bradco

"Not so. In many situations the companies won't lose money because they can pass on the additional costs to the consumer" This works to the point that they have to charge more than consumers are willing to pay. If they can pass on the increased labour costs without effecting consumer demand than the labour costs aren't too high. If consumers will willingly pay the increased price than I would argue that labour is not really being overpaid. As soon as demand falls from increased prices than the company would either cut labour costs or go under. Obviously this doesn't work under monopoly situations. Thats why regulation of such industries is needed. If you cap the price of the goods (ie power) at a fair competive market price than companies will only pay out the labour costs that they can afford. "The way to solve it is by providing more complete information" Isnt it just easier to set a reasonable minimum wage? There are too many problems with trying to get complete information to every person. Plus I still think a reasonable minimum wage is acceptable interference in the market by the government. It promotes a good social objective and makes society better in the aggregate. "The trick is to create a disincentive by increasing the risk associated with crime" Very difficult and expensive solution when you can just set a "living wage"

"Germany didn't start World War 1. Try learning some history before you run your yap." That is a false statement coming from reading way to much revisionism. Germany deserves blame for the coming of world war 1. The Balkan dispute was used by Germany to lead the world into war as they wanted a "preventive showdown" with France and Russia. The feeling was that time was running out for a chance at military dominance and the Germans felt vulnerable from the Franco-Russian alliance in 1894 and their encirclement. The war had to come before Russia's strength had increased or they would be faced with a difficult war on two fronts. The Germans encouraged Austria-Hungary into not accepting peace. Without German assurances of coming to their aid Austria-Hungary would never have touched Serbia. Right here, Germany had a golden opportunity to ensure peace. However, peace was not what they wanted. They encouraged the Austrian-Hungarian regime to send an ultimatum to Serbia that was harsh enough that it could not be accepted. I urge you to see the work of Fritz Fischer (a German) who was the leading historian criticing the revisionist movement.

Thanks to everyone in uniform or has even been in uniform for their sacrifices to protect our great nation!! I would like to express concern over a couple of things though: 1. white poppies: totally against these what I hear to be called "peace poppies". Remembrance Day is a day to remember the sacrifices made by our troops and should not be used as a political tool. 2. I usually am able to pickup poppies at school (usually need more than 1 since they seem to fall off). This year, however, I did not see a single group handing them out. Furthermore I see very few people wearing poppies.

What is a worker's market value? Isn't it exactly what he willing agrees to work for and what someone else willingly agrees to pay him? Given you want to "protect" workers, would you also want to "protect" companies who overpay workers by setting a maximium wage? Im just saying that issues of incomplete information may lead to a "market value" that is under, or yes possibly over, what supply and demand ought to determine. Also, athough I support market systems, Im not foolish enough to believe that unchecked market systems provide the best result. A little bit of tinkering is good for society. It is not good to have people moving to ei or crime because they cant make a living wage. There is little need for a maximum wage because companies wont operate with labour costs that are too high as to obstruct them from at least maintaining the break even point. They wont go on ei when faced with a situation where they cant make enough money.

The agreement is not what's best for the industry. Ask the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council. They'll happily tell you. Rather, it's the best deal that Harper and Emerson could get from the US lumber lobby. And it's a deal similar to the one that Emerson advised the Liberal government to turn down when he was a Liberal cabinet minister. "it's the best deal that Harper and Emerson could get from the US lumber lobby" That is by defintion the best deal for the lumber industry. We wont win by dragging this out through the courts for years. The US administration isnt going to change their opinion and the US lumber industry isnt going to die overnight. Of course its not what is the absolute best agreement for the industry but its the best they can do. "Ask the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council" playing politics, thats what lobby groups do. I repeat though that lumber companies in Canada have very different interests depending on which province they come from. Anyways it is a negotiated settlement and neither side is happy with it.....which is a sign that its a fair deal. "Emerson advised the Liberal government to turn down when he was a Liberal cabinet minister." which was a mistake. I wonder if things were different under the Liberal government.....maybe he was pressured into advising this or knew this was the advice that they wanted to hear.

what hypocrisy? ummm post #5 i guess Why does Layton rip into Bush for all sorts of things and then follow his moronic path of equating Iraq and Afghanistan? also, "Im definetly with Geoffrey on this one. Jack Layton will be the first to talk about needing to live up to international agreements: Kyoto, NAFTA etc so why when it comes to our defense agreement through NATO does he refuse to have us honour our commitment?"

