Right To Left

They will have no choice other than reign in carbon emissions. I haven't checked lately, but pictures from Chinese cities today indicate that the air is cleaner than it was 10 or 15 years ago, when big city air was toxic. Ten years ago, China alarmed western environmentalists when they announced a plan to build 1000 coal-fired generating stations. Those plans changed, or were drastically scaled back because of pollution and was premised on the assumption of having long term supplies of cheap coal from Australia. Now that the Aussies are back to being America's little brother, under Trump, they stopped Aussie imports and are now paying for more expensive coal, wheat and other essentials from other sources.

And I would go out on a limb and venture to say that you're not one of the people ready to work long hours for pennies! But, instead profit in some undisclosed way by having a globalized system that forces others to be turned into slave labour. At one time, long long ago, that's why nations had tariffs and import duties to prevent bloodsucking leeches like you from profiting off the misery of others! And today, this is the people living in the 'under-developed' nations who being cleared off of common lands and left with one option to survive, and one option only: move into dirty, dangerous, already overcrowded city hellholes and compete with other desperate former farmers for sweatshop jobs, and try to earn enough to buy food at the local market...and hope it isn't tainted either! If it's a textile manufacturer, the t-shirts or shoes are being produced by a third party sweatshop operative, who produces brand name products for big name retail chains who don't want their names connected directly with the ways their imported products are made. And that brings us right back to tariffs and duties! If big capitalist leeches (and those down the chain who also profit) want to outsource manufacturing, they should pay for the money they saved by not hiring local workers!

You can post text and charts, but can't seem to figure out how to add links yet, so the rest of us can see if there's any sleight of hand? I have a hard time believing you just went to Union of Concerned Scientists for this, instead of taking some 2nd hand BS from one of the oil-funded climate change denial sites that are still denying connections between GHG additions and global warming. How do I know this is a chart of historic emissions to begin with, let alone how accurate it is? First unaccounted flaw on your pie chart is that outsourcing of manufacturing, that incentivized US manufacturers to open factories in Mexico and the Far East, have been used primarily to produce products for US markets....up till now! So, if it's a US company's smokestacks...like Nike or Reebok, what difference does it make which country it's located in? We are all stuck sharing the same atmosphere...and that's why I am not a nationalist!

Higher CO2 and other GHG levels in the deep past have no relation to recent millions of years, since the pattern for our planetary biosphere has been to keep CO2 levels below 300 ppm. So, if carbon levels over 400 ppm have meant steep loss of biodiversity and extinctions during the past 50 million years, then it's a safe assumption that the thermostat is set for extinction today!

Just all the complex multicellular life forms, as we descend back to the microbial world that existed prior to about one billion years ago. Yes, that sounds much better!

Thanks for the nihilist approach! I'm going to die, so why not wish death upon the whole world.

Let's keep in mind that in terms of historical CO2 contributions alone, as of two years ago, the US had dumped more than twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as China. So, looking at total accumulated emissions, China still has some catching up to do.

Can't resist:

I know US war planners were unhappy for a very long time with Canada's lack of interest in spending billions on new armaments and projecting military power around the world, but nowadays, Canada is one of the compliant vassal states with NATO membership, and doesn't make waves anymore. As for this 'hard power' and 'soft power' BS that comes out of Washington think tanks on a continual basis; it's worth noting that the "soft" power is using sanctions and supporting murderous regime change operatives in countries targeted by the US and NATO alliance...it's hardly 'soft' in any real sense of the meaning when more civilians die from the effects of sanctions than from the bombing and drone strikes from "hard" power.

