CanadaRocks

If history were circular, there would be a greater validity to your answer. History is closer to a spiral than a circle, and so similar situations do not always mean similar results. Jobs all performed at the lowest wage that a deregulated world market can supply. No social supports. Technology advanced to a point that it replaces most jobs. The bulk of society without a viable means of support. History would say chaos, revolution. I think your answer to my question is much more like a brushoff, than an answer if you'll forgive my impudence for saying so.

What then is our alternative? To accept the gradual lessening of wages until all are willing to work simply for a handful of food for our starving bellies and a rag to wrap around ourselves, to allow ourselves to be turned into starving animals, as is the current case in some third world countries where business's can find the cheapest labor in the world? ..all in the name of global competitiveness?

I think its interesting that the People of Canada are Canadians, the People of Mexico are Mexicans, the People of France are French, and the People of United States are Americans. Calling ourselves Canadians indicates we lay claim to Canada. Does calling themselves Americans mean that the citizens of United States lay claim to all of North America? ..is it possible that this contributes to confusion?

Suppose party A) supports not fully deregulating our environmental protections (just an example) and has 100 grand of their own to promote it, and an additional 50 grand collected from supporters to advertise and promote to Canadians the values of thier cause. Suppose party supports full deregulation of the environment as this will allow big business to fully maximize profits and will help Canadians through some trickle down concept. Party B has 100 grand of their own to promote their point of view, and collect an additional 900 million dollars from special interest supporters (big business) to make the idea seem good to Canadians. Regardless of the validity of the actual merits of either parties arguements, which party is more likely to succeed?

Is the law of supply/demand a valid issue when it comes to the shortage of doctors? Could we not raise a crop of doctors with low cost or free education for those participating provided they bond to service for Canadians for X years in X area for X amount?

So lets see if I have this right? Globalization seeks to bring equilibrium to the business communities ability to compete. In order to compete successfully business's must have access to the cheapest labour and production means that can be obtained anywhere in the world including countries where the people will work for next to nothing as anything is better than starvation, or almost anything. Techology replaces labourers with increasing efficiency and this trend is expected to grow more prevalent. Laborers must work for continually less and less therefore to remain viable to companies. Deregulation means less government controls on business until there are none, in order for business's to be competitive with business's who are not regulated and therefore produce goods more cheaply. Social Programs are being slowly eliminated as they are considered too expensive. Am I with it so far? So what happens when in a world of billions, when say the need for labour is reduced to say, 30% of the possible workforce by technology, and those 30% are working at the cheapest possible rate of pay that can be manufactured for their respective fields? We'd have a very very rich business class. We'd have 60% of our world with no means to support themselves. Sounds to me, that if we do not change the focus of globalization to bring those other countries UP to our standards of living before allowed to join it rather than us down to theirs as is the current trend, then we're gong to wind up with a VERY rich ruling class of merchants, and an awful lot of expendable destitute poor. If this were so, then .. who would buy the goods that these super business's produced? Please educate me here, because it sure looks like current globalization policies may be meaning a fast buck in short term outlooks, but in the long term may well be the destruction of life as we know it. or am I missing something here?

Perhaps due to linguistic barriers that have in the past precluded our ability to see clearly those things we share in common we have been led to focus instead on those things which divide us. Thankfully through brillance or blind luck we are breaching this language barrier together. Even so, with our young primarily being taught both languages it may be several decades before all of Canada is fully bilingual in both of our official languages and are capable of recognizing all Canadians as one group with many of the same issues in common, with our differences being the spice that adds flavor and not barriers which set us apart. This could of course be accelerated if in their wisdom, having committed to bilingualism in English and Quebec Speak, provinces offered encouragement and enhanced support for all Canadians who desire or are willing to pick up the official language they do not currently possess. The People of Quebec have a lot to offer the rest of Canada, and the rest of Canada has a lot to offer Quebec. Once long ago we learned this lesson and formed a Canada that is respected, admired, and liked throughout the world. Let the other nations of the world fall apart like crumbling cake to be gobbled up by scavengers if thats what they really want. Let Canadians be the ones to teach the world that differences can be overcame peacefully, and to a mutual lasting benefit to all members of our society.

