RB

thoughts? yes bring that non-profit idea to the businesses in toronto - your capital trading hub of canada it will only increase investments and motivate all growth projections ... i think businesses ONLY owe community relations to the public. companies are already governed by all sorts of rules and restrictions external to their control

Hjalmar while you are adamant and getting rather anxious to rid unions, contrary to your believe Canadian employers accept unions as an integral part of the work environment, well some employers only tolerate unions and a small significant could fight to a bitter end. to the latter it is clear that those some employers really have to rethink how to handle unions because the federal and 10 provinces have been given collective bargaining rights to workers what is workable ... employers just have to come up with the right strategies to dissuade unionisation. McDonalds restaurant classic example failed to unionised in Orangeville, ON ... apparently they are "pro-employee" not "anti-union" i have seen unionize environments also dissolved because of some smart move by management well only just because you are wondering i give the burden of reporting activities to the males of this land, verification can be collated with # of screamers (technolgy can make this possible, maybe we find we all have unique voice) well just to make sure there is no inconsistency fellows - otherwise we will only have high performance reporting. but Hjalmar the way the government operates as soon as you get too familiar with some process it is shifted around and called another name so don't hold your breathe

the statutes in all jurisdictions in Canada require that collective agreements contain clauses to: 1) forbid strikes 2) lockouts when we look at striking activity – occur mostly in the area of education and health in the public sectors, which I can add, ditto, it not responsive to the labor market conditions as would private sector furthermore, notice is given to union leaders, management and labor boards prior to striking – good grief you want to forbid people to organize conventional wisdom says that in Canada we have many branch operations and multi-national companies and there are not much room to maneuver negotiations hence strikes e.g. auto. i want to blame those companies that they do want to exploit local labor. for our good canadians an attempt to motivate higher wages – why strike should not be an option?, foreign companies wishing to maintain a public image in host countries will stay competitive – hmm what can i say nowadays “protocols” are in place to lessen distant relations and companies to be our sweethearts but unions will continue to exist, people have vested interest here especially when there are shortages of jobs, and good lawyers around i disagree, union dues, professional dues, etc all are memberships and related to current employment, the latter to perhaps keep a status recognized by law such as P.Eng and the offer is development to stay current with new possibilities, trends, laws, etc. just as the car expenses you claim related to employment, house is no claim well unless you meant using it for business this is ridiculous, same as why don’t just we just tax people by occupation, tax on # of times they have sex per week, and job categories

it is illegal under Labor Relations law to threaten closure or intimidate workers because they have decided to organise, it is illegal to threaten dismissal, or renegiotiate with workers..alter wages, or descrimate, or change terms of conditions of employment etc. the law guarantees a right to join a union, when a workplace is unionise whether the non-management employee (such as a temporary worker or a contract worker) is a member of the union or not…they are represented by the union in conflicts the employer usually is not the one who decides the OK under the labor act the employer is required by law to "...make every reasonable effort" to negotiate a contract with the union

no kidding! when business is dying we have contingincies in place you should contact the ministy of enterprise, opportunity and innovation to help you - thats why they exist

subsidy for agriculture i support because it makes economic sense when sectors of industry are affected with regards to losses i think it is a social responsiblity of government to step in - well it is unfair for employees of companies to be held responsible for uncontrollable market disasters. furthermore, companies have to also take responsiblities of errors in forcasting demand and supply. for wages i believe performace should be tied to wages, with band-widths and scales but agree that unions do try some hardball bargaining to the detriment of companies

well lets face it, talk of unions and this Canada starts portraying some flaccid emotions, in the US folks are emotionally charged and at least have people who buy into markets and free enterprise well Canada, we care about people and protection. so the start with government …. very good environment for unions to foster growth and survive. the argument put forward already is that the government leadership can change and that the workers need a stable livelihood and some work security. and the union, well, they are only happy to facilitate needs, so fix your wage discrepancies, minority..hows that? implement some pay inequality clause and by the way while we are at it add-on workplace protection rights, well face it so that you workers stay long term, we will give you 15% more wages… why lose good workers .. they already bought into the system and so on Also from your prior arguments of unions and companies: 1) it is true, these companies have a lower market value when they are unionized 2) return on capital is much lower 3) companies are inclined to reduced R&D 4) rate of growth and productivity down the connection is the usual suppose we: - reduce the # of workers within government hence smaller union size and outsource or privatize services of government to maximize: -efficient in the labor force -hence productive -hence investment -hence advancement in areas of technology -hence growth no coincidence this bottom line = more revenues as in taxes for the government

we are looking for a happy medium so my answer is better design of public policy and better design of labor laws in canada it is by far easier to unionise that the US and of course the law gives autonomy to unions maybe if we have have such a law that ensures a preamble in the contracts: e.g. here is what supercedes the union but i do like socilaist protection especially in government because we are protected esp. in arbitrary dismissal but more for job security .... will continue later