So, your economic analysis is all based on grievance against those you perceive may be free riders? And that is after assuming you can get inside their heads to decide what they are thinking. I would say we should all put a shoulder to the wheel to get this cart out of the ditch we're in. But, even if everyone contributes equal effort, some people's efforts are greater than others. Should those who are bigger and stronger hold back a little and make the weaker among us strain harder to force them to make equal contributions? So, isn't the problem how the government calculates CERB payments? Seems they should easily be able to set up a more graduated payment scale that wouldn't penalize someone for their earnings. What if someone is getting paid well, but their job is only temporary? Do they have to keep reapplying for CERB? A lot of people you're pointing fingers at and declaring lazy and unproductive may just be trying to avoid getting cut off benefits they may still need if whatever job they're going to work at is taken away or the employer disappears. I don't fault JT on this one. I wasn't paying too close attention to how CERB was playing out, except stories of all the chaos, fraud and potential fraud involved in setting it up. BUT looking at the disaster south of our border, with skyrocketing crime rates already making cities unlivable, and homeless people dying of exposure every time the temperature drops, would you rather have an imperfect system of benefits for those out of work because of a pandemic, or apply the US survival of the fittest strategy, which for some reasons, determines the already rich to be the most fit! Right, except if you are including Cuba on your shrunken communist list, I've gone to Cuba several times and prefer Cuba much more than the Mexican and other Caribbean resorts; because, except for the extremely expensive ones in Cancun, Aruba or the Bahamas, the beach resorts in Cuba are much safer, even without security guards with automatic weapons standing guard everywhere! The worst thing about vacationing in Cuba is that you can't avoid being pestered by panhandlers looking for US dollars. Even some resort employees will risk asking to be paid in dollars for extra services...even though they can be fired for doing so. On the plus side, the cities - including Havana - are not teeming with urban poor living on the brink of starvation...as every other major city is dealing with today. A communist society has much less of a gap in incomes and living standards than the capitalism you celebrate - which allows a few to be worth billions while increasing numbers of people fall through the cracks. Since we've had a few Forces veterans apply for work in recent years and not last for long because of mental issues connected with depression or PTSD etc., I have to ask what your impression is of Canadian soldiers who can't cut it in civilian life after leaving the military? In the US, for all of the back-slapping they do every damn football game about "thanking our veterans," the largest single demographic among the homeless in the US are veterans from foreign wars, who returned, received some medical attention and no doubt a few too many prescriptions, and once their VA benefits are used up, they're kicked out the door and having flashbacks for the rest of their lives! It would be nice if "thanking our troops" included whatever assistance is needed by vets, but that isn't happening today! What if you were the one who made the bad decision?? I prefer to offer food to the increasing numbers of panhandlers we're seeing these days( rather than money), but otherwise, I'll give them money, even if I know full well they'll try to buy drugs with it as soon as able! And my judgment of rightwingers is that I consider their arguments and type of thinking to be useful tools the ruling classes who have a boot on our necks can use against all of us when they feel they need to in the future.

Actually, Canada's Armed Forces were small, well-trained but ill-equipped for more than light peacekeeping operations back when a few of my friends signed up. We were still using a lot of leftover WWII ships, tanks and other aging weapons. Our days of military projection were back during WWII, some...like two of my uncles were sent to support the British overseas forces in Burma and fight the Japanese, while my father and another two uncles were sent over with many other young Canadians, many to make a landing in France and push back the Germans. BUT, that was a long time ago now! Right now, we are projecting militarily....behind the skirt of our US overseers, and the rest of the world knows it, even if Canadian and other western media won't report the truth anymore! Many people in resource-rich nations under the boot of US/Euro imperialism are aware that Canada plays a small, obsequious role in their impoverishment and misery. Examples would be: Canada's immediate recognition of the illegitimate puppet - Guiado...which makes no sense until you unravel a few layers and find out that Canadian-based mining companies are major stakeholders in proposed mining operations in Southern Venezuela in the Amazon Valley. Problem right now is they can't get at the gold and other valuable rare minerals without a handy change in government! So, it's common knowledge around the world that Canada's peace and human rights and other expressed concerns are bullshit hiding motives based on $$$ and keeping the Yanks happy. I think China would have more respect for our leaders if Canada was an honest broker on world affairs...even where we don't have the political or economic clout to make a substantial difference.

