jefferiah

No that is not what I am advocating for. I am simply advocating for Right to Work. We don't have to adopt the exact same legislation as the US. You will keep saying til your blue in the face "that is what Right to Work is" (that it is also the second clause)....ok if it makes you happy we will simple give it another name. We will call it "Dave". I advocate for Dave. Which is basically right to work without the second part.

Likewise members in a community also speak their opinion. So for instance if public opinion were to shift in favor of Bonam and I, the community would have the power to decide if they like our view better. And ensuing changes could be made. That is what we do here at MLW isn't it?

You still do not understand what I am saying. I realize it is a part of the RTW legislation in the US. Who says that RTW has to be anything more than RTW? I disagree with the second clause. That should make you a bit happier. Shouldn't it.

I think you are misreading me entirely.

I realize that is how a democracy works. I have said so already. The point is why should this democracy have any power over anyone else but itself.

I disagree with the second part. I am aware of that. However, I am using the term right to work in the literal sense of the word. RIGHT TO WORK. That's it.

Yes, you are missing the point. The democracy is the union itself. So basically by the act of forming a union you have forced others who wish to be employed in this career to belong to the club, to strike when they decide to. The union can be a democracy all it wants and vote on what course of action the union ought to take. That's all fine and good. But they do not own the business. What right do they have to say who the employer can hire and who is allowed to work there?

That makes no sense whatsoever. If I am not asking for your help in the first place, why are you upset if the employer gives me an equal wage. I am not demanding a wage increase. It matters not whether another person incidentally benefits from an action you have taken on behalf of yourself. This person owes you nothing. It is like asking what right do you have to run me out of business by not shopping at my store?

And what of those brilliant legal jurists who got the job before this is mandatory?

This does not make a lot of sense. If the lawyer is not required to be fluent, for instance, how does that necessarily make him more reliable than a translator? The level of fluency required to make legal arguments is not something you can pick up easily.

Believe it or not, I am not here to give unions and union guys a hard time or anything. Some of my family are union.

You do not have to even make this argument Bonam. Since the comparable minority would only be union members who voted for the unpopular choice. He is right that a minority in a democratic vote naturally loses. What he is missing is that their democracy should only have power over itself and those who choose to be members.

Your argument makes sense (in a sense). But it does not apply here. The minority vote you refer to (or at least the comparable one in your analogy to other democracies) is that of other union members who voted the other way. They chose to part of a democratic union, so as far as union affairs go of course they cannot over ride any decision the union makes democratically. But what gives the union this power over those outside the union?

Except that a union is not a nation. As far as natural rights go unions ought to be able to form and exist. But what right do they have to say whether or not those outside their club can work or not. Why should the decisions of this so-called democracy apply to those who do not belong to it?

So ganging up makes it right then? The union should certainly have a right to decide democratically what their own course of action will be. What right do they have to decide that for others?

What right do you have to tell someone else he must also strike?

You have a right to strike no matter what. You simply leave and say if you want me you have to pay me more. If they don't want to, you have now earned the right to a permanent strike. What makes you think that if you don't like your job you have the right to tell others whether or not they can also choose to work there?

You make this sound like a bad thing. What right do you have to tell me or my employer that I cannot work unless I'm part of your little club?

I am not slamming Canadian artists though. I realize Canada has a pretty good music scene. Radio and television do not need to be urged to play artists that people want to hear anyways. I wasn't talking specifically about music, either.

There are times to be prudent about certain actions. This is not one of them. I would not worry about people who would criticize him over a trifle like this. With such people, Harper is either damned if he does or damned if he doesn't.

Excellent point. These guys might not be making it big, but no one is telling you you must consume their art and thus they probably have a bigger fanbase than those who are Canadian filler. In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin mentions that he does not like a certain movie. I think it was the Godfather. The other characters chime in with "How can you not like the Godfather?" To which he replies that the movie insists upon itself. I have no idea what that was supposed to mean, but those very words come to mind when I think of the Canadian content the CRTC supports. It insists upon being Canadian. It does so to a point that it is not Canadian at all, and alienates the general public. Most of us find it kind of lame. Attempts to engineer some sort of Canadian culture result in some kind of need to create a constant awareness of Canada throughout. Americans do not need to try to be American. And they don't. They just make their art. It is not in contrast to anything else. In Canada, the CRTC ideal ultimately ends up in trying to contrast ourselves from America. Instead of just being Canadian (whatever that is), the goal becomes not being American. We don't have to try to be Canadian. We are. Let that be, and what results from that is what Canadian culture is. Trying to manufacture a culture is the death of culture itself.

Much of this Canadian content is not only unsuccessful because it does not fair well in other countries. Much of it does not sell well here. We are not watching it. And if Canadians in general do not like it why are we paying for it? How does it reflect our culture if we do not like it? If it has to be forced then it is some CRTC ideal of what our culture is, not the culture itself. Culture does not need protecting. It is what it is.

[quote name='Sir Bandelot' date='25 August 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1282772116' post='573796' It's not really about Germany, is it? Or maybe it is, for JBG. He can answer to that if he wants to. It is about Germany in the sense that you compared his signature with that of the poster. It was not an US or THEM situation for the Germans. They did not have to kill millions of THEM in order to maintain the US.

That is a pretty sensible signature. It begins with the word If. This implies that if the situation has no other alternative you would choose your own (whether or not your own refers to race or family or some other group you belong to). Imagine for instance that a neighboring family had some sort of feud with your own Mr. Bandelot. One night you are sleeping and this other family decided to attack you. You have tried reasoning with them, but right now they are brandishing chainsaws and heading for your children's rooms. I can respect the ideal that you try to be understanding of all sides, but when you have reached the point where there are no other alternatives than "US" or "THEM" my assumption is you would also choose us. I don't recall the Jews actually being a threat to German existence. So there is no comparison between JBG's condemnation of this former fellow poster's signature and your condemnation of his.

Out of the ones I named, Bullets Over Broadway is the only one sans Woody. I like Woody. I also liked the documentary about his Dixieland band.