The Learning disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) (Ontario Human Rights Code) (Refined A-Z list of sectors dealing with various disabilities) hope it helps, if you need specific information PM me

my kid and i sometimes hang out at the Wynick/Tuck gallery. it is a small, quiet gallery, not a lot of folks milding about and sometimes we happened upon an artist my observation is just as the sciences …. art is about inquiry. it is a search for answers as it expresses attitudes, becomes engaging, provide solutions, and compare observations well the mathematical person is usually of logic, are mostly of quantity, shape and arrangement as they attempt to find answers. but I don’t know if a logical person will actually say that architecture is the “art of wasting space beautifully” but somehow this logic indeed does correlates to art because it is the engineering mind that created the awe of the Louvre an artist can delightfully create for us a thing of beauty, or what is relevant or what is a significant event, or a symbolic affair or whatever you wish upon i think the link in this instance is experience, feelings, and understanding and it does not have to be innovative as it connects with history, questions and answers. similar to Krusty’s experience, these artists in their music, painting, and writing are motivated and moved mostly by themselves in their expression in what they do, well unless they are spotlighted, or have some talent to market products it is useless for money making in my hasty attempt to compare art to the sciences i find that: • Art can become a way of thinking and an attitude of mind • Art has conquer itself by its development of its various methods e.g. types of art • Art use experiences to lead rather than follow – it allows the sneak-preview of finer things but also to build explanations and also refine it • Art poses questions and we can use our experience, various methods to confront the questions • Art also can provide alternative explanations. Well art can propose a different view, perhaps conflicting view, but the point is we can have a debate about some assumption • Art allows the artist boundless opportunities to pursue the artist own questions, hence our larger concepts of life unveil rather than disconnected truths • Art produces new knowledge and communication therefore it can become political for me art has a connection with everything Art like science cannot and does not, work in isolation and must have some full complement of thinking to EXPANSION, maybe of new ideas and thoughts, of shared experience and thoughts and their imaginings i believe this is the humbleness of what the artist strive for well that’s why i show up to at the galleries/theaters where ever yep i want to master the art of humbleness

art is a creative form of articulation and is expressed in music, writing, paintings, sculptures, cabinet making, textiles, architecture, dance etc and is traced in parallelism (well writing was sort a reserve as "secret" for those who can read) all others are of entertainment nowadays art is broadly define you can master “art” in vocalization, selling, playing, whatever line of work your're in - stock market? what i am not for sure of is did art emerged as a practical necessary? well the archaeologist can say based on the art that they have discovered from remote civilizations and of long ago is that emotions and feelings are very similar to that of our own now. and they have also discover art showing animals and people hunting. so perhaps the art is useful to help others to hunt, and perhaps the animals were of religious significance. but what is clear in my mind is ART IS POWERFULl. it is symbolic of common language even when it becomes complicated and presented by mathematics - geometry-cubism, physics –light/color, impressions, singing, dance, and is consumed with truths during the western middle ages Islamic and Jewish art form were almost abstract to the point where it was forbidden to produce an image of god. in early christian europe theologians, intellects, politicians in recurrent phases railed against the power of art. well, if you look at the waves of iconoclasm in the byzantine empire see the “bonfires of vanities” was eliminated, thousands of works of “degenerate art” were destroyed in nazi germany. why? because it is the art that depicted scenes, figures and recognizable objects that instilled some presence of the here and reality so art is very interesting in that it tells the story of different points of history when we fast forward to now, we can see that art have evolve and added significant meaning as it relates to life to what is present day showing modern man in claustrophobic setting, as he is a victim to society, worn and discarded, to what is surreal, to urban graffiti, drugs and AIDS such as “Keith Haring – untitled” what i see with art is that we find multiply ways for meaning as it exists to be transmitted allowing everyperson to experience through art ... history, in the moving and the indispensable emotion of what is beauty of life well, i believe here is what the artist sees .... so you give the artist what he needs and he will put everything in its place, well how about what the eye can see you see for example: you want two breasts, here .... have your two breasts you want your nude detailed, here..... right down to the final pussy hair or see "attempting the impossible" rene magritte - Painting "Attempting the Impossible" my point is sleeping with the depicted painter it is quite impossible no?