This contrarian article by Gareth Porter and Max Blumenthal published at the Grayzone draws almost everything about China Uygur Genocide narrative into question, beginning with a definition for genocide! US State Department accusation of China 'genocide' relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue | The Grayzone Gareth Porter and Max Blumenthal·February 18, 2021 The Trump and Biden administrations have relied on the work of a right-wing religious extremist, Adrian Zenz, for their “genocide” accusation against China. A close review of Zenz’s research reveals flagrant data abuse and outright falsehoods. Reading their report shows that Canadian government and media have no standards beyond slavish devotion to whatever path is set for by the US State Dept.! Here we are following a US judgment based on the work of one rightwing Christian fascist named Adrian Zenz, who defines "genocide" down to denying birth by means of abortion and birth control methods! So now we have our Canadian government and media having no standards beyond slavish devotion to whatever path is set for by the US State Dept.! Here we are following a US judgment based on the work of one rightwing Christian fascist named Adrian Zenz, who defines "genocide" down to denying birth by means of abortion and birth control methods! Interesting to note that in the past...even Cold War days, it was mostly the religious right who focused on China's One Child policy...which even prior stories on Uygurs, Tibetans and other minorities acknowledged was set at two children per married couple. Certainly this is state interference we would never accept, but now we got Liberals calling it genocide also! Or afraid to deny the conservative claim....Liberal ministers choosing to take a day off rather than take a stand on that vote in Parliament.

Still, I wish Justin was more than a pale imitation of his father now!

I've had a strained relationship with an old high school buddy of mine who became career Armed Forces until he retired and took on regular work to add to his pension. Seems he is full of contradictions as he gets older. He is full of scorn for everyone he considers a bum, but careful to keep his own earnings below a point where he ends up paying more income tax! Somehow that's different than someone on social assistance not wanting their benefits removed as they're counted against earned income! When we were young, we were at the crest of a boomer population entering the workforce all at once and having to deal with low wages and unemployment. When we did militia training at the end of high school, he decided army life was for him/while I decided there was no way in hell I would ever want to be a soldier....wartime or peacetime! So, I knocked around and floundered well into my 20's, never making a lot of money until I was close to 30. Found college a waste of time.....glad it was cheap back then though! I appreciated my elective classes more than the accounting and business classes I was supposed to be shaping a career from. And today, I avoided the temptation to criticize and condemn my youngest son when he struggled aimlessly after leaving school, even though he got into the drug experimentation that I avoided or was not drawn towards. I just had to hope that his intelligence and social skills would be enough to help him find good-paying work that he enjoyed (how few times that is mentioned!) and paid decent money. And yet he's still living at home, because rent in a new realm where $800,000 houses drives up rental accommodations past the point where $24.00 per hour still isn't enough to have a one bedroom apartment. As soon as he gets a real serious girlfriend...who's already calculated that she needs a boyfriend with a good, steady job before she can finally leave home.........well, let's say I'm just hoping he's saving some of his money now!

I can't wade through the rest of your editorial without stopping first at your universal generalization about Trump supporters or even the possibility that there may be some who attended a march on the Capitol who don't buy into all of the BS served up by CNN and other organs of liberal elitists who decided that everything bad can be hung around Donald Trump without anyone else being held even partially responsible. A real, full investigation of the Jan.6 debacle will likely indicate that there was a hardcore of rightwing revolutionaries in the lead...many having military and/or policing experience, who had drawn up elaborate plans for how to conduct an invasion of the Capitol Building with a small, aggressive force equipped to seek out and take hostages inside. The fact that they were provided maps locating some of the important offices of senators and lower house reps, as well as some details on the schedule for that day, really needs to be opened up! But, how many of the marchers, including those going up and easily allowed to enter the building by likely collaborating Capitol Police were really part of a revolutionary plot? Just sayin, if I was a plotter organizing a takeover, and was looking to add a few recruits before going in, the last guy I would want with me would be Q-Shaman! Except possibly as a distraction or decoy! Nevertheless, as it stands now, that buffoon could end up with as many or more years behind bars as anyone involved....including those who brought zip cuffs with them.

