Yorkness

Do rich people deserve their money? Better yet, do people, in general, deserve THEIR money? This is the most ridiculous question I have ever heard to date. I think this question deserves another which is: Do people have the right to property? Property being money, either speculated or physical. To set a case in point I'd like to ask a personal question. Do I deserve my $4 Starbuck's Cappucino? Or should I have bought a Tim Horton's coffee and donated the extra $2.50 I had saved to UNICEF or whatever charity organization. Do I have the right to a higher economic quality of life? Or should I limit my personal and economic worth so it better coincides with that of the general population? Do I have the right to aspire? To dream? To chase those dreams? And, to, ultimately succeed? What if I cause some misfortune to someone or other along my path? Did that person not have the right to pursue his own dreams? Did he not have the right, if not the ability; To defend himself, and his interests, dreams, family, what have you? Everybody deserves where they are. True, sometimes inheritance can present an advantage to certain people, but does this, by default, make them more successful? There is still a road to be tread, by the richest, and by the poorest. I believe that a man should act before he asks. If I am poor, and I wish to become rich; I should act on it. I should not ask that wealth come to me. I must come towards that wealth first. May I ask that wealth be passed to me, from the other side of the room? Yes, but does that mean it will come? No, I must first take a step towards it. I see this topic within a vision of a field. On one side there is a rich man, with his wealth in front of him, let's say his wealth is in the shape of a ball. On the other side of the field is a poor man. The poor man requests that the ball, as in the rich man's wealth, be passed to him. The rich man passes him the ball, then the poor man retreats farther down the field in hatred and disrespect of the rich man's fortune, even as he holds it. The rich man then chases the poor man, disgusted with the poor man's lack of appreciation. The two men remain at a distance, each pursuing something he feels is rightly his. Another scenario sees the same men in the same ends if the field. The poor man realizes he is at a disadvantage and steps towards the rich man, who has abundant and extra wealth. He steps towards him intending a compromise of the two men's wealth. The rich man, realizing the poor man's needs, steps forwards. His step forward comes in terms of a service he provides. This service helps the poor man close the gap between them until finally they unite, in the middle of the field. I think people must first ask what they deserve from themselves, instead of relaying their needs immediately to an outside party. Does one deserve to live their life first? Or that of someone else? I beg many people on this board do some soul searching, but from within themselves, not the CEO of AIG.

Dude; People will vote for policy, not name. Although I am afraid there is a certain blind honor to a certain party with many people. A 3-party coalition sounds a little more ideological than practical. A coalition with an unrepresented party?...?? Also, P.S.: One should never vote solely to oust a certain leader. I think there must be trust involved in one's decisions every time. The alternative must be faithfully distinguished in one's eyes to warrant a vote. If your only interest is to oust Harper then abstain! For your new leader could step off the pedestal on which you have put him.

I do imagine that we compensate for our evil lifestyles with our various NGO's, government funding, political/military support, private charity, to countries in need more than enough to avoid such moral hazards. It would be interesting also to study the economics of the affect an increased demand for such products as corn by the alternative fuel culture has affected the supply. Maybe the supply has increased sufficiently to support the demand and there is still plenty of corn to ship to countries in need. We, in Canada, have always sought to help those in need. Whether it be our fellow european colonists. The Afghanis, Rwanda, The Balkans, etc... And I believe that this willingness has come largely in part to the ability we have in doing so due to the fantastic quality of life we have here, in Canada.

Hey, this has been an issue that I have always considered quite complex and bewildering. That issue is that of Gypsy adaptation into society whether historic or contemporary though I like to focus on contemporary issues. How is it that Gypsies have been and continue to be at the fringe of any society in which they live? Sure they have faced persecution, but what have they themselves done to relieve such sentiment? I believe this issue could quite well be compared to that of our own native people of Canada in a few ways as they live on the fringe of Canadian society as do the gypsies. So; Why is this an issue people?

Current events.

A conservative buys the drinks.

