Black Dog

Read an interesting Slate article on the battle between Wal Mart and Costco in the States. I found the bit about the two companies' markedly differnt approaches to organized labour to be quite relevant to this discussion. Link.

Hey Hjalmar, I'm still waiting for you to explain how unions can be so all-powerful and damaging when they represent a minority of North American workers. When was the last time you opened up a corporate annual report and saw "making a contribution to society" as a line item in the financials? Corporations are out to make money for their owners and shareholders. Any benefits to society at large are purely incidental. In fact, one could say that corporations are are a self serving group with no ones interest but their own in mind. By contrast, labour unions are made up of workers. Workers trying to make honest wages in decent working conditions. Workers, through consumer spending, are a far more important to the economy than corporate shareholders. Yes. Moreso. If you asked even your average, non-union worker if they'd like to make what teh average non-union worker in India makes so that his bosses can "remain competitive" in his new mercedes, you'd likely get a punch in the nose. Cna you show that the increase in consumer prices is tied specifically to union-negotiated wage increases (versus inflationary pressures?) Or are you just full of hot air? I just love this race to the bottom meentality. Rather than fighting for fair wages for all, you'd take away gains that others have fought for. Don't like what union workers make versus non-union workers? Start a union. Why drag everyone down to your level?

But your whole argument rests on the notion that unions are too powerful, and that high labour costs are forcing companies out of business or out of the country. They simply don't jive with current and historical trends. If union power has waned to the point where real wages ar eplummetting (even as corporate profits and real prices climb), what's your beef with the unions? How is this an argument against unions????

The difference between an informed decision made by two consenting adults and that made by one person and imposed upon a non-huiman should be self evident. Humans have rights and obligations, the ability to make informed decisions with a clear understanding of their responsibilities and the potential consequenses of their actions. The two are completely nonanalogous. Personally, I find the equation of the two distasteful as, in certain hands, lends itself to the notion that gays are somehow less human than the rest of us. Blech. And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass hopping. The fact is, we can only use the legal and moral precedents of our society as the basis for our ideas on what the future might hold. There's precedent for gay marriage. Anything else is pure speculation. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't. It simply extends marriage benefits to same sex couples. In a discussion of whether gay marriage should be legal in North America, the discussion should really be restricted to what's practiced in this society. Societies that still consider women property have bigger issues than allowing gays to marry. So your argument is still bogus. But that's what we're talking about: changing the legal definition of marriage. Benefits are one aspect of that and have been used as the basis of successful legal challenges. I think you need to lay off the late night viewings of Dr. Tounge's 3D House of Horror. I think the simplest way to look at this is to look at countries with legally sanctioned gay partnerships. Are they happily schtupping robots in Denmark (where gay couples have had marital rights sine 1989)? There's simply no precedent for your scenarios. Look at the text of draft gay marriage bill:

Yeah: it sucks. I've already reported you once today. I'd be only too hapy to do it again. Keep it up.

But as I pointed out, your rhetoric doesn't match the trends (shrinking union prescence+declining real wages). So either your assesment of the state of organized labour is wrong, or your whole premise is. I expect the real causes of outsourcing aren't that labour costs here are too high (which the widening gap between real wages and profits would support), but that costs are just that much cheaper overseas (this includes wages as well as fewer impediments such as corporate taxes and pesky environmental and labour regulations). In other words, your argument that unions are to blame for businesses going overseas is, at best, overly simplistic or, at worst, plain wrong.

Albertans love to whine about being stereotyped as rednecks in the RoC. So what do they do? Exalt redneck culture with events like the Stampeded and Big Valley and vote Conservative in droves. Talk about undermining your own cause. Hell, even the columnist admits as much:

The point is they're being "asked" (that is, told) to do these things. I've little reason to belive, in this age of downsizing, outsourcing and Enron, that corporations would so much as lift a finger to enact socially responsible policies if they didn't have regulatory bodies or labour unions breathing down their necks. I think that's a distortion. After all, a union that puts its workers out of job isn't helping anyone (and let's not forget that unions are workers). I think, given the social, political and economic climate of our times, it's vital that labour has a strong voice.