One question: Are "lazy" people happy? Yes, or if not, why not? Why aren't they enjoying "taking advantage" of income support or programs created for low income people. My estimation would be someone's income would have to be pretty low, if it's a net benefit for them to quit work for CERB, UI or welfare...which leads me to ask why employers can't pay living wages for work that may be considered entry level and lacking prestige, but someone has to do it nevertheless, or the business owner has to either pay more money or improve working conditions (why is that option so rarely mentioned?). So, rightwing thinking is to condemn those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy instead of asking why they are there, let alone why a handful like McCains and Irvings or other rich east coast families became superrich. If someone frames economic success or failure as 100% due to individual strengths and weaknesses, then there is no other option for processing the predicament we are all faced with today, which I will claim shows clearly the failure of relying on capitalism far too long! An economic system that is dependent on continuous growth, can only turn increasingly ruthless and psychotic, devouring itself when there are no easier ways of making a profit from investment. As time goes on, more and more people start asking hard questions about the system that rules over us and if we have the time, how does it succeed in maintaining control when, as Marx noted 150 years ago, there are many times more of us than there are of them. Playing identity politics is a place to start, but it's not just about race, ethnicity or place of origin, blaming the poor for their poverty, their high levels of depression and other mental illness. There's also the public shaming of people who end up drug-dependent and unlikely to find gainful employment or being able to hold down a job, in a typical non-union workplace where an employer can hire and fire at will with no explanation or recompense. If we have an explanation that a civil society should be striving for full employment (recognizing that there is a 2 to 3% who can be considered unemployable because of a range of issues). IF the ruthless rightwing approach to dealing with the 'dependent' unemployables is followed, then leaving them on the streets to die of exposure is an acceptable course of action. If you are a socialist or follow actual Christian moral principles, then such these 'mora hazard' arguments against providing real universal programs aren't justifiable!

That is an old argument from the denial side, and I don't even think it is worth consideration anymore, because your bull-in-a-china-shop approach is to compare raw numbers from an unlisted source and use a gap in size to imply that the human component is not worth considering. BUT, if our contributions to GHG increases is enough to tip the balance of nature and throw the earth's carbon cycle out of whack, then whatever the percentage of human sources is....it's enough to push beyond what nature can handle. *let me add another factor rarely mentioned in climate change debates: an examination of paleoclimate is inexact, but clearly shows a long progression over vast stretches of time, with much higher carbon atmospheric levels in the deep past, near the beginning of life on earth. We do know that the sun burned with about 2/3rds of the intensity back then as it does now, so before 2 billion years ago, there was little oxygen in the atmosphere, and a lot of heat-trapping methane, along with carbon dioxide. The early deoxygenated atmosphere was adapted for producing high levels of heat-trapping gases to prevent the earth from freezing. As the sun slowly increased intensity, the earth warmed, and the quantity of oxygen-producing plant life increased. During times when too much oxygen was being created, temperatures plunged and ice sheets covered all of the land surfaces of the planet, causing mass extinctions of life. Once everything balanced out to turn earth into a world where earth would have to prevent carbon buildup, more oxygen in the atmosphere eliminated methane almost entirely and cut the amount of CO2 down to a fraction of what it had been before. During the Pleistocene Epoch that ended 10,000 years ago, CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 2.5 million years. The only periods where CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm since the Cenozoic era began have been accompanied by extinctions. So, in our time right now, we have set the dials for all of the ice on the planet to melt...except possibly for the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, and for marine species to migrate to northern waters because...according to a recently released study, fish are leaving the tropics because oxygen levels are declining to a point where they have trouble absorbing oxygen with their gills. Algae also die off and that will leave deoxygenated tropical oceans that will turn into anoxic swamps, and kill off marine life as it expands towards the poles. Land species have migrated north and south also to escape the heat and become extinct...but all the shit we have built in the past 2 or 3 centuries, plus our large populations and fenced off agribusiness leaves barriers for animals trying to escape the tropics already. Because whatever the human contribution is for AGW (I'm assuming it's much higher than your dubious oil-funded sources will tell us) the natural environment was able to absorb and sequester the additional carbon being added by humans to keep atmospheric CO2 from rising above 300 ppm. So, where do we go from here? And can this road to disaster be stopped in time to prevent the mass extinction from taking all of us out with it?

Problem here: the technological approaches for carbon sequestration are turning out to be very ineffective. There's not much point to expending a lot of energy to capture carbon from the atmosphere if most of it ends up being released back again. And the natural methods applied so far...like planting thousands of trees, have backfired several times when long term droughts dry out forests, and new plantings just add more kindling and of course more carbon goes up with the smoke. No, forced sterilization contains the built in assumption that everybody -- rich or poor, American or African, has an equal carbon footprint...which is plainly false! It's the wealthier industrialized nations which consume the most energy, push the oil, coal and gas extraction around the world, and consume the most energy. And under a system of globalized capitalism, it is the rich nations who have the most economic power -- which quickly transforms into political power, and overruns the choices and goals of people living in the poorer nations of the global south. So, we end up with climate efforts that chip around the edges, but won't directly approach or deal with the 800 lb gorilla in the room -- capitalism!

