Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Well, ok. But how hard would it have been otherwise to generate support for it, in the way that was used in those other examples ? Surely, it wouldn't be necessary to kill 3000 of one's own citizens to make it happen. Keep in mind what this thread, and sub-topic are about: The shadowy conspiracy of 9/11 is supposed to involve the shadowy hand of power attacking ITSELF, to generate this support.
  2. Wait ! I do ! The problem is that constitutional government was built on a foundation that was assumed to be made of stone, but those foundations changed over time as everything does. The foundations of modern democracy now need to be revisited in light of the changes that have happened to society over 200 years. Ignore people who insist that the problem can be solved by having an elected senate, or by changing electoral rules towards PR. The fundamental building blocks for government have eroded ! For example: 1 ) We no longer have a public, we have masses. 2 ) We no longer have a press, we have large media/entertainment corporations. 3 ) The issues that pressed us in the 18th century no longer press us today. 4 ) Unquestioned duty to God, Queen and country no longer exists. Such things were central pillars to having a functioning government, and they no longer exist. We can't hope to change the past, but we need to adapt our current institutions to the new reality. For example, 1 ) We need to re-create the idea of a public, separate from masses. 2 ) We need to find an equivalent of the 'press' that the public can look to for criticism and discussion of government. 3 ) We need to express what our modern challenges are, debate those challenges, and agree on them. 4 ) We need to create an equivalent motivation for individuals to participate in Democracy. I have more...
  3. Grenada. Panama. Gulf War I. This is a new one to me. The whole thing was planned as a way to remove personal rights of individuals now ? But, if they already have the power... why do they to make themselves look so defenseless... in order to... uh.... keep power ... ? It doesn't follow.
  4. By 'all the time', I mean that all of the times that the US initiates military action. I would say that almost all of the times that the US has initiated military action, it has used a different rationale than a pending military threat against the US itself. Surely, there are no others examples of actual attacks on US soil that were used to provide rationale for military action. So why was it necessary with 9/11, not only to do so but to do so on such a scale that the security of the US itself was cast into doubt ? That answer is, that it wasn't. The attacks were perpetrated by terrorists who exploited security holes to maximum effect.
  5. Scott, If this does turn out to be a global problem, with global consequences, that involves a global solution, how would you propose that the world address it, given that many nations might opt to live in denial, or refuse to participate in a solution ?
  6. Agreed. I like these types of rants. I often write them too. But that's hard on the eyes. There are some good ideas in there, I think. Who will bell the cat ?
  7. What is your point ? I was showing that the US doesn't need to destroy it's own symbols of power as a pre-requisite to armed conflict. Whether or not war is declared is immaterial. The US hasn't made a declaration of war since WW2 to my knowledge.
  8. FTA, Are you personally involved in a hearing with the supremes ? Very cool.
  9. No such rationale... i.e. - Bombing of Libya - no reason, Attack on Grenada - they were bad, Invasion of Panama - Noriega needed to be stopped,Iraq I - Invasion of Kuwait Never has the US needed to destroy its own symbols of power in order to facilitate an invasion.
  10. I think that's the best type of discussion: Talk about the story arc, and stay away from specifics. Speak about the main protagonists, their motivations and their goals. I have never understood why this supposed shadowy inner circle would find it advantageous to destroy their own symbols of power, in order to generate support for the type of war they initiate all the time with no such rationale...
  11. I bookmarked this thread a week ago, and have been trying to get to it ever since. This is one of the best threads I've read. Thanks MapleLeafWeb. My comments: The Problem: "Bad service from Service Canada." "Good people at the top are leaving because it has become too political." "decade of darkness" "Listless, unmotivated workers." "Disorganization, or excessive oversight." "Stress leave." ( Yes, Auguste, the front line workers can and do feel the stress from these huge bureaucratic battles and turf wars. Good people have nervous breakdowns. It's a sad waste of talent. ) "No competition." "Fish dies from the head." My answer: The situation we're all describing here is understandable, if you look at the structure of the civil service, and its setting within the political information infrastructure we have in Canada. Over years, each of the stakeholders has drifted towards their own interests. Luckily, I have the answer. I will post it here later. On the topic of workers vs. management. If an organization is not working, blame ultimately rests with management. It may not be their "fault", however they are the leaders. WAL MART and McDonalds seem to be able to deliver to clients' expectations without "overpaid and overeducated" (as they're described here) workers. But to blame managers isn't entirely the problem either. A lot of the problems of bureaucracy exist in the banking system as well, but in business money has the final say. The civil service is supposed to serve the public, but in fact has two masters - the public, and the minister in charge. Believe me, I have worked with the government, with several banks, and dozens of businesses in my career. The best organizations have the best people at the very top: organized, priority based and empathetic leaders can mobilize their organizations to excellence and are worth their money. I will post my solution to this problem here later.