I usually take issue with the carte blanche of support that is given to Israel. I prefer to try to take a non-biased approach to the issue. With that being said the following quote is ridiculous: "Unprovoked? Don't be ridiculous! Israel STARTED the 1967 war in which it captured the territory in question" -A war was clearly being pushed on Israel in 1967. Nasser, on May 17, "armed with Soviet tanks and planes demanded and obtained the removal of the UN force that had been keeping the peace between Egypt and Israel on the Sinai peninsula ever since the Suez incident" (Keylor, The Tweintieth Century World, Oxford UP, p265). He then followed that up by closing the Straits of Tiran days later. This is clearly an aggressive act that instigated the conflict. Any argument that Israel could have looked for peace is ridiculous.....the other side wanted war. The attacks on Egypt and Syria were not pre-emptive in the face of these hostilities which can be considered as acts of war. Even if you choose to not consider tEgyptian actions as "acts of war" Israel's actions were not pre-emptive but rather anticaptory. Anticapatory self defense exists in customary international law dating back to the Caroline Incident. It is part of the inherent right of self-defense that is allowed under article 51 of the UN Charter. Basically this very limited anticaptory right is allowed when there is "necessity of self-defense, instant,over-whelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation". In this case war was CLEARLY coming at any second. There was, therefore, an "instant, overwhelming" threat. This is different than the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense where the threat is not imminent. For an article on the difference between anticaptory and pre-emptive force see "International Law and Preemptive Force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and Iraq" San Diego International Law Journal (San Diego, 2003) by Christopher Greenwood.

Ya but we can try a little, no? Theres nothing wrong with setting a minimum wage that isnt too high so that it will produce too much unemplyment. People do need a certain amount of money to live. either way thats the weaker argument. I still believe... "Another reason is there should be a minimum wage to ensure that people dont just decide to quit working and move to ei."

"Stephen Harper is up to his despicable trick of equating the mission with the house support for the soldiers" and Jack Layton is up to no good trying to equate Iraq with Afghanistan. While Harper is being a little trickster I think despicable is a little harsh a word, no? I think Laytons attempt to compare Iraq and Afghanistan is more dishonest just as Bush is being dishonest when he groups them into the same conflict as well. For a guy who loves to be different than Bush this is an interesting similarity. "Geoffrey you're usually such a rational guy. You let your emotions get the better of you this time." Im definetly with Geoffrey on this one. Jack Layton will be the first to talk about needing to live up to international agreements: Kyoto, NAFTA etc so why when it comes to our defense agreement through NATO does he refuse to have us honour our commitment? Thats a little hypocritical. Geofrrey's critique of socialists is also bang on. The NDP loves to talk about the need for social housing and other programs for Canadians but with billions of people starving to death and dieing from genocides and terrorism he doesnt seem to care all that much. Im not sure its because they equate a Canadian live to be worth more or just that they are stuck in some imaginary world where handing out candy will stop genocides.

That connection between minimum wage and poverty is unfounded. I agree but there still needs to be some level of a minimum wage. One reason is that we need to protect workers from being exploited by companies (I think its possible some workers wont know their true market value). Another reason is there should be a minimum wage to ensure that people dont just decide to quit working and move to ei.

