Michael Hardner

You just stated that no country drives down its wages. Senseless post ?

Are you referring to Dr. Jones' comment ? Wasn't that for less than a 15 year timespan ?

No, "Spock" was an idiot. That's why Roddenberry made his name rhyme with "sock" and "jock". If Star Trek were Friends, Spock would be Joey.

Spending your money in order to benefit Canadians is a fine thing if you want to do it. Most people do not do this, however, and there are better ways to assist Canadians than to subsidize labour markets that are otherwise doomed. Is everybody that shops at WalMart evil ? What about those who buy foreign cars, or who use banks that use offshore talent ? Let the business world take care of itself. These changes put more money into the system, so let's find things for people to do that can make use of that money. And... Spock was an idiot.

I don't buy your explanation. You don't need to state explicitly one-by-one all of the various sex acts. So why do it ? Are you trying to shock us ?

This is called a labour market. In other words, the job goes to the lowest bidder. You can complain about it, but how often do you go into a store and voluntarily pay more than you have to ? Furthermore, HR and hiring managers are not "scum" if they're just hiring within the budgets they have been given.

You are asked what almost all Canadians are asked: who do you vote for ? Your anti-immigrant sentiments strike me as blaming others for your own deficiencies. And why are you submitting your jobs to websites ? That's an ineffective way to apply for jobs - 80% of jobs are gained through one's network, it is said.

And let's think about hockey for a second. Here's a fun little link to follow that example: http://tinyurl.com/hardnerhockey Jan 1888 - Toronto Daily Mail - Article Entitled "Hockey" "Last season an attempt was made to introduce the game of hockey to the public of Toronto, but the season was too far advanced... It would be satisfactory to hear ... that a game equalling lacrosse in interest would be introduced to enliven the pleasures of the winter season in Toronto in athletic circles." So our national identity symbol was completely unknown in Toronto at the time my grandfather was born, and yet now it is THE symbol of Canada. It unites us, it defines us... etc. etc. This speaks to the temporary and ephemeral nature of culture. By the time my grandfather came to Toronto from Italy, hockey was a mainstay of our culture but Italians were the awful unspeakable immigrants. His marriage to a woman of Scots-Irish stock was a "mixed marriage" of the time. Now, a few generations later, Italians, Greeks and Southern Europeans are considered real Canadians by most. There's no reason to believe that Chinese, Indian, Pakistanis, Africans, Russians who have come in the past generation or so won't similarly mix in, around the time that Cricket becomes our national sport. Also, there's a lawn bowling club across from my apartment. Very Anglo-Saxon and it must have been very exclusive at one time. Now the dwindling membership doesn't play that often, but the average member appears to be about 75 or so.

Allied with us doesn't equal good, that is true, but I do think it's preferable to have allies rather than explicit enemies. One would assume, for example, that allies attack us less often. And seriously, if they're on the same economic grid as us moving forward, then there's an interdependence there that can be used as a basis for negotiation.

They will never be able to prove causation, in my opinion. They will only ever have models, which is obvious. I mean, you can't create a planet-sized atmosphere to experiment with right ? Now, for the current models, they have isolated major factors and established correlation coefficients that have a broad consensus of support. So, it can't get much better. What can get better ? To answer your question directly: Yes, understanding of how these things work can always get better, and the general population can and probably will buy into the models more as time goes on.

Mr. Canada, why do you keep listing details of explicit sex acts you hope to videotape ? I don't understand why that's necessary.

This has been done as much as it will ever be done, IMO. If you don't believe in correlation coefficients and statistical processes, proxies, then you won't believe the models - but then again you will never believe them.

As I have posted over and over, these things have been taken into account in the models. It's not a mystery as to what effects these factors have - there is a consensus too.

Perhaps, but it's not a stated goal and therefore it is deceptive to say that a movement was founded on a principle that wasn't stated in the foundational documents. It's like telling someone who doesn't know better that the US was founded on making the rich richer. It may be your opinion, but stating it that way may lead the uniformed to misunderstand what was in fact intended. This is important.

Does it work ? I see no sweeping arrows. Where is it exactly ? Ok - I DO see it now - but the arrow is to the LEFT of the name for me. Maybe because I'm a leftist ha ha.

I missed it. I thought you just meant 'out in the open'...

Not even. Here's a scene that happened to me in about 2002. I'm on the patio of the Cloak and Dagger with a kind-of-obnoxious arts hanger-on. He's got a loud voice, a loud Tahiti-style shirt and is talking loudly. I'm having a cigarette. We both have beers. As he talks I look past him to see two cops walking towards us. This is an usual sight, since Toronto cops walking the beat is something we haven't seen in many a decade. Simultaneous to this, buddy takes out a large marijuana cigarette and goes to light it. Ahem, I say, and motion eastwards down College Street. He casually looks back over his shoulder to see the cops not ten feet away, walking straight for us and talking as they go. "It's ok", he says, "I'm a lawyer"... AND LIGHTS IT AS THEY PASS !

Yes, this street urchin pal of mine explained it to me: the police only use it as a means to arrest someone they don't like, when they don't have anything else to charge them with.

You have said this before, but you're taking out some economic factors in the low wage earner: They're consuming goods, providing a domestic market for goods and services and they're making money for whomever is paying them the low wage, as well as providing services at a cheaper rate.

Hey jbg - that's not really a study. I linked to a real study earlier in the thread that correlated CO2 and radioactive forcing to temperature, computing correlation coefficients and so on...

I don't agree with your definition. Value systems aren't even necessarily similar from person to person in a country. What is similar is the fabric of your day-to-day living - the colour, the backdrop of life. Perhaps, but after 6 months of kindergarten they're already more Canadianized than their parents. And by the time they're in their mid-20s, they enter the workforce - where I meet them, and eventually enjoy a beer with them at the completion of a successful project. That is culture.

Culture is no longer nationally based. That's an old idea now, and an expensive one to resurrect if you want to go that way. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Canadian culture but I have more in common with a 2nd generation South Asian born here than a British national who has just arrived.

They considered it, but they were at war with other tribes and some thought that these newcomers could somehow help them. As I've posted elsewhere, I'm reading about the era of Andrew Jackson and the early years of parity with the native tribes were quite interesting. There was more equality at play than one would think.

World population is increasing at a decreasing rate. This means that world population will start to level off and eventually drop. That said, we're still feeding more people than ever, and the percentage of those who do without continues to fall. You should be optimistic.

Why would we do this ? Do we want to perform social engineering, and expensive social engineering at that - to do things like dissuade women from working ? If we don't like immigrants around, how much are we willing to give up economically to have less of them ? There are some strange values at play when conservative type people (sorry to pigeonhole you, A, but that's how I see it) start asking for social programs and higher taxes...