world news events, which even then are just as likely to be overshadowed by updates about hockey negotiations. Isn't worth lining the bird's cage with. Since it appears your criteria for "right wing" means "not raving leftist nonsense" you should have included Macleans and Chatelaine to your list, as well as every other paper or magazine that stays in business without devoting 30% of it's print area to ads for escort services.

And I say, as a Canadian, that the West and America in particular is headed on the correct course. So there. I don't understand how you can call anything a total failure, or a total success. It's history for crying out loud, not a video game. There's no way on earth for you to prove that terrorism wouldn't have increased if the Americans had done nothing, so give it a rest. You preach continuously about getting to "the root of the problem" without ever acknowledging that any action we take from here on falls into your own definition of interfering with the Muslim world, thus provoking more terror. There's no argument you can make that will convince me to bury my head in the sand and hope the terrorists all go away. You can blame the US all you want (and I'm convince you always have and always will) but it's time you woke up and realized there's more going on in the world than what you're little fevered imaginings have lead you to believe.

Food for thought: I just read a post on a blog I read frequently. The guy posted about a proposed plan the Israelis were looking at a couple of years ago, of equipping buses with bags of pig lard, because the terrorists believe that if they're contaminated by pig DNA they'll be denied entrance into heaven. Apparently they haven't done it yet (no doubt because of the Jewish abhorance of all things pig as well). This blogger notes that just because the authorities don't implement such as scheme doesn't mean private citizens can't carry vacuum sealed bags of lard with "LARD" stenciled on them as a warning to would be terrorists. I don't think I'll be doing this any time soon, myself.

How do you propose befriending the Muslim (or Moslem or whatever) community? What more do we have to offer them, that we don't already offer to all immigrant communities? Don't you think the stated intention of booting a portion of that community out is going to make them a little leary? And when you start deporting people who claim to be innocent, do you really think that will decrease hostility in that community?

I prefer to think of myself as an Individualist.

Government colluding with unionists over wages is the antithesis of the free market, for crying out loud. Give your head a shake. And if corner store owners were to jack up the wages of their employees to a level sufficient to satisfy your ideals they'd all go out of business. No longer paying taxes. To keep your socialist pet projects afloat. You've brought up the issue of construction contracts under health care spending a couple of times, always implying that nefarious business was afoot. Maybe so, but do you really think hospital buildings don't require maintenance, and renovations, and upgrades? How do you think these are going to happen without construction contracts being awarded to someone? Furthermore, I find this distaste for hospital construction somewhat ironic, given that you argue against privatization. If hospitals were privately owned, the government wouldn't need to spend tax dollars on their upkeep, now would they?

You asked who else claims supplementary benefits while collecting EI. Many companies, both private and public, top up maternity benefits, which are also funded through EI at 55% of salary. Some do it as a bonus after the mat leave ends, some do it as an ongoing benefit throughout. Its seen as an incentive for mothers to return to their jobs after their mat leave expires. I received just such a bonus 12 years ago, working for a University. My point is that CAW is not alone in offering top ups. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, for maternity leave, which only applies under limited circumstances. The point that was being made was in regard to layoff situations in general, and the question still stands.

You two, with your little one line posts, complaining about the substantiality of my posts. Calling me a troll when it's you that can't be bothered to refute an idea. I'd say any casual observer to this thread could tell who was posting and who was trolling. You're both ridiculous.

"Seek and ye shall find." I think you see a lot of religious conservatives because that's what you want to see. There are plenty of religious types who support the Liberals, the NDP, and the Democrats too. Besides, what is a conservative? It has generally become a bi-word for people who oppose socialist policies (and that is it's de facto modern political meaning, as I take it), but a conservative is someone who opposes change in favour of the status quo. In this light, the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most conservative organizations on Earth.

Yaro: This is what I was talking to, in regard to a "cornerstone of capitalism". The capitalist (free market really, but I take them to be part and parcel) system uses the freedom of choice as an incentive for investors and entrepreneurs to participate in the system. If you know that when all is said and done, the government is going to take the fruits of your labour entirely, then why bother? This disincentive is a major drawback in all socialist schemes.

Is this sarcasm, or are you being serious? My doctor continually makes reference to the food guide as if it were some sort of magic formula, but it looks like common sense to me. Atkins would disagree with the principle of equal importance of the four food groups, and I think that it's a little simplistic, but I think anyone wanting to maintain a healthy weight could stick to the guide without problems.

The 100,000 figure isn't worth posting about. As has already been stated numerous times on this forum, that figure is off by as much as 98%. My concern is that we not end up like Israel, as well. A big part of the problem Israel has faced since 1948 is interference of the UN, which created the "refugee camps" on "Palestinian land" and encouraged the "Palestinians" that they had a all-or-nothing "right" to one day return to their former homes. The UN has been happy to fight for the "rights" of "Palestinians" while completely ignoring and taking zero repsonsibility for terrorist activities in the "refugee camps" that they maintain. I think it's fair to say that without the incompetence of the UN a peaceful reintegration of the "Palestinian" Arabs would have happened a long time ago. So much for dealing properly with the world community.