Shwa

Canada lacks the capital? I hardly think so. The point is that there is no need for capital for refineries or slaughterhouses when your biggest trading partner has all that covered and only needs the raw material. Should it come to the point where we needed to make capital investments for the refinement of raw materials, it would likely be done easily enough.

OK, so let's: Public Works Protection Act If I am looking at the law, as it currently stands, what the police did was not unlawful and was in keeping with the Act. The Solicitor General and OPP Chief can appoint "guards" who have sweeping powers to arrest. Not that in the definitions, a "highway" basically includes and any street or building and is considered a "public work." I am not saying it was the right thing to so, but McGinty had the Act at his disposal, not need for any secret laws. So I don't understand where this "inside the security fence" report comes from. Clearly this is not the case with the currect Act since it applies to any street. It is possible that these "special powers" and "secret laws" are a media fabrication of sorts? Because from a read of the Act, the government already had sweeping powers to arrest and detain.

She's brave, she's stupid, chutzpah, Charter rights... blah, blah, blah. What is missing from this conversation - and it is telling that the conservative members completely missed this so shame on them! - is that this whole incident is like exposing gold - sometimes it takes a blast to get to it. What am I talking about? Corporate sponsorship on page uniforms, like they do with hockey unis in Europe. I mean, this was nothing until the media got a hold of some CPAC feed. Can you imagine the possibilities? Mind you, having someone protesting while in in a uniform sponsored by Shoppers and Molsons might seem backward, but heck, players get into all kinds of "protests" in hockey and the sponsorship bucks keep flowing. And why stop at just the page uniforms? ALL Parliamentary staff should have some form of sponsorship going. Heck, the Speaker could wear a Walmart greeters bib, you know, imagine the coin that could be brought in doing this! Heck even the MP's could be wearing sponsored corporate wear. SO the coproration buys the rights to when an MP appears on TV, like, "MP from Ottawa Centre, brought to you by Frankenfurters" or "The Right Honourable Potash Corp, MP from Saskatoon." If this idea is played out right, we could erase the debt in no time! So congrats Bridgette! You might have just solved our deficit problems.

Beauty post, eh?

Except for those Lebanese-Canadian citizens that were rescued when the shit hit the fan in Lebanon a few years ago. $94M for Lebanon rescue, but Canadian evacuee grateful

The public sector workers are more or less in the same pay range as the public sector except when you include the executive class. Or did you miss that part? Why do you think the CFIB had to include "benefits" into the equation? Because their criticism of outrageous public sector remuneration doesn't work without it. And again, once you start comparing all the "benefits" in the private sector executive class, well, the whole report falls down as unmitigated bullshit. So? And can you blame them? But the point was about factoring length of employment as influencing the pay rate as noted in the report. Do you have anything to say about that? Well, why don't you find out? Wouldn't an objective report used as a 'reasonable measure' include such constraints on their data? Public is for legal reasons, much of it based on Constitutional requirements. The private isn't. Reward versus legal responsibility. Unless you want our army being essentially mercenaries? How about the police? Should we simply hire private security firms? I am sure they could do it cheaper. And a few million in stock options is a lot of living large too. Public sector is a legal making enterprise. Don't make it, see ya later. Sometimes in court. Not so much in the private sector. And so you tell me the last time binding arbitration was forced on the CAW workers during their contract talks with General Motors. How about INCO? Negotiating in the private sector is a ton harder on the workers, not the executive class. All with "someone elses" money. Except when you compare the private sector executive class. Millions more people would prefer that sort of "raise" wouldn't they? Vacations in exotic locales, fancy cars, big mansions... seem it would make some on the public sector happier. I mean, how about those soldiers that were shot at or wounded in Afghanistan? Shouldn't we compensate them with vacations in exotic locals, fancy cars and big mansions? What is their value? What is the value of the firefighter than comes and saves a family from destruction or death? Oh wait, it's all about profit. Trust me, I know a few private sector insurance agents. They worked to deny claims and save their employer from payouts so the firm could earn more profit. The other has a duty to ensure that the laws of the land are followed, people get employment insurance benefits, are safe when they travel home at night. Are you even aware that Canada has a Constitution and what that means? Seriously? You don't think that the executive class in the public sector have evening engagements or travel? And on this basis there is no fair comparison? LOFL!

Well ya got that wrong pretty fast. Nope. Public sector employees, by and large, are subject to back-to-work legislation and binding arbitration. Jean Claude Parrot - does that name ring a bell Tim? And what might that be Tim - the CFIB? How about some other fantasizing 'watchdog' like the Fraser Institute? How about the Manning Centre? Have you checked out their "reports" yet Tim? I am sure they will have some "reasonable measure" you can sink your teeth into.

There. Fixed it for you.