look it i believe that all folks gays and non-gays should be treated fairly before the law regardless and however they somehow will impove society or be considered a detriment. it is outcome actions i argue for mostly, i am concern when people are faced with systemic discrimination such that they are put into some precautious positions of being treated/judge unfairly. i also believe that trying to put laws in place to change tradition somehow will not work because of what is perceived ethical and tradition, but at least it forces compliance and is a workable compromise. we just should not suddenly appear at standstill and the end of the tether when those who are gay are exercising fair share of rights to have open discussion which I believe is THE most vital role played out in all these issues of equality, gay’s rights, abortion etc. for me it is not right to remove choices until you have cure for symptoms of so called issues. legislating a right to marry for a gay would allow for choice. currently we are at this rational we can afford to say if you are gay: - we will give you some irrelevant perks which you also wish for but (no-marriage) - or whatever we are please to offer to you in lieu of marriage, which but also means no marriage, - but also we have no solution for you - and as we draw our own conclusions likely leveraging towards traditional marriages as we remain totally biased in a continued support for you. the hypocritics we are.

i actually caught the latter part of the debate with the much anxious exhibition of french, and the stumbling and mimicking styles, and good someone provided a link that i listened for a bit i was impressed with Harper, and Clement who wanted to impress upon Harper anyway i thought Harper sounded like one of those good government folks you just listen to Clement reminded me of major, so i questioned some folks whether they'd be interested in helping him, and they had not really followed Clement but are patriotic. i didn't realise a naturalized person can become PM. anyway, i thought about this whole politics and what's in this for me? and so I decided to write openly to the chairman of Magna for starters Dear Mr STRONACH I would like to tell you, in plain words, why I seek to apply for the top position of CEO Why I have the qualifications to lead Magna in the 21st century. why I can lead Magna to create a the bestest of world class companies through sheer charm Because I have never worked in the automotive manufacturing sector. This means that I can only offer a fresh approach I meet with companies and ordinary folks looking for work all day long. In fact my target of the amount of people I should meet is set at 44,000 per year, and I am always concern about the bottom line, i.e. the money and production lost that could have been gains But I have a plan, it is usually to bring these entities successfully together, only I do exceed my own targets by 5,000% So you see there are successes to speak of, and here is some added value, I offer the only pair of fresh eyes to Magna from the very top You are looking at someone with a global perspective, in case size matters .. see it is zero zero, and different leadership style I believe a company should get what it deserves just like we want to give a country what we think it deserve

NO I am making an inference that all people could be gay based on: -your math, and -your rat example and -plant example and -your hypothesis gene variation link to the environment and also we cannot say for sure that any one person is 100% free of a gay gene trouble I have is the encouragement to the dominance to heterosexual development but when the dominance to homosexual emerges we cannot deal with it and really wish to be silent

The argument of the gene was there was sufficient ambiguity to assert that a gay gene exist in every person…not just gay people. further to the above assumption all people should be allowed to practice their individual freedoms. it means giving the same rights to all people. nepotism to certain groups allows for discrimination and leads to the less tolerated defiance and conflicting behavior here is my thought, try deleting the recognition of marriage based on sexuality, and question what are you left to grapple with? I will help you a bit - establishment of household - companionship - contract of status - property relations - and the usual lets not forget the love, love Now take some pride - with no sex preference: - Every person can contribute to this great land of ours - Each person can step up and identify with their contribution - Each person can identify with others in what they do - Each person can articulate how creative they and others are - and that Each person can actually contribute equally without biases then point a finger, picking a random person and label them as sick as you do now, and decide how right, wrong or lie? "I think a lot of gay people who are not dealing with their homosexuality get into right-wing politics." Armistead Maupin U.S. journalist, author

I particularly like this statement from the quote below that “any human behavior that is directed by the environment is always primed by genetics”. I would like to take your biological argument further to allude from the “The Gay Gene” thread that I am resolute in making such a statement that everyone was born with perhaps even the slightest “possibility” of being homosexual. Well accordingly since we could not totally rule out the non-existence of a gay gene. It is very clear to me how the pretentious humans have selectively advance only the heterosexual notion and assign privileges and make social a culture whilst always the minority that did advance a “possibility” is pigeon-hole into oblivion So now I would also ask whether you believe that gender therapy made available for homosexuals to explore heterosexuality is for whose betterment: the person or society? And then they can get marry? And then I would also express that we should also make available therapy to expand homosexuality is a behavior that should be promoted for a person right to self-determination? And then they can get marry? hmmm well if we can hypothesize that we cannot completely rule out that people are who they are and what they become - then how about applying law as in freedoms and equality consistently. Give respect, rights and freedoms as you apply it at between yourselves, at home, in communities, in states and universally no matter whom we declare we are i.e. gay or not-gay.