Yes, a number of paleontologists who studied the Permian-Triassic Extinction are sure that it was the worst extinction even in the history of our planet. There is geologic evidence for prior extinctions not listed, starting in a time about 2.4 billion years ago, when the Earth's oxygen levels suddenly increased rapidly, and removed most of the methane from the atmosphere by combining with carbon to produce less heat-trapping CO2 gas. In the early, primordial period of the planet when there was very little oxygen, most life was microbial of one form of cyanobacteria or other. After the great oxygenation events 2 billion years ago, the diversity of life greatly increased, but it also started a number of extinctions, when the reduced greenhouse effects of having oxygen led to the mass glaciation events with ice sheets extending to the equator. As for asteroid/comet hits causing massive long-lasting dust clouds cooling the planet, this is only a known feature of the K-T Extinction, that eliminated the dinosaur species. But, even the KT also coincided with the Indian Continent crashing into Asia about 63 million years ago, that created the Himalayan Mountain Range and the Deccan Trapps to its south...which were a volcanic flood basalt plain of continuous volcanism at the time, and raised carbon dioxide levels and also caused a long warming event. So, it got real cold for a short time, and there was no food available till the dust cleared, and then the climate started getting too hot! But during the million year long P-T Extinction, caused by the breakup of the super-continent - Pangea, the formation of the Siberian Traps (the largest in the world) elevated CO2 levels and heated the planet to a point that more than 90% of species on earth died out, making it the worst extinction event of all. And that's what a lot of clueless idiots seem to be pushing for today, as we dump more carbon into the atmosphere faster than at any other time in the planet's history. Personally, I don't see tech as the solution to a changing climate, especially when it's the use of other technologies that have caused the problem to begin with. The continual increase in CO2 levels since the mid-1850's is a clear indicator that we reached a point where carbon sequestration by natural forces could no longer handle increasing amounts of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere. So, ever since then it keeps going up and up, and where is it going to stop? It seems the forces that govern nature and maintain the carbon cycle have a budget to work with, and if we keep exceeding the planet's ability to absorb carbon, then we will all end up cooked! So, instead of inventing gadgets and devices to try to pull more and more carbon out of the air, why not invent new ways of living that eliminate the need for constant growth and put us back in harmony within the limits all life have to live with? There's nothing more ludicrous than expecting exponential growth while living on a finite planet with finite resources.

They're controlling all of the levers of power now (except for the Judiciary of course), but their donors are as rightwing on economic issues as the Republicans, so they can't or won't put a public healthcare bill in place, or do major public spending on infrastructure. So, all they got left is making a lot of noise about race and gender issues. Now that Trump is gone, how are they going to keep this game going in the future? They're back in the saddle at a time when a lingering pandemic has destroyed businesses and millions of jobs, and many of those jobs aren't coming back afterwards. And they don't have an FDR in charge....just a senile old man who was never good for anything in his best day! The next few years under President Joe, will be like having Herbert Hoover back in the White House.

We're already heading down that road, because NAFTA et al has locked us in to the same economic pattern as the US. Our governments have less and less freedom to plot an independent course. I imagine that the US Federal Reserve debt expansion has made it possible (and necessary) for Canada and the other NATO allies to turn their central banks loose, but at a more limited level than the $27 Trillion the US Fed has been bleeding in red ink this year. A few days back, financial blogger - Wolf Richter asked this pertinent question: Who Bought the $4.5 Trillion Added in One Year to the Incredibly Spiking US National Debt, Now at $27.9 Trillion? And, what everybody else really wants to know is when does panic and hyperinflation set in, and pull us along with it? Because all the buyers of instant money cannot get payed back by an economy which cannot grow anymore to absorb all of the old debt created. At some point, more and more people will realize that paper currencies are already part of a giant ponzi scheme, and the whole thing will just go belly up when enough investors realize that they won't get the returns they were promised.