Yeah, let's join the race to the bottom. First: unions have declined because of a variety of factors such as corruption and malaise, as well as an ongoing organized attack on organized labour by the business class. And let me ask you: who loses? Non-union workers apparently. Who benefits the most? Not the workers, union or otherwise. Isn't this the best argument for joining a union? Given the choice between a union-negotiated $5/hr increase and a non union $0.75/hour increase, what kind of moron would choose the latter? But, according to you, unions are declining in scope and influence. Yet costs (especially for consumer goods) are climbing and wages are falling (in the U.S. where only 13 per cent of people are unionized according to you, wages dropped 17 per cent between 1972 and 1992, with a slight recovery in the early '90s. Since then, they've started dropping again). What gives?

And did you see why? Geographic proximity and cultural affinity. The big con? High labour costs. That said, if we are such an attractive destination, things like the Rand Formula don't seem to be a deterrent.

These days, North America is hemorrhaging (sorry: "outsourcing") jobs to the Third World. And it's not just low-paying jobs either, as even higher paying non-manufacturing jobs are flying off to India etc. where employers can get away with paying less. To folks like Willy here, this is a a good thing and an example of why we need to curb what little power the workers have. Of course, this is entirely in line with the kind of thinking that stresses the gains of the few (corporations and their shareholders) over the needs of society at large. In Willyworld, we'd have jobs, sure. But they'd be garbage jobs with questionable conditions. That's one thing you can take to the bank. Nice. But false. A quick look at the history of labour and capitalism as a whole shows that capitalism doesn't police itself and that labuor must have a voice. It wasn't business that pushed for minimum wage, Social Security, the weekend, overtime, pensions, child labor laws and the eight-hour work day. It was the workers.

More like another attack on the working class. I expect anyone who doesn't belong to a union and therefore doesn't want to pay dues should also be willing to give up whatever benefits thay have aquired under union-negotiated contracts. I'm sure they'd be only too happy to go work for 75 cents an hour in order to prevent "regressive government controls".

...with legal benefits. That's the crux of this debate. Marriage affords certain priviledges that gay couples can't enjoy by virtue of not meeting the "traditional" definition of a married couple. That's discriminatory. The same doesn't apply to a man and his St. Bernard, because one can't get health benefits for one's pooch. Simply put, I don't accept that gay marriage is as a big a shift as you seem to. It tweaks the definiton, not changes it. Whereas the kind of examples you cite would require an extensive overhauls to the legal precipts of society. Consent is still the key. For a marriage to be a marriage, you need two willing partners. There are logical arguments to be made for extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples that include such things as employment benefits, inheritances etc. that don't apply to a man and his truck. If you can formulate some convincing arguments that could be used to support human/animal or human/object legal unions, I'd like to see them. But, while I get what you're saying, I have a hard time arriving at the same conclusions.

The Link.

Alright so your point is that marriage is between a man (or men) and a woman (or women)? Why? And furthermore, so what? Marriage is a man-made institution. It is subject to the changing mores of human society. For instance, wives are no longer considered chattel and breeeding is no longer the primary purpose of wedlock. Based on this, same sex marriage is a logical progression. Animals, inanimate objects are not human and therefore, not allowed to participate in human institutions. That's not a rule. It's common sense.

Small cars are safer than your SUV. Highway Safety Stats Furthermore, the illussion of safety created by these vehicles causes drivers to take more risks (risk homeostasis). Not only that, by driving an SUV, you're making the road more dangerous for other drivers. Read this, or pick up "High and Mighty" by Keith Bradsher. SUV's and pickups are no safer than smaller vehicles (both for drivers and other motorists), they're more expensive to operate, and have a greater environmental impact through pollution and wear and tear on infrastructure. Their primary purpose is to serve as a status symbol. Is it worth it? My advice to recalcitrant SUV drivers is to just get Viagara and leav ethe rest of us alone. A gas tax is a good idea. So is a luxury tax on large vehicles not used for commercial purposes. So are tax breaks for small, environmentally sound vehicles. How are "wealthy" and "hard work" connected? Besides, in the U.S. at least, people who buy large gas guzzlers get big cash rebates from the government. SUVs courtesy Uncle Sam This from a G.O.P government. So much for your right-wing boilerplate.

