Hollus

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side. I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way. The orignal nature of capitalism was that it would not be counterproductive to democracy. Adam Smith, widely regarded as the father of modern economics, argued it should include "good Christian values." Looking at the U.S., the only time Bush feels the need to include "good Christian values" in his government is when he is campaigning. I think that otherwise, he is all about the big corporate (read: Enron) guys. Ya man. I dont think many would argue that society should be based on some form of "good Christian values" as you say. Although it should not be religion that dictates these values, finding common ground on the basic "human values" inwhich we would like to govern our society shouldnt be difficult. Its the implemintation thats difficult, being that we've strayed so far from these values(or perhaps never really valued them).

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side. I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way.

First. I hear about a guy who got fired for doing drugs at work or a guy fired for absenteeism that after being off for 6 weeks ends up getting hired back because unions forced the company to--and get paid a paid holiday even though he was fired with cause. That's not about worker rights. Unions are getting way too greedy these days. Maybe its just me, but I don't think unskilled labour is worth more than about $25 an hour. These unions that force wages up or threaten to bring business to a standstill, or engage in illegal labour practices like work slow downs to get near $40 an hour shouldn't be surprised their jobs get exported. Unions used to be about health and safety and getting the worker a fair share, now they've gone so far that a day doesn't go by that I don't hear about these high paying jobs being exported. They're doing themselves and the rest of us great disservice by driving high paying jobs out of the country. Blame the companies all you want. But if I own the company, and like the Big Three you're not making any profit in North America, I do what I have to get back to profitability. Where unions have done their membership wrong is to put these companies in the position that it is worth sacrificing the flexibility of having plants located near where the product is sold thereby making their jobs here expendable. Second. My job isn't doomed. I don't work there. I was saying that as an example. The point was that even trophy plants that the automakers brag about aren't immune to this. It is a complete miss conception that the outsourcing of our factories and jobs is the fault of unions. And your definition of unskilled labour is also missleading, as it refers to anyone without credentials from a educational institution. So everyone in the oilpacth making these wages that dont have a trade or degree(like oil rig crews) are no different. I dont want to start debating the validity of unions in our current economical climate, which is why Ive treid to address the broader topic industry relations in a thread titled:Sailing a sinking ship. There is one good example of successful union/industry relations in the Mosiac mine fire last week. Leaves me to wonder if similar operations were in-place, maybe that tragic mine accident in West Verginia would have faired better. Whats good for {insert corporate name} is not necessarily good for Canadians.

No they're not. However, I do think they have a place in moderating the mediums inwich freedom of speech is expressed. For example: Don Cherry is a very opinionated guy and I love em for it, but when he makes derogatory comments about people based on things outside the realm of the game(like being french), than he's departed from his role as a sports commentator and entered the realm of political punditry. Its fine if Don wants to express these views, just not on Hockey Night in Canada. Thats interesting that CBC has 40% in sirius. Remember the controversy over addmitung sat. radio to the canadian market. Dont qoute me on this but I think CBC might have those shares to promote Canadian programming in that medium. Think I remember hearing that. Cause the big problem was Sat. radio with 99% US programming would not adhere to canadian content laws. And I do think there is cause for concern in that sense: I was just reading an article in the province(b.c) news the other day that spoke of how in the late 50's early 60' canadian radio would not play anything by canadian artists. The Guess Who were the first canadian band to break on to canadian radio and they did so by fooling the stations into thinking they were British. By the time the stations found out they were canadian there song was already a hit. Once this self directed prejudice was expossed, we developed canadian content law. And I love the CBC. The hour with strombo, Rick Mercers Monday Report, Passionate Eye. Those are quality programs.

Yes. We could easily fill a thread with examples of how we've plundered other nations 'all in the name of capatilism'. As we speak Canada US and France or supporting the coup that overthrew the popularly elected president Aristide. Now look at the state of Haiti, its civil war. Where does it say: Democracy aplies only if its in the best interest of our corporations that do bussiness in your country. If we're going to fight the 'war on terrorizim', we need to also apply it to ourselves. Im trying to understand how we can govern our nation with respect to Canadians, when the determining factor of our economic prosperity(our livelyhood) lies with transnational corporations. These corporations dont share our values and beliefs(unless you consider greed a value or belief). They're only concern is to stay competitive in they're market and they'll go against anything to do so. How can we expect the goevernment of Canada to inact the will of the people when doing so will drive away our employers, leaving us with no jobs? Has industry hi-jacked government? Is it political suicide to question the foundation of our society?