And if you buy lottery tickets every day, you too can be a millionaire...at least that's what the commercials tell us! I'm sure the main reason why lotteries and casino gambling have taken off and led so many poor, dumb people to gamble is because it's the only chance they have to get rich...or just not slide further and further into poverty. Do you actually think Bill Gates or any of the other dotcom and social media leeches created their multibillion dollar monopolies from their hard work and superior intellects? Certainly that's what they would like us all to believe. But, consider that the entire internet revolution was kicked off with free government help! Specifically, from the DOD's ARPANET program that started in the 60's, and was used to interface time-sharing computers in the US and beyond. Gates was not a starving college student, eating pizza in his dorm room as you're suggesting. He came from a well off family, wealthy enough to send him to an elite private school that already had a computer terminal and programming courses before 1970. Gates never did spend time in college, but instead worked on his little startup called Microsoft, formed with school friends Paul Allen and others. Gates' genius..if you want to call it that, was being shrewd enough not to sell the copyrights along with the DOS system sold to IBM for a flat fee of $50,000. Gates reasoned that once other computer designers saw IBM using their operating system, then everyone else would want it too. In the 80's, with the introduction of Windows, a user-friendly graphical interface, it was effectively a license to print money. Gates saw that as long as Microsoft continued growing, his best way to grow his own wealth was to buy out Paul Allen and other early shareholders who also had a major stake. At least he didn't just outright cheat them, like Steve Jobs's cutting and thrusting at Apple, or Zuckerberg did to the Winklevoss twins when he realized how lucrative Facebook could become in the future. So, in almost every example of the dotcom billionaires, their rewards have come from ruthless greed in business/ and not great powers of invention! Most of the parasites just take the great ideas of their engineers and stake their claims over them. And about Wealth Redistribution! Do you only work at something if you see big rewards for it? I make a decent living doing my job, which I will be retiring from soon. I consider work as the way to pay the bills and put food on the table, I've never spent time trying to figure out how to get rich, by any means or method! After I retire, I'm not going to miss going to work every day. I have enough interests and hobbies to occupy my time, and when I no longer have to put in five days a week working, then I'll have even more time doing the things I like to do. I believe the only way we can all survive on this rock is to turn to socialism and remove conditions that create inequality. A book I bought 10 years ago - The Spirit Level by two British epidemiologists - Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett goes through all of the statistical data comparing nations and local regions and states within, comparing all sorts of quality of life statistics. The inescapable conclusions Pickett and Wilkinson came to is that healthier, more livable societies are also most equal, regardless of overall wealth/ while even the richest nations like the United States, that also had great gaps in income and wealth did poorly when compared by physical and mental health, drug abuse, education, crime and incarceration, obesity, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and life expectancies. https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level Also, regarding 'democracy,' I would say that if we allow corporations and their superrich major shareholders to buy politicians and change laws and regulations in their favor, then we got democracy in name only!

I was glad to see a 'one percent' movement rise up 10 years ago, but I wish the framing of it had gone beyond it's focus on top 1% of income earners as being the ones running away with all the money and economic gains. If we look at who holds the most economic power, it's less than .1% who have the enormous wealth to buy politicians and political influence, along with media and culture to change the way issues are presented to us. I can't think of a better example than the misrepresentation of climate change and how the global warming crisis and proposed 'solutions' are talked about at the big enviro conferences, like at Davos. It's only now, after at least 20 years of understanding that looming disaster is already upon us, that we're finally hearing some focus on the economics that drives the carbonization of the atmosphere. But, the top billionaires we're all familiar with, can't sell their BS garbage all by themselves. And that's where we need to look at the top 10% of earners, many of whom are PMC's - or part of the professional managerial class of varying levels of importance. There are more traditional doctors and lawyers among this segment, but nowadays, there are many engineers, analysts and managers who make the trains run on time so to speak, for the billionaires and get relatively modest pay and benefits for their efforts. But, being PMC's, they get the status of having decision-making power over those of us who are hourly wage earners and do the grunt work. And with a little overtime, we can sometimes even make more money than the PMC's. BUT, the frontline weasels still have power over our jobs....which is why workers need to be members of unions now more than ever! And, the Trump era has ripped the scab off of the suppressed debate over whether the mostly liberal PMC's are friends of labor (as they pretend to be) or bigger enemies than rightwing selfish conservatives, who want a survival of the fittest society anyway. Well, I guess my point is that it is no accident that the earnings of blue collar workers have been eviscerated in the past four decades! This was all done deliberately, and the political parties we thought were on our side (NDP and LIberals to a lesser extent here, and Democrats in the US) have shown themselves to have been part of the scheme to sell us out as their concerns shifted to keeping the PMC's happy, and using bullshit and false promises to try to win enough votes to stay in power.