Canada's history is a great deal more than the merging of two linguistic groups, and that history is being increased with every passing day. In an ideal world, where all social issues can be easily resolved and money is not an issue, perhaps I would concur with your conclusion. This is not the case in our present time. Instead, we are faced with the fact that Quebec Speak and English largely divide Canadians. I strongly feel it was an error not to have ensured one common language for all Canadians from the start. That official bilingualism is the only apparent viable solution for our current delimina does not mean we should compound this error by repeating it. If we do? Then only Canadians who speak English, Quebec Speak, an as yet unnamed Native language will be truely first class Canadians and allowed to be members of our government, and the rest, all second class Canadians. Thats smart? The only way to recognize a cultural contribution is to make its language Official? Come now, surely there must be more to cultures than language? Language should not be allowed to determine who is a first class Canadian, and who is second. It does currently, there is a remedy in place, which may not be the best answer, but is an answer. If it is wrong to have two official languages, why compound the error by having a third, or more? Why erect linguistic barriers? As for the heritage of Canada that comes from our Canadian Natives, lets find some why of embracing and recognizing it, short of linguistically, yet equally as valid. Their contribution is to be respected, but lets not use them to worsen the state of Canadian unity and further divide us. I feel you are very very mistake here. I'm born Canadian. I've never really considered myself anything else. I need to move on because I disagree with language barriers? I need to move somewhere else? Those sir are fighting words and perhaps you'd best put your dukes up. You've stated I most certainly do respect different languages and cultures. This does not mean that I will in any way support using our differences to divide us into us and them groups that encourage us to focus on infighting. When I try to get a job, and I am turned away because I don't speak Quebec speak, or a Person from Quebec gets turned down because they don't speak English, that is divisive. It is not hard at all to list ways that multiple languages can divide a People who do not all know every official one, for they are many. When one cannot be understood by a countryman(woman) THAT is divisive. When one lives above a law or situation, it is not unusual for them to not fully understand its affects or implications. Perhaps you should get down in the muck and suffer with the rest of us awhile before you speak of what is divisive, and what is not.

Encouraging Quebec families to be excessively large and supporting this through their provincial government, turns out to have been a brilliant political move eh? One might say perhaps "the sleeper awakens." In the past I've often scoffed at "political correctness" as I suppose many may have. Yet in the face of the language wall that separates Canadians from each other, and in understanding that we each are affected by our perceptions of matters, I wonder if political correctness might not have its place. What I mean by this, is the frequent references to Canadians who speak Quebec Speak as FRENCH Canadians etc, and of Canadians who speak English as ENGLISH Canadians etc. Do you know why there is an insistance that the Canadian flag fly above the Provincial flag or for that matter any other flag? It is to remind us that our alliegance lies first to Canada, and then to other concerns. A small gesture perhaps, but one that serves its purpose well as a reminder. Within the scope of that concept, I strongly feel that Canadians should encourage themselves, and other Canadians, to reconsider our designations. I can assure you I am not an ANGLO, or an ENGLISH Canadian. I'm Canadian first and foremost. Perhaps a Canadian who speaks English is fair. I try very hard not to consider our Quebec Speak brothers and sisters FRENCH Canadians, but to consider them Canadians who speak Quebec Speak. Along the same lines I applaud Canadians who are have breached the communication barrier and are Canadians bilingual in our offical languages. Some may scoff at the thought of asserting we are Canadian prior to our linguistic heritage. To those Persons I would say that it is significant. I don't give a sweet damn what language we all speak, it sucks that some of us speak a different one, but I revel in knowing that first and foremost, WE ARE CANADIANS. Canadians who are bilingual in both offical languages are taking over our government at all levels? Cool. Most of those Canadians who are bilingual are coming from one province? Well, that does suck. The interests of all may not be represented. On the other hand? It is not written in stone that Canadians who are bilingual come from Quebec, so perhaps we other provinces need to take appropriate and effective steps to ensure that Canadians from our area's become eligible by becoming fully bilingual ASAP. and yes, I dislike having two languages, besides dividing us so long as all Canadians don't know both, I do feel its an insult to any Canadian whose heritage language is not represented. However this is the case, its not going away, and we need to turn our greatest weakness, into our greatest strength if we, Canadians, are to come out on top as one People. heh.. meant to give my 2 cents but I think thats more like a nickel .. *S* ..keep the change!