If there was a strawman manufacturing plant, you'd be employee of the month. I'm not sure where "resent the rich" is in the NDP platform. But I can see how someone with your servile attitude would interpret the idea that government should work for the betterment of all instead of just a few as "resentment". In other words, the state exists to serve capital and those who possess it? And we can't do anything to upset our betters lest they grow angry and smite us. I've got a newsflash: the people you seem so concerned with protecting don't give a shit about you. Indeed, as corporate and personal taxes have fallen over the past decades, income levels for the top 20 per cent of the population have gone up, while real incomes for everyone else have stagnated or fallen, even as governments cut income support and other programs. I could go on, but my point is simple: polices devoted to appeasing corporate/capital interests have been the norm in North America for the past 20 years plus, but they've done little to help families and workers. Now, maybe you belive we should just be happy we have jobs at all, but I think we can do better. OK then, how do you propose we tax them and have it benefit us? Nine times out of ten when we tax the rich we either pay with our jobs or at the cash register. How does that help people? Your right Hicksey. Its much deeper than tax cuts. Welcome to class-warfare. I've started a thread in an attemt to address this very issue. I titled it: 'Sailing a sinking ship?' Im waiting for some feedback

I appreciate your working attitude "FACT: Before human activities began to dramatically increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources closely matched the amount that was stored or absorbed through natural processes. For example, as forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis; this carbon is then sequestered in wood, leaves, roots and soil. Some carbon is later released back to the atmosphere when leaves, roots and wood die and decay. Carbon dioxide also cycles through the ocean. Plankton living at the ocean's surface absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The plankton and animals that eat the plankton then die and fall to the bottom of the ocean. As they decay, carbon dioxide is released into the water and returns to the surface via ocean currents. As a result of these natural cycles, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air had changed very little for 10,000 years. But that balance has been upset by man. Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil has put about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is naturally removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere. Today, carbon dioxide levels are 30% higher than pre-industrial levels, higher than they have been in the last 420,000 years and are probably at the highest levels in the past 20 million years. Studies of the Earth's climate history have shown that even small, natural changes in carbon dioxide levels were generally accompanied by significant shifts in the global average temperature. We have already experienced a 1°F increase in global temperature in the past century, and we can expect significant warming in the next century if we fail to act to decrease greenhouse gas emissions." I can't understand why your holding on to the idea that global warming could just be some coincidence

"Over the millennium before the Industrial Era, the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases remained relatively constant. Since then, however, the concentrations of many greenhouse gases have increased directly or indirectly because of human activities. Table 1 provides examples of several greenhouse gases and summarises their 1750 and 1998 concentrations, their change during the 1990s, and their atmospheric lifetimes. The contribution of a species to radiative forcing of climate change depends on the molecular radiative properties of the gas, the size of the increase in atmospheric concentration, and the residence time of the species in the atmosphere, once emitted." Thats on page 38 of the link I provided.

Maybe you could explain who's fault it is? Im sure your grandchildren will be proud of the effort you've made. It's a natural process that has been occuring since the beginning of Earth. For some reason we have this ridiculous belief that it should stop for us (even though we've already been through one major ice age and another mini-iceage during the middle ages). CO2 makes up such a tiny tiny amount of green house gases (compared to water vapour, which is pretty much single handedly the only gas to consider) to even be considered. Look at Mars. It has more CO2 in its atomosphere. Why is it colder? Because it has no water vapour (or less water vapour actually). I don't want to get into the science, because I'm no scientist and I really have no idea about the details. But I do have common sense that says when CO2 is 0.0097% of our air it doesn't really matter too much. The glaciers have been receding for a long long time. Go look at how big of an area your local river took up back in the day, when the glaciers (if your river is glaicer fed) were running off at higher rates than today. "MYTH: Even if the Earth is warming, we can't be sure how much, if any, of the warming is caused by human activities. FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide), methane, and other greenhouse gases - form a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat form the sun, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate. The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, Spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying." Climate Change: The Scientific Basis

So the arms race continues. Whats next? Dogs with bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you. Russian Topol-M

Let Howard say what he wants, if you dont like it dont listen. Simple as that.

