carepov

We should not pressure companies to pull out of developing countries, this would worsen poverty. We should encourage/pressure companies to implement standards similar to those of Disney: http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/intl_labor_standards.html

If you are talking about inequality, world-wide it is decreasing. There are many countries where it is increasing, however you are exaggerating the problem and I do not see this as being helpful. http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/worldinequality.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg

Interesting topic, as usual, this is not a yes/no or good/bad issue. It depends... Increased foreign investment and international trade has IMO certainly been a net benefit to both OECD and especially developing countries. Major reductions in poverty and increased human development including purchasing power support this opinion. “Sweat shops” however are a violation of human rights and more should be done to protect workers from abuse. As pointed out, the fire in Pakistan is a good example. Thank you Michael for sharing the link to MSN, it looks like a good organization! I certainly would not support boycotting trade with a “sweatshop” country or brand (neither does MSN) but it looks like consumer pressure on companies like Nike and Disney has helped.

You are probably right; perhaps the thread should be called: “Successful containment and prevention of terrorism”. However, “War on Terror” rightly or wrongly is the term used in the mainstream. Also, even though we are fighting a “War on Terror” we are not in a “State of War”. I agree that the government is feeding us B.S. and that many of our actions have created new enemies.

Great article, thank you! On a scale of -10 to +10, here is how I rate the major results of the past few decades and current policies: Fiscal Management: Rep: -10 Dem: -5 Previous posters have pointed out the republican tendencies to balloon defence spending. For me, this graphs demolished the myth that Republicans are better fiscal managers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg The creation of DHS and the failure to significantly cut any government jobs or to re-organize the government demolishes the myth that Republicans stand for "small government". Foreign Policy: Rep: -10 Dem: 0 On 9/12/2001 the USA had support from almost every nation and its peoples - how the Bush administration pissed away this support astonishes me. Social policy: Rep: -10 Dem: +5 I am a strong believer that the government should ensure that human rights are protected and otherwise let adults decide how to live their lives. Total: Rep: -30 Dem: 0 I agree with the author, Republican support is based on nothing but myths and lies.

At gun point? I don't get it. So I will modify my question: Companies patent and sell GM seeds, farmers and farm corporations choose if they want to buy them or not. What’s the big deal? Also, what is your position on Golden Rice? Should it be banned?

Did you know that "organic" farming includes an Allowed Substances list including pesticides and pharmaceuticals? Yes we should all be eating more fresh fruit and vegetables. If people want to spend (waste) their money on “organic” that’s fine, but we should not be scaring away people from buying perfectly safe and equally nutritious fruit and vegetables. Also, we should do all we can to ensure produce is as affordable as possible.

GM seeds or non-GM seeds.

I will put it on my list, but I am sceptical, as I asked earlier: Companies patent and sell GM seeds and farmers choose if they want to buy them or not. What’s the big deal?

I just picked up: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist" by Patrick Moore. So far, it looks like an excellent book and I highly recommend it. Here's a pertinent quote. "In the 1990's, the Cancer Research Institutes of the U.S. and Canada collaborated on a multi-year study of all scientific publications about the connection between cancer in humans and pesticide residues on food. They could not find a single piece of evidence connecting the two." p273 I have not found much about bioaccumulation but: "during this time [between application and harvest] the pesticide biodegrades so that there is an undetectably low or negligible level of pesticide on the food." p274 Then he writes about DDT and what a previous poster alluded to earlier, very interesting that "in 2004, under great pressure from humanitarians and scientists, both Greenpeace and the WWF made statements that they now agreed DDT should be used to control malaria." DDT does biaccumulate and should only be used sparingly when there are no better alternatives. Then he explains Genetic Engineering (including the fact that a common benefit is the reduction in pesticide use). The highlight is the debate over Golden Rice and his berating of groups opposing it. Does anyone here oppose Golden Rice?

dre, I 100% agree and thanks for the quotes of Bin Laden. I recall from a Mansbridge interview with Malcolm Gladwell where Gladwell said (paraphrase): "a better reaction to 9/11 would have been to pretend that it never happened [instead of wasting over $1,000,000,000,000 dollars]".

Sorry, I was vague in my assertion that "The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had." By greatest I meant most virtuous, (or perhaps "least evil"?).

Nice to see you again Signals.Cpl, it is encouraging to see that we agree on several key points, yes some points are best left to future discussions, however I strongly disagree with almost every single point you make below: My principle disagreement is with your multiple assertions that: “those "people" fall outside the law”. This is flat-out wrong! Also, this de-humanizing attitude is, as I mentioned earlier, counter-productive towards winning the War on Terror. Please read through the ICRC web site and you will find refutations of many of your points, for example: “In contemporary armed conflicts, the challenge of upholding humanitarian values is not the result of a lack of rules but a lack of respect for them.” http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/contemporary-challenges-for-ihl/overview-contemporary-challenges-for-ihl.htm “…no one can be outside the law” http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/resolution/30-international-conference-resolution-3-2007.htm “What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a “black hole “in terms of legal protection.” http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/terrorism-faq-050504.htm And for a more technical report: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/review/review-857-p39.htm Regarding Amnesty and HR Watch, what “agenda” and what “goals” do you think they are pursuing? Perhaps after informing yourself of the ICRC positions you will see that these groups are consistent, correct, and impartial. Please note that no one is interested in letting criminals set free – au contraire! Regarding the US Supreme Court, I suggest that you start with wiki then follow-up with the footnotes is you are unconvinced: “The Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror… The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Legal_issues

