SF/PF

I see. I wasn't aware that Sheen is a fascist...

If by difficult, you mean "requiring just cause" then we agree. If management fails to implement and enforce a disciplinary system that documents and progressively disciplines workers for lack of production or other work related problems because its "too hard," that is their own problem to deal with. Often times, management is loath to deal with labour related issues not because it can't be done, but because it isn't conducive to promotion within most companies. Having a few labour relations blemishes on one's file often excludes a manager from climbing the corporate ladder. I suppose the union is responsible for the promotion policies of upper management, too? My personal backgroud is in union industrial construction, and I've been in supervision many times over the course of my career from foreman to general foreman to temporary superintendent. And I can tell you, if management ever came to me about low production over a few days or a week and I said "Well the workers just don't want to work, they won't do anything" I would be replaced within an hour by someone that could get production. If a company has management that is serious about having a productive and disciplined work force, they'll have it. Union or not. Sounds like a management problem to me.

Two questions.. 1) Why are all of the usual trickle down fetishists missing from this thread? 2) WTF?

Because they already exceeded their spending limits?

The level of radiation in the surrounding area is now high enough to damage human health in the longterm. In one of the reactors, cooling water is boiling. Its not looking good. Edit: All 4 reactors at the Fukushima(sp?) plant are leaking raditaion. Edit: Source: Report on CBC Newsworld.

I'm getting the ipression that you might feel most at home in Iran or Saudi Arabia. All it would really require on your part is the acceptance of an extra prophet...

The international community disagrees: So filling the territories with families and children is less "foolhardy and dangerous?" Lets be honest with eachother for a moment. When a nation moves over 300,000 civilians into an occupied territory, its not self defense thats at work. Unless they're human shields?

Which is most of the problem. They decide for a while that "its not worth the trouble," and then when they try to go after a few people for legitimate reasons, the union says "whoa.. firing this guy is way out of line from the discipline you've meted out in the past to others. A little consistency is in order." Basically, an abrogation of responsibility on the part of management that is blamed on the union.

Exactly.

Read it again. I'm not sure how else I can explain the glaringly obvious difference that is explicitly stated in the link I provided.

Theres a world of difference between defending and refusing to condemn. I thought that would have been clear when I referred to both sides as "morons." People in conflict zones die. Men, women, and children. Sorry, but thats a simple fact. But just to make you happy, here it is. Intentionally killing children, even in war zones, is a pretty evil act that should not be intentionally engaged in. Now, can we get a condemnation for willingly risking the life of one's own child for the purposes of state expansion?

Pretty much this. When a group of people begin building illegal settlements on occupied land, they cease being civilians and become an occupying force. Call me a monster, but I won't shed a tear for these settlers being killed. I will decry and condemn any attack on Israel proper, but attacks on these settlements.. Meh. "Thems the breaks." It is truly tragic that children are being killed in these nonsensical events, based on the actions of "adult" morons on both sides. Honestly, though, moving children into such a situation really ought to be grounds for having one's children taken and placed in protective custody.

From Wikipedia Perhaps the problem in understanding is that the scandal is misnamed. The legal problem isn't the "in-and-out" part, its the "exceeding-federal-campaign-spending-limits" part. Of course, this is a problem, too:

You clearly don't understand which part of the scheme is illegal.

Are you kidding? Edmonton doesn't even have a professional hockey team!

Imagine the disappointment when the hippies hear that the archaeologists can't find any evidence of Atlantean power crystals. On a more serious note, this possible discovery of "Atlantis" is going to reveal a completely run of the mill city. At which point the believers are going to insist that this isn't the "real" Atlantis and the search will go on.

What gives you that idea?

Your claim was that unionized workers don't have to work, AND that they can't be fired. Anyone that isn't a simple ideologue knows that both claims are obviously untrue. Even in the most protective agreements, an employee can be fired for just cause. More often than not, the limiting factor is management's will to do so. Not the union itself.

I really do recommend this book to everyone. Even if you have no interest in the particular scandals of the Catholic chruch, there are sections of the book about political philosophy (re: statehood) and international politics that are extremely interesting in their own right. From one of the customer reviews of the book on Amazon. Fair warning.

Boy are you ever wrong.

I'll try to dig it up, but years ago I read an issue of Discover (or SciAm?) that had an article on scientific funding, especially in the health and pharmaceuticals sector. The argument was that, in many cases, private corporations buy into research done and paid for publicly in universities when the potential for a marketable result is already quite high. In essence, they buy into something that is almost a "sure thing," put the finishing touches on, and claim ownership of a product that the taxpayers ultimatly developed through public R&D investment.

We're not going to fix the problem by going private or going more "universal." The cost of treatment, equipment and drugs is going to continue to skyrocket until we fundamentally rethink patent law.

Evacuations are commonly used even in situations where the danger is incredibly remote. They do it because when that 1 in a billion chance finally manifests, the public outcry is always "Why didn't you even evacuate the people??" I think TimG is correct in that anything short of a catastrophic failure is probably a large success. They'll learn from the events, and make the nuclear plants even safer in version 2.0.

Geothermal systems require supplementary heat during a sizable portion of the year in Canada. Large scale systems are pretty expensive to install, so I'm unconvinced that they would be particularly efficient econonomically speaking. A lot depends on the projected lifespan of the building.

No, its just the slang term for resurrecting an old thread.