Have you got some resources to support this? The fact is he wouldn't. Regulations on important things like water pollution and toxic waste work better than a pollution tax (which is nearly impossible to inforce) which will just become an operating expense. "Well if we pay 5% more in pollution tax and make 25% more in profit... lets do it!" says the Pollution Inc. CEO. Greenhouse gas emission (carbon taxable) are not responsible for global warming. The composition of green house gases is only about 0.9% CO2. Remember that over 95% is water vapour, something we have absolutely no control over. So no, nice try, go back to Suzuki and give him a hug because he's probably crying. Lets get working on real environmental issues like soil toxicity and water pollution, things that actually make a difference and stop worrying about how a few Euros will cry when we rip up Kyoto. How do you expect to go mountianeering with no glaciers? "As discussed in the TAR, most models also indicate that known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric stabilization levels but that implementation would require socio-economic and institutional changes."-UPCC Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers Get onboard man Even if global warming is our fault (which its not), its too late to stop my glaciers from retreating in my lifetime. Maybe you could explain who's fault it is? Im sure your grandchildren will be proud of the effort you've made.

Have you got some resources to support this? The fact is he wouldn't. Regulations on important things like water pollution and toxic waste work better than a pollution tax (which is nearly impossible to inforce) which will just become an operating expense. "Well if we pay 5% more in pollution tax and make 25% more in profit... lets do it!" says the Pollution Inc. CEO. Greenhouse gas emission (carbon taxable) are not responsible for global warming. The composition of green house gases is only about 0.9% CO2. Remember that over 95% is water vapour, something we have absolutely no control over. So no, nice try, go back to Suzuki and give him a hug because he's probably crying. Lets get working on real environmental issues like soil toxicity and water pollution, things that actually make a difference and stop worrying about how a few Euros will cry when we rip up Kyoto. How do you expect to go mountianeering with no glaciers? "As discussed in the TAR, most models also indicate that known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric stabilization levels but that implementation would require socio-economic and institutional changes."-UPCC Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers Get onboard man

Hopefully you'd be happy unemployed, or your employed by the government. Businesses in Canada that are not somewhat reliant on manufacturing or resources are few and far between. The cost in jobs would be unbelievable as a result of a carbon tax. Businesses would be running across that border so fast. Geoff, how many companies are running across the border now because of income taxes and GST and various other surcharges.My point is that income taxes could be (will be) abolished and government will obtain its revenues from environmental taxes such as a carbon tax. We will eat our cake (pay for our government services) and have it too (protect the environment). This is an obvious no-brainer. Canada's main resource is the environment. We would be wise to protect it and use it wisely. Look at what happened to Newfoundland's cod fishery when we don't. Have you got some resources to support this?

??? no I cant. Maybe the culmative effect of each individual? But personal resonsibility is a different subject. Sueing polluters may very well work, but first we have to address the issue of increasing our environmental law without losing all our jobs to less regulated countries. And as it stands now a corporation will break environmental law if the profit outwieghs the cost of the punishment.

Ya, so exaclty how long do we have to wait till the US takes initiative on the envirounment? I heard Bush say we're all addicted to oil but I did'nt hear a recovery program.

Well good on you for being the bigger man. Although I think that was out the window when you generalized 90% of Canadians with leftist views as not willing to defend themselves.