Introduction: The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had. The US people, government and military do many great things and I am thankful that we Canadians (and the rest of The West) enjoy the peace and prosperity we do in large part from the protection of the US. This overall support for the US does not mean we should not criticize some policies and actions – au contraire! Winning the War on Terror – who’s side are you on?: Of course no reasonable person would support the repressive/terrorist regimes of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (wait a second, didn’t the US support these groups in the past…) Of course we want to defeat terrorism. The US is doing many things right but have made several major blunders that IMO have been counter-productive. 1. The War in Iraq 2. Breaking international laws (torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay) Boiling it down to “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” is simplistic, ignorant and wrong. I am with the US, against terrorism, but I am not going to agree with counter-productive policies. Getting to the truth - who do you trust?: The US administration and military are masters of propaganda and it is naïve to blindly believe them. I will put my trust in multiple sources dedicated to impartiality, for example: Amnesty, HR Watch, the US Supreme Court, the Red Cross, EU courts and parliamentary committees. The enemy does not follow international laws so neither do we: IMO, one of the keys to winning the ideological war on terror is the West’s respect for the law and all human life. The US has squandered a big part of this advantage we have over the terrorists. This ideological war is not to be directed at he terrorists – the purpose is to isolate terrorists from as much support as possible. Conclusions: -The argument that we need to sacrifice personal freedoms and rights for security is false. We need to protect human rights to help win the war! -After 11 years, how would you judge the results of the War on Terror? What policies and tactics worked and which ones backfired? Were resources wasted needlessly? What is the enemy thinking and planning? What should be the next steps in the War on Terror? These types of questions need to be addressed objectively.

No I have not; I would be interested if you could share an informative link. Do you think that the EPA is not doing enough to control the risks of bioaccumulation?

Your proposal would "technically" backfire! Why do you think that family sizes are larger in countries where there is a lack of affordable food?

Actually my take is that the experts (farmers scientists) are saying that there are no problems with GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in Canada.

What do you suggest we do about these "problems"?

Maybe I'm being simplistic or ignorant, please correct me if you feel that I am: GMOs have been with us experimentally since the 80’s and on farm since the 90’s. Has anyone died or gotten sick from GMO’s? What’s the big deal? Companies patent and sell GM seeds and farmers choose if they want to buy them or not. Again, what’s the big deal? Pesticides and herbicides are regulated and used safely in Canada and the US– why would I assume otherwise? How many consumers of supermarket food have died or gotten sick lately? What products are people worried about in Canadian supermarkets or restaurants? It is a fact that food has never been more affordable for Canadians. I would argue that food has never been safer than it is today. What would make me think otherwise? IMO people freaking out over Food Safety have grossly miscalculated the risks involved. The choices we make daily like unhealthy eating, smoking, drinking, drugs, driving, sports, etc… are orders of magnitude riskier.

I guess you are right - something about this way of thinking bothers me though... I still don't get it but probably never will.

Ideally, every human life would be valued equally. Realistically some lives are worth more than others, but 1000:1? Really? I have never been able to understand this, can anyone explain? "On 18 October 2011 captured IDF tank gunner Gilad Shalit, captured by the Palestinian militant organization Hamas in 2006, was released in exchange for 1027 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_prisoner_exchanges

Yes, indeed - and the opposite is true as well - most people agree that Bulgakov's and Dostoyevsky's novels are good, and that's fine, but you'll never see their works back on my reading list - I'd rather watch Rambo again.

Are you serious, less qualified teachers? We should strive for more qualified teachers and give them more latitude to do their jobs. To cut costs we should: 1. Greatly reduce the number of school boards 2. Whenever practical, close small schools when a nearby school has sufficient capacity

Of course the idea of individual freedom was not her insight. I thought that the way she expressed this idea was good and I enjoyed the story. I know nothing of Rand's personal life - other than that it was a big mess. Perhaps she was elitist but her protagonists were not. Reardon despised high-society, including his wife, worked very hard, including manual labour. Dagny as well. Good points, hmmm... I would need to rethink what I wrote, perhaps not all "famous and influential" artists and intellectuals deserve my respect. I will say that I respect and admire Rand's work as a novelist.

About one month of commuting to and from work. I was actually enjoying waking up in the morning to continue the story. 1. I certainly agree with the idea of individual freedom to choose one's lifestyle as long as you are not harming anyone. 2. I liked the hard work, persistence and the guts of the steel maker (Reardon?) and other characters and how they distained "high society" 3. She advocated more of a meritocracy than what we have now 4. She pointed out the falseness of some of society's elites and the dangers of oligopolies No it was not very realistic but neither was 1984. Yes it was long and I would not dream of trying to read it but as an audio book it was great. Any artist or intellectual, no matter what their point of view, as popular and influential as Rand gets my respect.