maplesyrup

This whole scenario is getting ridiculous and is a valid reason for considering abolishing the provinces. I'm surprised Gordo in BC has not jumped onto this insanity, as he has jumped onto every other stupid strategy going in this country.

Bakunin......99.9% of the left supports the PQ (sovereignty) in Quebec politics because there in no left-of-centre federalist provincial party in Quebec. The PQ is the only game in town. Personally I could care less if Quebec separates or not, it is not going anywhere. It will be read as a major failure for Canada's promotion of tolerance though, around the world, and that would be a tragedy in my opinion. Only when that PQ bearhold is broken in Quebec, by the NDP or whoever, will Canada as a whole be able to progress.

Bakunin.......we have had enough muddying the waters and that is why the Clarity Act exists although I for one, do not support it. What Parizeau is suggesting is that a PQ victory in the next Quebec election is sovereignty for Quebec.

This is big, really big, and I agree with Parizeau. The PQ's goal is sovereignty. Lat's call a spade a spade. And finally this will will provide an opening for a left-of-centre federalist provincial party in Quebec. Oh, now this is interesting

American discount store Costco testing caskets No wonder Costco is doing so well.

Parizeau proposes radical PQ plan This may provide the New Democrats with the opportunity they have been looking for in Quebec.

Cartman....sounds like a plan. Security tightened after Canadian fan leaps into Olympic pool Has the world gone nuts over security? I think security is the latest scam. This is ridiculous! What a farce the Olympics have turned into.

Gap Between Haves, Have-nots Expands This is the direct result of allowing corporations way too much power in our societies.

One in a million, or whatever. Why don't you be honest and explain the real reason Bush engineered this legislation, eh?

Hjalmar......here is a paragraph from the above article: And your quote: When you suggest the silent majority or whatever, so what? Since when does that make it right? The only thing that tells me is we need a labour oriented TV network to offset the BS with the suits agenda on the corporate networks.

I probably need a history lesson but my take on what happened is first there were corporations which were created to exploit on behalf of the corpoate executives, and then came the unions to attempt to cut down on the exploitation of corporations, on behalf of the employees. I agree that unions can overdo it, however my preference is that unions focus and work aggressively on unionizing the employees in private industry including the 7/11s, etc., as difficult as that may be. Has anyone here heard of someone named Saul Alinsky? Reveille For Radicals:

This is a red herring. We are talking here about the business corporations which impact on 99.9% of society, not some church where a few people go to worship. Anything to avoid discussng corporate business responsibility or abuse, eh!

I agree that it is time for Canadians to consider abolishing our provinces and territories.. The provinces are a huge drain financially and are constantly tearing away at national unity. The have outlived their usefulness. Of course this would involve a new constitution for Canada, but so what? We live in a changing world, eh!

Bakunin's example of the water being polluted by a foreign (the foreign part is not significant, that it is is a corporation is significant) corporation in some town is an excellent example for the reason I suggest we consider exploring abolishing corporations. My impression of a corporation is that it is a shell game, designing to avoid paying one's proper share of taxes, or to avoid taking personal responsibility, for one's actions, when things go wrong. Why should corporate executives avoid the reprecussions, when they destroy a town's drinking water? The only reason these people get away with it is because they are in a corporation. If it is not an activity that one would consider doing on one's own where one is responsible when things go wrong, then maybe one should not be doing it, eh! Seriously, my impression is that these corporations are parasites on society. Why do we need them?

Why He Crushed the Oligarchs This is a interesting article in Counterpunch by Tariq Ali, who personally interviewed the President. Ali explains why Chavez won and what some of the ramafications are. Not very impressed with the Economist smear job though.

There is something fundamentally wrong when the host nation has to fund the costs of the event. Maybe a more productive approach would be to have all the participating countries contribute financially into a fund, with a sliding ability to pay scale, and have the Olympics take place in developing world venues.

Victorious Chavez vows to continue his 'revolution for the poor' But will Washington? Somehow I doubt it.

Don't usually pay too much attention to the Olympics, and when they came to Montreal, I went to Cavendish Beach and had a wonderful vacation. China already has 10 gold medals, and I wonder if this will be the Olympics where China begins its domination never again to be seriously challenged in the forseeable future.

Nice sentiment.

For Phelps, a Lesson Learned Quite the contrast.

Kerry. Bush. What's the difference? We all know who they represent.

Where does it say they berlonged to a union?

Ian Thorpe: our greatest Olympian Gracious in defeat.

13 construction workers have been killed on Olympic sites For different reasons the families of these workers who built the structures care. I wonder what kind of union protection these workers did not have!

PFF.....thanks for that post on Denmark. Europeans in quality of life, in many ways, are miles ahead of North America, and I have heard particularly good things about Denmark. For example, 10% of all new housing in Denmark is Co-Housing where one owns their own unit, but there are common areas for the community to gather to share a meal, a concert, etc.