"Ok... so when do we address that we unfairly compensate our lumber industry with ridiculously low stumpage fees" Really it is not meant to be a subsidy to improve the industries international competiveness. It is just a different system than the states use. Under our system the logging companies have to provide services to the government on the land that US companies don't. The argument is it isnt a subsidy but rather payment for services rendered to the government (forest management servies). The use of stumpage fees over the american auction system is considered to be a way to counter problems of market power and potential over exploitation. The need for this in Canada and not the US comes out of the difference between the industries in each country. In the US most lumber comes from privately owned plantations while in Canada the lumber comes from public land and needs to be subjected to natural forest management. One is a private land model the other is public. Realistically you cant have the same systems in two entirely different models. Why courts have ruled it is not a subsidy is because the "subsidy" is said to be equal to the forest management services rendered. The US continues to argue that it doesn't, mainly because of lumber companies lobbying. Since this is pretty much a never ending disagreement it is in the best interests of both countries to negotiate a settlement. "and it's the environment and Canadians that pay for Quebec and BC's lumber industries" It is likely that our current system is better for the environment than an American system would be. As I said above our systems are chosen because different land ownership models exist in our countries. Neither ours or the American system would be compatible in the other country. "Wow Fig, you should know that NAFTA has nothing to do with the debate, softwood was a special exclusion from the treaty." While softwood lumber is not included I think there are rules governing tariffs and NTB's...could easily be wrong though. Either way there are WTO rules to be followed. "The reality, despite what you believe in that head of yours, is that it costs significantly less in Canada (due to government intervention) to cut down a tree than in the US" NAFTA, WTO and US courts have said otherwise. Chopping down the tree costs less but forest companies have to provide forest management services that increase their costs. "Canadian money should be in the hands of those Canadians who earned it, not the Canadian government. The Harper government thinks otherwise." Ya well thats not a realistic option here. Its either the export tax or an American tariff. Take your pick from those two cause thats all that is going to be on the table, ever. "to find out what some owners of softwood lumber companies think" You need to understand that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is very heterogenous. This is why you dont see a successful lumber lobby group in Canada. Companies in each province have totally different interests so of course some will be speaking out. Overall though the agreement is whats best for the industry and the aggregate welfare. The big thing is that the agreement gives stability. It guarantees market share for Canadian companies and takes off the tariff so money stays in Canada, thats a good thing. Unfortuantly people refuse to see past all the rhetoric on all sides and understand the issue better.

"We are going to be a 2nd rate nation quite quickly (if we aren't already... our human development ranking is falling considerably)." The difference between first and 12th is negligble. Doesnt matter all that much where you fit in that range other than national pride. That being said I am with you on our need to be worried about ways to encourage growth. R and D, education etc are a few ways to address productivity problems in our economy. Improving the quality of our healthcare system is also a must. Empirical evidence has proven our healthcare system to be a large motivator for American companies to relocate to Canada even when taxes are higher here (as the healthcare system saves them costs involved with insurance for employees that outweighs taxes)

While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike." Listen. The very first step in waging unconventional war is so obvioius its right ni front of our eyes but the lefties don't understand it. To win, you need to believe in your society. We (lefties) are a self-loathing group. We hate our own traditions, our own beliefs, our own history. Contrast that with Islamofascists: They are self confident, aggressive and belief they are RIGHT. If we are to win this unconventional struggle, it starts with not being as bleeding heart, over sensitive society that apologizes for itself. This is an interesting reply. Since it was made in reply to talk about the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike I assume your in favour of such actions?? The use of such weapons is entirely against our traditions and beliefs in the west so I wonder how you can support their use while arguing that we are not then self-loathing. What kind of culture violates their own beliefs and traditions?? You talk as if you want us to be "aggressive" yet isnt that what we are trying to take away from the world? Isnt our belief that aggression is not good?? I disagree with you completely, if we are to win this unconventional struggle we must be true to our beliefs not violate them and sink to the level of the terrorists. This war isnt about territorial conquest it is about the conquest of culture. You cant have your culture win if you forfeit it in battle.