HaHa, sorry guys.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics...html?id=1059780 I see that I am quite late in posting this but after I stopped getting my weekly TIME since the new year commenced I felt that I should phone and see what was going on. I was surprised to see on the internet and to hear over the phone that the Canadian "advertiser" edition had been cancelled. Apparently there has been such an edition for 60 years! You will be able to subsrcibe to the US edition which is essentially the same except it has more American advertising. Anyways I think they could have handled it better and sent me a notice with an option to continue my subscription with the American version. Apparently notices have been sent AFTER the cancellation and will take an approximate 2 to 3 weeks to arrive. Fortunately the private company I ordered my subscription through is willing to substitute my subscription with that of an even higher value. I wonder if they offer the The New Yorker?

Very good questions. In dealing with issues of public security the utmost transparency of information must be shared unless of course it could possibly negatively affect the public peace of mind or promote vigilancy. I think in dealing with crime perpetrators should be referred to as criminals and their ethnicity should not devaluate that condition.

I dont believe online security technology is sufficiently developed to handle such a personal action as is voting. Also, would the establishment of online voting have a cost disadvantage? Federal funding would be needed to develop such programs as the private market for such technology is'nt very developed or diverse. A contract with a specific company would have to negotiated and ultimately payed. This company would have empolyee salaries to pay making the contract more costly than say that with the volunteers to any given polling station. This is not something we should be looking at at the moment because of the unnecessary financial risk in especially hard economic times and the lack of reliable security technology. Also, I believe that voting should be a very personal experience and that the physical act of it best eximplifies it personally. I think that the added convenience of online voting would add a certain spontaneity which would make the act of voting less an act of commitment to a certain politcal belief and more an act of preverbal act of publicity. I think most people who vote are the more serious ones in terms of political involvment and want to make that effort to vote. To most people who are'nt that serious the simple physicality involved in the act of voting is their deterrent which in most cases is quite welcome in terms of the philosophy of the vote. In a more national perspective I doubt online voting would increase voter turnout by 30%. So the isolated cases mentioned are hardly relevant. Also, even if it could raise voter turnout to such a level would that vote not be tainted by the higher uneducated vote for those who have voted out of convenience? Would such questionable, partisan systems of voting such as "strategic" voting be more widely promoted and used? Also, some legitimate security concerns have been pointed out. The very physical act of potentially traditional voting promotes very high personal security. Only you and yourself can vote. With online voting a medium of communication would have to be opened between the voter and his voting username/password. This communication could be easily manipulated. A person's permanent address is hardly reliable. Also, if there are several people in a given household what is there to stop one member of it voting for everybody? Much must be discussed before we go into the promotion of online voting.

Canadian border security does not provide exemption for petty crimes like the U.S. does. Maybe this such distinguised man has an insignifigant, but relevant criminal record.

I found the "Obamamania" here in Edmonton to be very amusing. What a materialistic campaign of support! Obviously Obama appeared visually stunning to these people as not many dared to be caught without their Obama pins, flags, banners, T-shirts, etc.. I even thought about wearing an Obama mask for haloween for the social accomodation it could possibly have brought me. What amazed me most was how the politcally naive were not the only ones connived into the visual frill of Obama. I found myself trying to explain to those pseudo-intellectual, left-wing artsy types that no, in fact, Obama does not plan on pulling out the troops, rather he plans to increase them, at least temporarily. How pathetic I found it seeing people in bars wavings their Obama paraphanelia while watching the upcoming election results. The election of Obama, of course, is a landmark, at least in racial terms. I think though, that many people overrode the relevance of this inspiring fact and romanticized it with the political and economic reversal of the policies of a man completely the opposite of Obama; Bush. I feel that many see Obama as a savior of America from Bush and once Bush ceases to become that bad man of which "change" is needed to rid America of his evil acts that Obama will then face great difficulty in maintaining that ever-elusive ambiguity of his politics.

The most powerful countries whether it be independently or through alliance are always put under the highest expectations.

I believe the reason that the work was contracted to the US plant was that it had the capacity to build the trucks specified by the government. Apparently the Ontario plant was only capacitated or specialized to build large trucks while the US plant could build light to medium trucks, which were the ones the government is planning on getting built.

Usually many people find themselves rooting for the underdog.