  12. That would be post-langformming nounverbing... Is Morris correct ? I hope so... but a Google search says probably not: Dictionary.com To show disrespect is to show a lack of respect for, or to shock a lack of regard for. I think that at the heart of such behavior is an inability to empathize. Certainly if one is discussing issues with someone, they need to show them a basic amount of regard - that's only polite.
  13. Auguste, Great work. The fact that this thread continues from 2005 is a nice touch. Of course, the disconcerting thing is that the CPC is now wearing new Liberal shoes...
  14. That's quite an interesting graph. Of course the productivity numbers are completely alarming, but let's accentuate the positive shall we ? Morris, I thought you were laid off a year or two ago. How much was in your tip jar anyway ?
  15. Jawp, We're not in as bad shape as it seems. At least amongst the G8, we are gaining in population growth, and our government programs are supported by taxes and then some. The important thing is for Canadians to continue to talk to each other about our problems. We made some very good moves for our future in the 1990s - placating some high priority issues on the right and the left - thanks to our propensity for dialogue. Let's keep it going.
  16. I'd like to think that Canadian culture at least still contains some essence of "we". Even amongst the various groups that post here, there is some concern that those of us assembled in this basket of asymmetric backgrounds call Canada would like us to move forward with a plan that promotes the common good. Aside from that, I don't know what Canadian should mean.
  17. Oleg, It's unclear from your post if you're railing against whites, Muslims, or both. In any case, you've overstating the problem. Find a Muslim who grew up in Toronto, and you'll find someone who is more Canadian than Pakistani, Somali, or wherever they came from. They watch Much Music, they play basketball, they go to watch American movies just like all the kids. If they're more religious than the average Canadian kid, then that might be a good thing. The hybrid in a population is stronger, as a rule.
  18. To be fair, the report was about the faculty situation, which would be slower to adapt than the student population would. It would have been better if the article in question quoted some statistics, to explain how this report determined that there was a problem with faculty turnover. In short, there may be a problem but they haven't done a good job in explaining why. Of course, these are academics, so we're just supposed to trust them - they know.
  19. Farmers ? Seniors ? I don't think these issues should be prioritized, nor will they make Randy Ai the candidate of choice. On farmers, he says it's imperative that we help Canadian farming but not why. Free trade means that it's cheaper to make these things overseas, so Randy Ai has to address the wider problem, our free trade agreements. Note that none of the mainstream parties are advocating this type of isolationism. As for seniors, we installed CPP a half a century ago and most of them are doing quite well as a result. As a 22 year old, you would think that Randy Ai might be aware of the problems of youth - especially high university tuition, but I have a hunch that his parents paid his way.
  20. Didacticism doesn't play well, and usually distracts from a story. The best artists can make a point without making it so obvious you could spot it from an passing blimp. Moore is different because the overstating of the point is the entire movie.
  21. I'd like to know why manufacturing and computer jobs continue to be globalized out of existence, yet we seem to only hear about certain types of jobs. Unfortunately, large corporate farms can produce food at a fraction of the cost so that's where production is going to go.
  22. Only level 10... impressive, Morris...
  23. What's wrong is that both are right. The corporate agenda is centrist, but ultimately espouses the same values as the people who work for corporations - slightly socially liberal, slightly fiscally conservative but usually middle of the road. Right-of-centre - especially rural - types will see the social liberalism, the urban viewpoint and see the media as being biased and not reflecting their values. Left-of-centre anti-corporate types see that this viewpoint assumes that a stable business environment is a necessary foundation for the world, and that corporations and the upper classes are ultimately benevolent forces in society.
  24. Guyser, Bill and Angus - thank you for your well thought out and well written posts here. Legislators in the mid-20th century finally started acting responsibly and enforcing standards for safety in society. In the 1990s, this all came apart in a flurry of finger-pointing. Conservatives need to recognize that not all government processes are bureaucracy and red tape. Liberals need to recognize that inefficiency doesn't equal safety, and that having a union doesn't fix every problem out there. Legislating inspections by independent private contractors who are part of a professional organization - is a system that worked well - efficiently and safely - for years. Anything else needs to be whistle-blown and the political types need to be held accountable and turfed out of office in the same manner Mike Harris was, and that Dalton McGuinty should be.
  25. MikeDavid, You're right, they're not moving. The factories here are shutting down... Graph
  • Create New...