"While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike." In what instance would you justify a first strike??? Do you mean in self-defense or as an aggressive attack. In cases of self-defense do we need irrefutable evidience? If you are going to make a comment such as using a weapon like a nuclear weapon I think it is wise to explain under exactly what circumstances. "I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative" Confusing statement since ALL definitions of morality are relative since everyone has a different opinion on what is and isnt moral. "I see the atack on 9/11 as an act of aggression. I see the US was only defending itself when it launched war on the terrorists! That the war had to be launched in Afghanistan...and Iraq...was just a matter of course" I see 9/11 as an act of agression as well like everyone else. That is why I fully supported, and still support, the war in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so thats a different story. In that war it was the US and coalition forces who were the aggressors, regardless if you agree with the ends of removing Saddam. "We're way past 9/11. I think the lefties and the liberal-thinkers were just in shock then. I'm referring about Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan now. Some Liberal leadership candidates are one proof. " This statement is incredibly problematic. First of all you group lefties, liberal thinkers and Liberals all into one and assume that they believe the same things which is false. Then you group 4 entirely different conflicts into one and assume that someone ought to support all which is also false. I guess I would define myself as a small "l" liberal: I supported Israels actions for the most part in southern Lebanon and the Afghanistan conflict. Iraq I could have supported a war if it was conducted differently and justified for different reasons. Palestine....is complicated. I support the construction of a Palestinian state but condemn most of the actions taken by terrorist groups.

So Jobin, as with the NDP and the likes of the left. How do you plan on getting those children back in school? I've herd NOTHING but criticism about the mission, BUT NOTHING about an alternative solution? Do you you just want to build schools and send the kids to them with no security? How do you plan on keeping security? Please, someone give us ATLEASED one alternative. A plan...I have seen nothing and I'm getting pissed off that everyone is all show and no go. They cant offer another alternative because there isnt one. Unfortunatly there are to many isolationists and ignorants speaking their mind in this country. The isolationists think it doesnt matter what happens out side our borders and are either a little foolish or have no conscience and have no problems watching the suffering of others on the evening news. The ignorants think you can make peace by handing out candy to children. Someone needs to break it to these people that in a country where militants are trying to seize the government it is necessary to fight, not just build schools. You cant build a school until you have gotten rid of those who are trying to blow it up. The myth of peacekeeping in this country is still strong. I guess I shouldnt consider it common sense that you cant keep the peace in an area that doesnt have peace.

Did you read Army Guy's reply? Ya I still think we have a moral highground over terrorists....do you disagree? I agree with most of the things Army Guy has posted here but... "My piont is nothing in war is morally right, no side has the moral high ground...dead is still dead, just how it came about is really the question...be it shot, or slowly beheaded, or fed to the lions..." Although I think this holds generally I would argue that in cases of self-defense, defending yourself should not be considered immoral. If you have to kill armies who are attacking your country I dont consider that immoral. Again thats more of a jus ad bello argument so not all that relevant. For me the method of killing is not the issue. Wars are fought to be won and killing of soldiers is necessary to win. Its when you target civilians or do not consider levels of collateral damage when attacking that there is certainaly a distinction in levels of morality. In response to the use of nuclear weapons: I would conisider the use of such weapons as immoral and illegal in almost all cases. It is incredibly difficult for the collateral damage of a nuclear strike to not be higher than the military necessity. I do believe that with nuclear weapons there is a suffiecint norm against their use, especially in first strikes. The only country I have ever heard of thinking of using nuclear weapons as a first strike is the US who toyed with the idea of "tactical" nuclear strikes. Needless to say I think the public outrage in the US would be enough of a deterrence against the use of such a weapon unless absolutly needed in immediate self-defense (no pre-emptive Bush doctrine garbage). "In the meantime, the lefties and liberal thinkers are practically mum about vocally condemning the evil guys....showing almost like a silent acceptance of the fact, because anyway, the evil guys being the evil ones that they are, are just being evilly normal?" please provide information on who hasnt been condemned. Practically the entire world condemned 9/11, the "left" condemned everything about the Taliban and Saddam. "The good guys who are there fighting and dying for us" I wouldnt thump on any of the Canadian soldiers that are dying for us cause I dont believe they have done anything wrong. I would thump on american soldiers who were invovled in Abu garib (spelling?). Are you saying you wouldnt?? For military actions, unless its soldiers immorally/illegally acting on their own, it is command that deserves to take the heat not soldiers. The soldiers job is to obey and he should not be held accountable for doing so under most circumstances.

Im in agreement with Geofrrey here. We in the west like to think we are the civilized peoples of the world so why should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard. "The west is heavily taking the thumping" because we believe that it is us that ought to lead the world not resort to immoral and savage behaviour.It is not that "the evil guys suddenly look like the little angels" but that we know they are evil and that we dont want to sink to their evil level. We want to be above their level.