That is pretty harsh there bloodyminded. Think of it this way: Paul's statements were a reflection of his utmost desire for the protection of "the people" as a group, in a social way. In that form, he is a socialist since he wants to use government authority to ensure a minimum level of care for "the people." Naturally his focus is the potential violence towards "his people" aka those of his nation, to ensure the protection of his nation. That would make him a "nationalist." In a way, you could say he is a "nationalist socialist."

Then I suggest the next time your tax refund is late or misplaced, or your EI check is cut off, or your business is audited for fraud, you simple tell the government workers that they are just playing office. I mean, you should "know" because you spend three summers working in the government and figured it all out. It's good to know that there will be no shortage of poorly paid ditch diggers and broom pushers.

Excellent! Someone who actually provides some data. Let's take a look: So the low end "gap" is about $86.00 per week salary difference and the higher end works out to be about $150.00 per week difference. Before taxes of course. Seems pretty comparable to me all within a reasonable range. In other words, no real big differences here. I am sure there are some companies that pay more for their workers than are being paid in the government. Software application developers for example. I wonder what the disparity is there? And I wonder Guyser, from your detailed reading of the report, does it mention that since public sector employees might tend to stay in their jobs longer, that this might have an influence on the reported pay? Probably not I bet, because that might skew the numbers a bit. Just like this does: Of course you simply can't make a comparison between a "director general" or any other government executive class employee now could you? Because if they did, then the "average" would be way off the scale wouldn't it? Don't dare compare the pay scale of a national or multinational CEO or CFO with "similar" "skill sets" of Deputy Ministers or departmental CFO's because then the difference would be in the range of a piddly few grand a year, it would be in the order of hundreds of grand per year and, in some cases, over a million. Why on earth wouldn't the 'Canadian Federation of Independent Business' make the same comparisons of private executives with public sector executives. Can you rationalize this obvious ommission from their data? CFIB don't lobby do they? Really? They are "living large" on $86.00 to $150.00 extra per week before taxes? Are they buying Porches and mansions and eating caviar every week? No, it seems if anyone is living large it is the executive class of private industry where the wage gap between the top earners and the low level workers fuels "reports" from "idependent businessmen" that say it all isn't fair because the low level public sectors employees make slightly more than their own workers. The absence of this data is very telling. So, since there is no real difference in wages, then the problem really must be all those benefits - you know - those extras - that were negotiated in good faith by unions and government management (i.e. director generals and above) through a perfectly legal process called 'collective bargaining.' What does the CFIB report have to say about this? OMG! 2%-13% difference! Fire them all! They get an extra couple of days leave! Nevermind that services to Canadians are legislated by law, that greedy clerk in Revenue Canada handling tax payments to Canadians likely makes $86.00 more per week and has a couple more days off than the clerk at Mutual Insurance who is trying to find a way to avoid paying their client an insurance payout. And let's not forget, we simply cannot compare the wages and benefits of that CEO of Mutual Insurance with the Deputy Minister of Revenue Canada because it would be totally unfair for all those Mutual Insurance workers slaving away at their petty occupations wishing they were in their dream job at Revenue Canada.

Did you have to take a long shower and scrub off a few layers of skin after that experience?

Another one of the Star's investigative stories on shady charity dealings and some insight into how some of these charities are run. Gold-hoarding charity ousts director who spoke out Which is interesting in it's own right, but then this little gem: What?? They needed the police to block the media - more likley any Star reporters - but why the heavy hand if it was a private meeting? Nothing like drawing attention to yourself.

So, in other words, you can't come up with a "reasonable measure" is what you are saying. Well if you can't come up with a reasonable measure to gauge "pure greed" then it is highly likely that you can show any binding arbitration settlements that were "overly generous." But I will wait for your data before I make my mind up. Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS Powers of the Parliament 5.Postal Service. Why on earth would the Canadian government give up something that generates revenue? Let me guess, we should privatize the government right Tim? Hand over the "monopoly" to regulating trade and commerce to the banks, find some contractor to take over the army; maybe the Franklin Mint could make our money instead of those grossly overpaid mint workers. I mean, they must have similar skill sets right?

No, no, no. I have graduated from the "garden" type variety analysis, so lettuce move on to the nitty gritty and how this problem will be rooted out.

Red herring alert!! 'nuff said.

Then provide us with an objective, reasonable and ideology-free "measure" with which we can use to make these scientific determinations of "pure greed." Do you have one for 'pure lust' and one for 'pure wrath' too? A sevendeadlysinsometer or something? Except, duh, they can be legislated back to work and have binding arbitration forced on them. Does the name Jean Claude-Parrot ring a bell? But nevermind the fact that Canada Post is turning a profit, right Tim? Don't let facts get in the way...