Your so deluded im not even going to waste my time replying. tml12: You've just been added to my 'dead to me' list. Have a nice life(ignorant ass!) You aren't the first person on my "dead to me" list either. I can see that really got to you. Got to me? No. As I mentioned before you are clearly deluded. -Well, I dont drink much beer, so I cant relate to this lefty on that. -I dont generaly believe in nationalism, I think its destructive to society. However, I do believe in democratic government; I am proud of the freedoms we've honoured but equally ashamed of those we've dissregarded. Not a flag waver. -You probably confused "anti-American ranting" with anti-Bushism ranting. -Canada is a multiculturalistic society so I hope he beleived in it. So should you. Are you going to share what this 18 year old had to say or should I just assume it was to much for you to comprehend? So now your attacking this 18 year olds honour. Questioning his dedication and love for his family, his friends, his envirounment, his hopes and dreams of the future. Based on what??? What have you done that allows you to go around attacking people like this? So once the kid realized he was trying to converse with a mental midget, he got uncomfortable and left. Then you went on spewing your ignorant, deluded bullshit on mapleleafweb. Hence,

Would you care to elaborate, for my sake?

Its amazing how many people seem to subscribe to 'If its good for {insert corporate name}, its good for Canada.' In a world of stateless capital and transnational corporations, ownership no longer conveys values of responsibility and good stewardship. If shifting operations to Indonesia or Brazil is less costly, patriotism will not be the factor that drives the business desicion. Is capatilism working? Has our government that was 'for the people, by the people' been hi-jacked by industry? An industry where survival is based on accountabilty to shareholders. Maybe a better question is: How can capatilism be changed to serve more than an investers rate of return? Veiwpoints?

Your so deluded im not even going to waste my time replying. tml12: You've just been added to my 'dead to me' list. Have a nice life(ignorant ass!)

Well said Black Dog! Give me a break! Unions are about workers rights. If everything is left up to industry you get a big fat pig of company sucking up our ecological wealth and feeding it to shareholders with very little support put back to the community. Logging is a perfect example. As industry technology evloves, logging rates increase while employment rates decrease. So who's getting the fair share? Shae-holder from the global market who have money to invest, or Canadian whoes small town is stricken with poverty/unemployment and has large tracts of clear-cut land within city-limits(where popular recreational trails used to exist)... I feel raped. Its about time Canadains stood up for their country and not globe trotting corporations. Unfortunatly, the current economic envirounment created by previous liberal/conservative governments has pretty much got us pimped out to corporate interests, and dis' pimp dont like back talk. Maybe if NDP had power in the past we wouldnt be in this situation. Your damn right I pvoted for Jack! P>S Hicksey, your job is doomed. Domestic auto is a fraction of the cost of imports and their still being out sold. Tax cuts wont do shit, imports are simply better vehicles.

I like daydreaming... -Freeze all City Limits -Population control -War on personal auto's(rebuild infastructure for rapid trans.) -convert to Green energy -re-work capatilism to accept sustainable development, or turf capatilism and start anew. -Universal human rights -A nation of world citizens breaking down nationalism, promoting social/political awarness and responsibilties of a contributing person. BEEPBEEEPBEEP ...aw damn back to reality.

I have lots of friends from South and Central America. When their governments were oppressing those people and the United States government was supplying those governments with arms, they started hating the United States for helping with the oppression. The United States then played hero and tried saving them from the militaries they were funding, so they could be the hero. Well all those games backfired on them. Orwell's quote from BlackDog's signature correctly describes U.S. foreign policy in the South and Central American region and yes, what they did was very wrong. Sponsoring Pinochet was very wrong and a nasty political move by the US and UK. However, at the time the world was a much different place and action had to be taken to ensure that Communism was stopped at all costs. I do not justify such actions, rather I say that you need to look at the world as it was then. How about what U.S, Canada and France are upto in Haiti right now? How do you justify this coup?US arming anti-aristide paramilitarycanada out of haiti! Yes the capitalist system is the best we've got, but it if we dont make it conducive to the laws of nature we are doomed. You cant tell me CEO decisions are not made to increase shareholder returns. A corporation will break envirounmental law as long as its profitable. Where does it leave us when our government cant even make decisions for Canada without first having to consider what kind of lawsuit we will face for affecting a corp.s projected profit?

(coughed a bong whoot out my nose while laughing reading this) They totally look alike!