The real question is: why the hell should someone have to pay support for the upkeep of a dog? This is ridiculous.

Oh come on. There's a lot of different family structures, from polygamy to polyandry to common-law partnerships, that have made up the family unit everywhere. To assume otherwise betrays a certain ethnocentrism, not to mentionthe fact you'r eignoring th emany changes marriage has undergone already. But, though you seem to keep missing this point, marrigae has changed, even over the past century. I never said you did, I just think it's specious reasoning. For instance, marriage, despite changes regarding the number of people involved and, recently, their gender, has always been between human beings. You're saying the possibilities oppened up by SSM include marriage to animals or inanimate objects. Now the arguments that apply to SSM do not apply to these other examples you've cited, so to assume SSM will be the tipping point(as opposed to, say, divorce laws, which had a far broader impact on society's view of marriage than legal gay partnerships ever could) is a bit absurd. Or a woman divorces a man (at least in our culture). I'm having a hard time seeing what your point is. It seems you're saying "gay marriage will change marriage". That's true. But as you concede above, marriage has already undergone fundamental changes throughout history. Now, since marriage is a social construct, it is, as I said before, subject to social change.

So changing something means it will be changed? Well...yeah. I'm sure there were reservations concering giving women the right to vote, or giving blacks equality under the law. After all, institutional racism and sexism are also longstanding traditions. But society accepted such changes were necessary regardless of the consequenses, simply because they were the right things to do. But we've already determined that marriage has, in western society, not been a static institution. For instance, divorce laws are a relatively new phenomenon, as are notions of marital equality (versus the formerly proprietary nature of the arraingment). The definition of marriage is not written in stone, and is subject to the changing tides of society.

My understanding was he knew he was being recorded and did it anyway. Hardly the mark of a professional criminal, let alone a balanced, clear-thinking individual. Murder is a little bit more serious than theft, even theft of an expensive item that was subsequentally returned. Furthermore Latimer showed no remorse, believeing that he did what was right. The courts have a fair amount of leeway in determing what's an appropriate punishment based on a wide variety of factors, such as remorse, the mental state of the accused and what purpose the sentence would serve. Thankfully, there's no uniform standard of punishment. Oh, give me a frigging break. It seems some were quite looking forward to the spectacle of Svend getting his comeuppance. Denied that, they fall back on ludicrous, unsubstansiated appeals to some maligned idea of justice. As stoker said (and how weird is it that we agree again?!):

You know, these arguments have been made a bazillion times elsewhere on this forum. Those threads are still open. Can we refrain from opening new threads when there's perfectly good one's already out there on the exact same subject?

Which teachings?

Trouble is, municipalities are creatures of the provinces. Even if they wanted to, I doubt the feds would be able to do an end run around the provinces.

Not only did he admit the theft, he turned himself in to face charges (charges that the auction house-the victim-didn't want to go ahead with), demonstrated what the court deemed an appropriate level of remorse and resigned his public position. Not only that, given that it was his first offence and the merchandise was returned, what would be the point in pursuing this further? Now, I'd like to see some real evidence that the result (One year's probation, continuing psychiatric counselling and100 hours of community service) stems from his standing as a public figure. More than likely, the circumstances around the theft and subsequent actions by Robinson had more to do with the result than his "social standing".

Don't have much to say on the credibility issue, but wanted to comment on this: To characterize either of these fellas as "ultra left" is a gigantic leap. There's very little daylight between the policies of the Kerry/Edwards and those of the Republicans.