True that it has no traditional enforcement measures but you underestimate it. States, more often than not, bind themselves to international law. That is the norm. And even when they break it they go out of there way to argue that they are not. Why such behaviour? Simply because the existence of rules benefits states more than it hinders them. You dont rob your neighbour's house simply because the police will come knocking but also because you dont want your neighbour to rob your house. The evolution of international law is no different than domestic law. Law is a way to solve the problem of living in the dangerously unsafe anarchic jungle. At the domestic level we have seen the development of law to overcome the state oflviving in the jungle and slowly we have seen the same evolution at an international level. So yes, international law is miles weaker than domestic law but not nearly as irrelvant as you argue when you say "there is no such thing as international law."

I understand that attacking Iraq became "immoral" only because the UN did not sanction it? Had the UN gave the go-ahead signal....it would've been a moral war? No im talking about the conduct of the war regardless of the jus ad bello legality of the war. From torturing detainees, to indiscrimante attacks,unacceptable levels of collateral damage in relation to military necessity etc.

Holy Starbucks Batman! At a $0.01 decrease in GST it should only save you a penny on every dollar. It's more like buy 100 and get one free." stupid starbucks went and raised the price of coffee anyways!! So I think its the evil corporations taking the GST cut lol....and I think the cups got smaller

Ahh...they're called western civilised values...the ones we are fighting to defend. Kind of pointless trying to defend our values if we throw them away....migt as well strap on a bomb vest and say to heck with it..... You have a point, but at the same time, I believe there is a distinct, moral difference between, say, murdering a bomb-maker, and murdering a schoolgirl. You have captured the issue quite well I think. Murdering bomb-maker good. Murdering schoolgirl bad. International law is very clear that killing the bomb-maker is allowed, the schoolgirl not. But when to kill the bomb-maker we must kill the schoolgirl as well we enter a gray zone of both legal and moral issues. Is one schoolgirl worth sacrificing to kill one bomb-maker? Does it depend on who the bomb-maker is? The crimes he has committed or intelligence information shows he will commit? Can we trust intelligence information? A legitimate question after Iraq Id say. Is there a certain number of schoolgirl deaths that pushes the legality and the morality of the attack over some sort of tipping point? The main law followed by most regimes is that the collateral damage of an attack may not exceed the military necessity of the attack. But who decides what the military necessity is? Do we follow Donald Rumsfeld who believes it is legitmate to bring down an entire apartment building to kill one man?

"There is no global warming out side of anything that is not historical. Nor is there any proof of man made global warming" Maybe in the box you live in. Instead of reading interest group reports and "popular" sources why dont you consult scientist's work in peer reviewed journals. The consensus is amazing, really. Stop allowing yourself to be duped so easily from politicians and lobbyists. Until you've down any open-minded research you really shouldnt comment on the subject to be honest. My only hope is that the global warming "denyers" get to live another 40 years to see just how wrong they were and feel the responsiblity. For the record, the Medieval warming periods are dwarfed in comparison to the recent trend of warming which shows no sign of slowing down.

stupid comment.....but sexist? Men have hair to and Harpers had his the subject of debate as well. Really this hurts the environmental group more by questioning their legitmacy as they engage in this kind of behaviour. Bickering over insults when there is real problems to deal with...ie what will be one of the largest security threats, if not the largest, within 40 years, whether you think its man made (which it is) or natural. Anyone who doubts the seriousness of global warming and the security dimensions of it ought to read the literature, and I mean the academic literature not the junk you get from "popular" sources.

KrustyKidd: Although I agree Iraq is a democracy, in a limited definition, I wouldnt get overly excited yet. With the absence of a strong democratic tradition and the environment that exists in Iraq Im very pessimistic about that countries future. Today its an incredibly fragile state and it wont take much to make it a failed state. If the US were to withdraw tommorow democracy would, in Iraq, have a shelf life of maybe a year in my opinion.

Could someone find and e-mail me a copy of the British Constitution? It would be quite a few documents starting from the Magna Carta....dont mistake the lack of one single "consitution" for not having a constitution.