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.

Of course there would have to exist a "grey" scale which would apply to varying degrees of "limited" ability persons. This would provide a compromise between the black and white terms "expected to work" and "not expected to work" which denote working ability. Persons with "poor skills" could qualify for welfare on a preliminary basis under the aformentioned grey scale which to give it a more politcally correct term, lets call it welfare for persons of "irregular" ability, or even "non-conformist" ability. These persons would already have access to already existing government skills training programs.

I was refering to anarchy in economic, and not politcal terms.

I will attempt to answer your questions. I believe that welfare should not be available to those who can provide for themselves. I think this is quite obvious. The point of welfare is to provide for a person in the opposite situation. Welfare should definitely be utilitarian, any extravagances can be obtained through the free market. This creates independence of individuals in the market. I ask one question: If welfare provided more than the necessity, why would people then work? Why would they endure hardship if they could live "dignifiably" on their fellow taxpayer's tab?

I agree. I too form more of a personal perspective from reading personal opinions. Thats why I more than often find myself more interested in the commentary on a story than the story itself. A journalist acts much like a marketer in expressing only the parts of a story with the most "shock" value so most can hardly be expected to provide a very abstract opinion. I was just interested in what people used to stay informed on this forum as the world of media is so personal and dynamic and it could make a great conversation.

Wow.

I never tend to delve into history as I prefer to understand the world in it's currency. It is possible to understand further the actions of the present with reference to the past but one should not justify present action with a past occurence. I believe you may be citing the tactics used in the creation of israel. I, in my post, cited a possible historical reason that could justify, in their minds, the response of HAMAS. If Iran were involved it is hard to tell what could happen. Lets say that Palestine and israel are completely equal in military might. Would there be such strife in between them? Would'nt their military ability, being the same, render diplomacy between the two? I think the balance of power would maintain peace.

No, it was not. The CBC story is almost an exact copy of the one from CTV. By elaboration I mean going into specifics. What constitutes a low and middle income Canadian? Will the deduction be a higher annual tax exemption? Or maybe a percentage cut? Or both? When will these changes be implemented? There are many questions unanswered for the lack of elaboration. I agree that it may not be politically viable to state such specifics with no clear election date set but that is why I choose to ignore news as this. It is simply too irrelevant for the times.

Enlightening post. I can hardly say I know much about industry and economics and I guess I am just pawing desperately at any of the prestige my beloved province has left.

Hi, I was just interested in seeing how people liked to get their news here. I have a few questions: Which medium do you like to get your news through? Is it radio? Which stations? Television? Which channels? Print media? Magazines? Newspapers? Which ones? Personally I like to listen to the radio because I find it goes a little more in depth with the news. It also offers many complimentary programs that go even further into depth of the news reported. Also, radio is a little less constrained by schedule. News reports are offered more frequently, and breaking news is offered faster I feel. Personally I listen to 630 CHED of Edmonton. I live there. I like because it has many different talkshows with very interesting and passionate hosts among other alternative programs. Another thing I like about radio is the fact that it is more participative. People more often can phone in and comment direcly on something said on either a news report or talkshow. The CBC is also interesting though I listen to it more for the interesting cultural programs they offer such as Vinyl Cafe, Quarks and Quarks and the various programs they usually offer on technology and world cultures. I dont watch much television. I find it to be very limiting. It's alll about image. It only manages to announce the news and not promote or elaborate on it. Although "The National" with Peter Mansbridge will always be a classical favorite of mine. Of all the ways to get my news I prefer magazines. I love them. Their glossy covers. Their witty cartoons. Their photos. The fact that I can read what I want to. I can choose to read the headline or read the entire story. The artistic way in which journalists form their words, sentences, and paragraphs. Print media goes the farthest in depth of any news medium. TIME has always been a favorite of mine though it is getting a little too bare bones for me. The New Yorker is a must. It's cartoons are thought-provoking and funny. It's articles are still quite long and though interesting articles are few and far between the ones which finally interest are of the best. Maclean's is great to read sometimes, being Canadian as well. For newspapers I read The Star. I find that it covers the widest variety of topics, especially international news, which many newspapers report little on (Edmonton Journal...). Also I have a soft spot for the city as I am from there. The Star I also find to be consistently relevant in it's reporting. It does'nt report many quirky stories better served for the latest New York Times fiction bestseller. The other local and private newspapers such as the Globe & mail, National Post seem to be either too irrelevant or too radical. Also, judging the general left/right mentality of this board. Which media would you consider left/right? Just for entertainment purposes. And if you are currently reading a politcally realted book; Please share. I just started the Chretien book "My years as Prime Minister". I've always wanted to read up on this man. What a character.

It is so difficult to answer because you are looking for a "yes" to your question to have an excuse to go on a tyrade about israel's actions. I think the question is reasonable but too simple for the present israel-gaza situation. A simple yes/no question does'nt allow the multiple and complex issues to be taken sufficiently into consideration. Of course the Palestinians have a right to self-defense but that defense, while it is a right, can be considered a privelege when they are the agressor. Then, if overpowered, they must earn that right again, as they have compromised it. One could say that HAMAS is acting in self-defence as israel could possibly be agressing Gaza by occupying Palestinian land and building settlements, for example, but the Palestinian side is hard to defend because their rocket attacks are directed at random locations. That is more like terrorism than necessitarian war. Unfortunately though, you could then turn around and say that Gaza is limited in resources, and they can only afford to attempt random rocket attacks to continue the "resistence", or they could resort to diplomacy....I'm afraid israel is also guilty of random, terrorist-like attacks as well, at least by their civilians. So neither they are too innocent. In the end, the israeli response is more notably reactive, while HAMAS appears to have no legitimate defense for their terrorist-like rocket attacks.