An insight I had not considered, which perhaps I should have before posting that last post? Even as growing up surrounded by English speaking Canadians makes learning Quebec Speak most difficult, so too is learning English for those raised surrounded by Quebec speak. Perhaps it is this that makes it reasonable for Quebec Speak to be our second language? If this is so, then perhaps for once our leaders were wise to make Quebec Speak a 2nd official language, for within a generation or two, though we must speak two languages to accomplish it, all Canadians will be able to talk easily with each other, and perhaps then we can begin to look at other issues we face in common without an us/them attitude? Anyhow.. I don't really approve of two official languages in a multi-cultural country, but at least I understand it a bit better perhaps?

Well that was fun Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

While I am not interested in voting NDP, I have seen some very rational thinking on their part over the years. Contrary to what you suggest, I do not see Liberals or Conservatives as boding any great future for Canada, just more of the same old, same old we've always seen. As for polls? The more secure and accurate polls become along with the more participated in, the more valuable they are likely to be as indicators.

When it comes to capitalism, all I have ever seen is thieves who usually use a pen, rather than a gun. I remember a poli sci professor explaining to my class once a concept of business thievery. Perhaps you know more about it than I, but it went something like this.. A businessman hires men to work in his factory. Together they work to ensure mutual success. As the men grow more proficient in their job at the assemblyline, he moves a lever that increases the speed of the belt by an unnoticable amount. The men do not detect they are working harder though they are, yet for the amount of work they do an increasing amount of product is being turned out and profits grow while the labor wage remains stagnant. Ultimately the factory owner can afford technological advances that will remove various aspects of the labour force and increase profits yet further. Bit by bit the labor force is phased out in any and all area's it can be. Without the aid of those men (or women) in the labor force, that businessman would never have gotten anywhere. It was the partnership with them that made it possible. He has stolen from his men and they were not knowledgeable enough to understand it, or in a position to prevent it.

Are there no viable alternatives to gas that can be utilized, or are those viable alternatives kept from the public?

a bit off topic, but perhaps you would indulge me? Are you saying that Quebecers are not really Canadians but are outcast French holding Canadian soil?

Respectfully? I disagree. Canada may have been founded by two cultures, but we made a huge mistake when we allowed more than a single language to dominate. It sets Canadians against each other in a struggle for dominance. The more we fight each other the less able we are to embrace each other and focus our energies on the true task at hand, building our Canada. At this moment I don't think we have an "our Canada" I think we have a FRENCH Canada, and an ENGLISH Canada each competing to see who will determine Canada's future. We speak of Canada's second language being French, and yet any Person from France would burst out laughing, or cursing at that thought. Our second language is Quebec Speak, or bastardized French. Our first language is likely bastardized English. I live on the Ontario side of the Quebec border. The town I live in proudly claims to be 90% bilingual. As I speak only English currently when I moved here I thought this a wonderful opportunity to learn to become bilingual and get to know my Canadian french speaking countrymen and women. My views have since changed greatly. In the year I've been here, I've not found work despite papering the town with resume's. Never in my life have I failed so miserably at finding work. Each time I have managed to obtain an interview at a job I'm qualified to do, the interview ends when the employer learns I am not french speaking, and this is wether the job requires an ability to speak french or not. At the part time job I did manage to get, my co-workers fluently speak English with me when we are alone, and yet the moment another french speaking Person enters the room, they immediately move to speak french and entirely ignore me as though I no longer existed, this is not one occasion, but any and every occasion. I find this deeply insulting and my opinion of Canadians who are primarily french has dropped to the point that I wonder if Quebecers are really Canadians at all. I don't mean that in an offensive way despite how it sounds, however the rudeness I've encountered sure is changing the way I view Canada. When I broach these Persons telling them I feel left out, they counter by telling me that I should learn to be a Frenchman. Eventually I grew irritated by their comments and returned that I am a Canadian who speaks our primary language, and not an ENGLISH Canadian. At this they generally become embarrassed and speak english with me until the next occassion. I don't feel my co-workers are bad People. In fact I tend to like them alot, and they me. We face alot of the same issues. We make a good team when we work together. Its not thier fault that they were raised to speak a different language, nor is it mine. Yet language has been made to be a tremendous barrier to keep us apart, and it is very effective. Eventually, out of necessity and opportunity, I will learn to speak Quebec Speak. However I will never again respect that Canada has two official languages and will oppose this to my dying day. I think we should tear down any and all walls that serve to divide one Canadian from another, especially something so fundemental as our ability to talk to each other. Culture is more than language so that is no excuse. Simply being Canadian, is a culture in itself. I feel that our leaders have betrayed us in advancing how many languages we must speak to be a Canadian because as it stands now, if you don't speak both English AND Quebec Speak, then you are not really a Canadian at all, you're a second class Canadian even if you were born here. I say hold a vote, remove the second language garbage, choose Quebec Speak to be the official Canadian language, or choose English, it really matters not which is our official language only one of them is shared by all Canadians. Multilingual is wonderful, but being told you MUST speak them all to obtain work, or to be a real Canadian, is nothing more than an expensive disgusting insult that tears Canadians apart.

