SF/PF

That may have had less to do with out-dated profs and more to do with out-dated equipment in the schools. Admittedly, both are large problems in technical schools. I suppose in the case of electronics, they could have taken this as a teaching oppurtunity on the use of transformers and resistors to make the old power sources work with the new equipment. That was the goal, although it was never going to happen. People tend to underestimate the breadth of skills and abilities required within a single trade or discipline. Compound this with the reality that different shops have often radically different processes to do the same thing, and it should have been obvious to anyone in the know that it was a fool's errand from the start. We often get apprentices from provinces where they are able to write off one or two years of apprenticeship by attending a full time course for a year or so. The problem is that they have virtually no exposure to a lot of stuff that is done in the field. And you can't really blame the schools for the most part; the equipment and materials involved are cost prohibitive. Yep. I think its a larger problem than the personnel department, though. It seems that more and more, decisions are being made by bean counters and MBAs that don't have the slightest understanding of the actual processes at work. I work in industrial construction, and I can tell you that you can very accurately predict the success of a project based on the backgrounds of the brass and the letters that follow their names. The companies wanted to push the cost of training on to the tax payers as much as the schools wanted to expand their enrollment. In many cases, they lobbied the government to foot the bill for training their workers.

The problem, at least in the area of the skilled trades, is that employers don't want apprentices. They seem to expect that trained workers will just spring into existence. On large scale construction jobs, the apprentices that they do hire are usually left doing the same task for months (even years!) at a time so that they become really good and efficient at something that makes up but a small part of their trade. Of course, employers love this because they get people that after a short time are doing journeyman level work (in that one area of the trade) for 50-80% of the journeyman rate. They don't seem to realize that in four years those apprentices will be journeyman and will be expected to be highly competent in things that they've never done before. And then the employers will complain about the lack of skills the journeymen have! Frankly, I'm not sure its possible to save industry from itself.

Of course, your anti-union rhetoric can't explain why the non-union manufacturing sector in North America has been gutted just as efficiently as the union side. The fact is that any worker that demands more than a couple bowls of rice per day of labour has effectively priced themselves out of the global labour market. Quibbles about a few bucks an hour difference are meaningless. I do find it interesting that so many in Canada believed that offshoring was great for the overall economy as long as it was limited to the manufacturing sector. Of course, now that companies have realized that its actually easier to offshore the jobs of "professionals" than manual labour, everyone cries that we have a problem.

Quite right. There is a lot of debate on the specifics of evolutionary biology, just as there is a lot of debate on the specifics of climite science. I wrote exactly that previously. But there is also an awful lot of debate on both of these subjects that has no place in scientific dialogue. There is no debate on the fact that evolutionary theory is true. Just as there is no debate that AGW is true. No, its a statement that is either true or false on scientific grounds. There is nothing inherently political about the statement. You may disagree with the statement. You may dislike some of the consequences if the statement is true. But to suggest that it is a political statement is nonsense. No, this is where we disagree. There are two completely seperate "battles" here. The science debate, and the policy debate. And the only thing that will come of deliberatly blurring those lines is public confusion. Of course, thats the goal.

Yes, and "there is no debate" in the Evolution/ID issue either. Do you take this to mean that there is no debate in modern evolutionary biology? Except they don't raise questions about the science. They raise questions about the scientists. Subtle but important difference.

There is a lot of debate in EVERY field of science. Thats one of the things that make science so successful. Even given the immense amount of debate within the climate field (as in every other field), there are still ideas that are rightly considered to be outside of legitimate debate. We have an alternate word for this sort of thing: quackery. So let me get this straight. Opponents are attacking the scientists (and to a lesser degree, the science) because they don't like the policies? Wait.. what?!

Which is, of course, exactly what the media manufactured it to do. The critics of AGW were not able to compete on science alone, but found a powerful ally in the media who take great pains to ensure that both sides of every story get equal play, regardless of merit. The AGW debate is almost exactly analogous to the "Teach the Controversy" movement that seeks to put Creationism/ID/whatever-they-call-it-since-the-lastest-court-ruling on equal footing with the biological theory of evolution. There is no scientific controversy. The controversy is purely political.

You honestly don't believe that an Environment minister should perhaps have a basic understanding of the science relating to his/her department? I mean, no one is suggesting that MPs or even Ministers should require a PhD level understanding of everything in there department. But Kent doesn't seem to possess the knowledge that we expect 12 or 13 year olds to master in science class. On top of this, Kent is paid an additional $75,516 (above his base MP pay of $157,731) to be the Environment Minister. You bet your ass he better be able to provide some sort of answer as to what ozone is. Hell, I could even accept an answer that indicated he at least understood what it does and why its important.

I can forgive him for not having an answer to the high altitude/low altitude question. But not knowing what ozone is? We were taught that in junior high school! Sure, Mr. Kent is older than I am and was probably never taught about ozone during his time in school. But it is not at all unreasonable to expect that our Environment Minister have at least a Grade 7 level understanding of the science behind environmental concerns.

Do you see any problem with a solution that requires both reductions in debt and reductions in real wages? Moreover, if debt funded consumption was dramatically reduced to the point that deposits exceeded credit requests, what would happen?

Would it? Suppose that debt funded consumption remained low after "rehab." Would this long term health ever actually materialize? Also, what effect would this dramatic reduction in consumption have on the other side of the equation: production?

Suppose we substantially reduced consumption funded by debt. What would the effect be on the money supply and the financial system as a whole?

He self identified as a Christian. Both the Catholic and Lutheran churches viewed him as Christian. His beliefs were not wildly inconsistent with those of Martin Luther. Of course, it goes without saying that none of this reflects on modern Christians that do not identify with his beliefs. Unfortunatly, the lie about Hitler being an atheist is not put forth so innocently. ed: speiling!

On what grounds do you assume that only one is crazy?

Indeed.