marriage is a universal institution, that is socially recognize. however a choice of mate though is usually a preference, symbolic of love and beauty is fundamentally accepted in western society. it is ironic that there is a call for suppressed love or beauty when it is deviating from the norm. i am afraid that we have only encouraged male female relationship from the beginning of time and have stifle same sex relation into silence from the beginning. and i blame tradition for bench marking and setting standards that is now adopted as gospel but not universal to all people. i have a tag line for gays only because you keep measuring them with your own standards and believe "i stand before judgement equal as a man and equal before the law" sort of don't tell everyone to proclaim love and then kill it when i do furthermore, in terms of legality of marriage, i wanted to point out that the popular belief that marriage is made VALID because it is consummated as in sexual relations is an error. there are other rights and obligations to be more vigilant about, like the ones that really bind the folks together with the usual reliance of the male, so you men better be physically and mentally competent to furnish the ladies with "necessaries" here is also what i meant "When two people marry they become in the eyes of the law one person, and that one person is the husband" Shana Alexander U.S. writer, editor. State-by-State Guide to Women's Legal Rights, Introduction

i support all people in their expression of their individual freedoms and i also have much more respect when they can also exercise and extend their voices to promote those freedoms especially when they are not of mainsteam voices. you have more economic advantages being a single person in terms of taxes, dependencies the only advantage being married is what is transferable which you can have as a single person being gay is still a messed up psyche in some people but the more informed and educated we are i believe the more accepting it becomes amending laws only fast forwards the inevitable its up to you to defind where you see "you" in the change acceptance process and in the broader scope of things - no one will take away your believes or penelize you

I am going to vote liberal because I do not believe in Stronach is qualified or experience to do a good job in politics currently but is going to appear on my voting ballot whether she wins the leadership or not - thats my dilemma and also the diversion from the good argument above here is my argument - Stronach says she leads 72,000 employees in 22 countries. There is something called core competencies that all her 72,000 workers were pre-screened for and interviewed for before they were hired. Well Stronach should know this, the call is also filtering … usually includes minimum requirements, educational, then experience, then qualification, the soft skills mesh, and team “player”. the important question ask is can the incumbent do the job? well did you develop or implement these public policies, any public agenda worthwhile mentioning and the eye is always pointed to “bottom line” which also coincides with the NET line, I don’t believe that Stonach will take such a 100% risk to trained a fresh one for perhaps important CEO job with a very steep learning curve starting from 0 and certainly not without any competencies and now I am afraid I would indeed be a “sucker” to believe she will hire someone based on creative alternative strategy such as, public charm, showing of leg, or those that come with bagging rights of wardrobe of size 0. I am fearless in my quest to encourage women to advance themselves but not to the disgrace of those who are (talking about women in politics currently) bona fide smart, intelligent, persevere and experienced women and men in politics somehow Stonach does not relate to the same. just to use one of her example of being a single parent is sorrowful of course but to the average person here is a little bit of what being a female single parent means in layman terms: - environmental issues: represents the distraught, housing needs, child care, transportation - social and economic problems, worries about how to hold down 2 or more jobs - lack of skills to return to work, takes survival jobs, hard time securing in permanent work, hardly advancement - limited qualification or education - pressure galore, painful is the effects the moods, morale - and the usual visitations, custody so you see i am voting for the liberal of my choice is clear in my riding. i will choose between the evils, and I will favor ones that come with the full minimum requirement and with a potential to do a good job and not just talk, walk, rant, or rank and media show.