Most taxes are taken directly from ones check, its not an option. How do you propose a tax revolt be carried out? and um.. who was it said the only certain things in life are death and taxes?

To me, being a Canadian, means looking out for each other. It means being tolerant. It means standing up for what we believe in. It means avoiding violence to resolve our issues. It means social programs. It means recognizing that someone who is different, is also a Person who hurts and bleeds and loves and cares. Being Canadian, means being humane in a world where doing that may not always make the most business sense. When we stop doing these things, when we stop treating fellow Canadians humanely, as we would want to be treated, then I say to you, we have no danger of losing Canada, for it will already be lost in all but name.

In the families model we've used, the government are the parents, not the child. I think thats where you're becoming confused. In that model it would be the parent, who tells their child with 5 toys not to be so damn greedy and to give their brother with no toys a few to play with. And yes, the government dang well should be redistributing societies wealth. Either that, or we should forget teaching our children values and simply concentrate on teaching them to succeed at any cost, and that .. is simply not acceptable.

Thanks August, I read the article you provided and come to think of it have met some of our Newfoundlanders. heh.. I like the flavor of their People, and after all its our primary language and I can understand them, so I share something with them, even if our dialect is a bit diff.

Personally, I feel I would be uncomfortable with seeing guys kiss, tho seeing chicks kiss is a bit of a turn on I think. That being said? If heterosexual couples are allowed to express their sexuality in a given way in a given social situation, then homosexual couples should be able to as well. If that barkeep didn't like it, he should have banned it for all. Thats equal rights. By the same token? If gay Persons can have parades celebrating homosexuality, then heterosexual groups should be able to do the same. If one group wishes its rights respected, it must protect that by supporting the rights of other groups to the same privilieges. Whats that saying? I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (dunno who said that but theres wisdom in those words)

NO

y'know, I dunno, I used to think that voting anonyminity was a really good way, simply because it can to a degree prevent retaliation. As time passes tho, and I see more and more of what I consider to be travesties of justice happening, I at times feel offended that people assume no responsibility for those we place in power. There's a lot of room for debate about the pros and cons of retractable votes vs anonyminity with valid points on both sides. Its even possible that there might be a way to have the best of both worlds. Nothing in this world we can ever do is truly anonymus is it?

Personally I'd be far more likely to watch it if our parliamentarians debated like scientists, bringing out valid points and debating them on their merits. At least then watching would be a bit of mind expansion and not just bubblegum. What good can it really serve for one member to state that Canada is whoring away its environmental rights to the detriment of Canada's future, and for another member to exclaim well your mothers a whore and I've never complained! .. somehow.. it just don't seem the kind of debating that is worth watching.

Newfoundlanders don't share the english language with us?