The visible minority definition is enforced by law because of a history relationship of groups disproportionately represented and kept in a vicious cycle of economic despair with limited access to economic opportunities e.g. permanent jobs, pay inequities, career advancement etc. This is official definition of Visible Minority "Visible Minorities are persons (other than Aboriginal persons) who are non-Caucasian in race or non-White in color." Here are the groups included: Total Population Visible minority Chinese South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani, Punjabi, Sri Lankan) Black (e.g., African, Haitian, Jamaican, Somali) Arab/West Asian (e.g., Armenian, Egyptian, Iranian, Lebanese, Moroccan) Filipino South East Asian (e.g., Cambodian, Indonesian, Laotian, Vietnamese) Latin American Japanese Korean Non visible minority Aboriginal White Base on the original propose of visible minority I would like to question folks from Regent Park, Toronto who are consistently kept below the poverty line in a depressed socio economic cycle and are Caucasian, they fit into visible minority concept no, or a concentrated demographics of a particular culture that fits into the category of visible minority but sincerly believe and protest to be placed in such a category as visible minority so I question this self-identification data capture, generally I think it works favorably for this group, but find greater than 60% would not identify, so this law not needed any longer

i actually would like to see belinda win the conservative run and gather momentum for 08 – she has a better shot at a PM job at that time. in the interim she can prove her leadership, strengthen her politics and her shortcomings. well that is if she is even serious for another 4 years and what more why not capitalize on real politic, what are friends for, run parallel and in harmony with Hilary Clinton in 08 it would make for interesting times

replying to the first post on the thread here is my satirical eye for the lesser grade of idiocies. its analogous to theatre like putting the BS show on the road “I CAME AND HERE I AM” ... who said that - Strategy now – to begin 3 initial big wins, so the usual - father buys all the seats in the first three shows first “opening night” sold out second “opening night” sold out third “ opening night” sold out well you, you roistering cosmopolitans put these agendas in the show of your choice - mostly about who is steeping down, pulling in and out - you see we can recognize and needle every BS uttered only because we long ago also recognize an inability to really say anything so mostly about screw-ups, the call is bluff - the debate – “its about ideas” watch how creativity and originality plays out and an entire whole political system can go down with it – but recall a sold out show … applause i think the show is position to do well, well BS is position to show well literally. it has high aspirations even when flawed with limited experience, knowledge and intellect. the decks [using theatre for now, can change to playing cards instantly] well that just keep stacking up favorably for now. did I say for just no apparent reason. fourth show on the road to ottawa - guaranteed seats only the people are now seconding puppets “shows sold out” its cheap metaphors and mostly pretentious pseudo-politics at its worst i declare i am a liberal

there are religion classes available if a person wanted to be enlighten on religion i respect that people have a right to believe and practice religion. but when people in some form of authority and expertise such as educator imposes that believe, their believes or even their own biasness even subtly onto others it becomes questionable. and one complain is enough to warrant an investigation even from a job point of view. i would have like to see the incident just as a poor error in judgement, couselling sounds so medical, but perhaps it is what i hope some training in presentation of class material i often wonder whatever happened to “clinical supervision” and “peer supervision” in the classroom

the cases you listed had something in common – premeditated “violation of women” by men including -abduction, disappearance -murder -violence why should the media contemplate being silent - it brings awareness/consciousness to the public. maybe we can ask a very liberal government to look in to some media reporting only ibso facto on these culprits, criminals, scandalous and wicked acts so we can actually cry anytime of the day. i believe you are disapprove the angle of the media attack on the events, usually instead focus in on the victims it is the other way round – and plays on your sensibilities. the movie the shipping news set in the east coast tells of the unlikely writer bringing news to the people – prepare, mad storm brewing likely to wipe off cold island, then the realization that the storm never will happen kicks in, next day news, see - clear view to cold island because of mad storm that never happen. my response is it is up to you to decipher garbage from what is the real issue .... well i gotta run now

pell they say we can pay a price for our freedoms and you say we pay our soliders to do just that: I can never calculate the price of a soliders life and more so the cost of price for freedom. dead-end jobs does not equate to the death of person. the decision to fight for all kinds of freedom for us as a people is unselfish non? - freedom of speech - freedom to practice religion - freedom to disagree - freedom to make money - freedom to live in peace - freedom of movement - freedom to jobs - freedom to love whom we want - freedom to live when those freedoms are interfered with and infringed upon we rely on our soldiers individually to make the difference in the lives of strangers, those like you and me. it might seem as call of duty, and yes now the world is full of heroism. but in all sincerity our selfless soldiers have taken a rugged path for us because they believe they can reassure us of our comfort. least we stay alerted but not to distress ourselves and compromise our imaginings. but I can also now say freedom is also about a celebration of the good people do, it allows everyone to heal, families, friends, strangers, people, the country. it instills unity, i still receive mails from my school in Nebraska telling me about a "celebration" of a fallen student. maybe we can try a price for being in the mist of the humble. what is a sad is that in order to resolve problems to good it takes violence to end violence but i hope that we can use our other resources such as intelligence to end these conflicts via - diplomacy as in dialogues - law enforcement