Oh, I get it. The chip on your shoulder has rendered everyone else wrong because you are the actual victim in all of your encounters with the police. Maybe next time you will obey the laws and avoid having to subject yourself to bad experiences. Most everyone else does just fine.

Ron Paul. Castro. Stalin. Mussolini. Each has/had their own Utopian bubble. Promises are cheap commodities. Once again: he could have declared practically anything about himself, the proof is what he demonstrated and that was fascism. And Ron Paul... I guess propaganda is successful too, no? But you are still referring to structure here. One can argue - likely somewhat naively - that anarchism is structure-less or less structure, but the small demonstrations of anarchy, in world of nation states, isn't so structure-less. In a small way, look what Trudeau did to the FLQ. I think there are all kinds of socialist revolutionary forces that are being absorbed into the present body politic without resorting to right wing extermist measures. Well, so long as you are not in Guatemala... And really, this sums up your entire point doesn't it? I think most people recognize this 'drifting' which is problematic in setting up hard definitions of right and left. But it is an incremental drift, as Hayen White would say, of functional adjustments that are relatively congruent to the wishes - the preceived wishes - of society. White describes this as liberalism. The good thing is that there is a demonstrated flexibility, even within modern conservatives who still move along this drift, but try and gradualize the changes keeping in mind the status quo. This is what I am getting at. Fruit trees, they have similar structures, but the fruits have different flavours arising out of some structural differences in the trees themselves. But to us, we distinguish between apples and oranges. Fascism can be analyzed in an anthropological light, but itself has no anthropological school of thought or can't really have any sound anthropological viewpoint on anything worthwhile, namely because of the primacy of politics whereas Marx waxed on the primacy of economics. His economic theories still have interesting and useful points about the economies of peoples and civilizations. There are still Marxist influences in the mainstream humanities, that simply don't exist for fascism. Now this could be an effect of the philosophy that is waning, I don't know. But you can still dig into some decent Marxist influenced literature in the social sciences. I agree to this about Mussolini, but I am not convinced that this is a universal for socialists any more than fascism is a universal for corporatists. However Mussolini is a great lesson in the particular phenomenon he demonstrated. I think he wanted a measure of proof to show the socialists that their path was not destined for power and that a revolution simply wasn't going to do it for them. And most definately I think his cult of personality had a profound influence on that view of equality. Of course, but my point was that even IF someone like Ron Paul got in and his views and ideas became widespread, there would be an opposition somewhere. Corporatists, Statists, Anarchists, etc., there will always be a struggle of some sort. They themselves, yes, as personalities embodying a particular political view, compared to some tinpot dictators and short-lived fascist or communist experiments. As for China, again when you mix in those other elements, you have syncretic politics - or what can be preceived as syncretic politics. Modern China is an interesting development though going from - what they consider - purer communism to a mixture of contradictory philosophies. But... in functionally graduate and socially congruent changes which, as White would define, as the hallmarks of conservativism. On the face of it, true yes? So linking right with conservatism runs into problems here. I don't think China could be classified as fascist, but are the elements there to create a fascist state? Absolutely. But then one could argue it was those contradictory 'western' philosophies, when introduced, that caused the fascism. A sticky wicket. I think it was in effect, which really counts when we are talking about oppositions. There are residual effects of all sorts of prominent individuals, families and former power structures of course. But in effect, monarchism is pretty much dead in the Western world. Mussolini might have looked pathetic strung up by his ankles, in the end, but he was no dummy. Where as we both know that Soviet communism had classes - even ranked political classes. What any particular ideology purports of itself is a content issue, not structural. Absolutely unlike Franco and Mao, who both came to power during a great global conflict that depleted most resources - and international will - to do anything about them. By the time the West had recovered, it was really too late to defeat them openly in a sophisticated way. Chavez doesn't have the luxury of such an isolated beginning and with what is happening in the Middle East is an easy backdrop to changing the regime in Venezuela. What makes you think that Ron Paul is 'openly' stating what HE wishes? Is there some sort of test you are applying to what is considered openly stating and hidden agenda? The test in my case - and surely Ron Paul et al are very aware - is that there will be opposition to his/their ideas and views. Anyone can philosophize, but a politician is a different animal and less beholden to specific virtues. And we have that, to a degree. Well, socialists at their purest perhaps, but I don't think there are very many of them that last for any length of time, at least not in our part of the world. However, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. No, but where it could lead to - aka "the history of communism" above. But there are also proponents of centralization and the limitation of freedoms. Government, as much as we want to corporatize it for the sake of analysis, still boils down to the people behind it all. Perhaps that lack of tendency for the government to restrain its powers is a residual effect of bureaucratic managers to expand their careers. A study is in order methinks.

No, the key phrase is "of this Act." The only "law" applicable here is Godwin's law and you have circumvented it by making the comparison to Nazi in the OP. Congratulations. You didn't wait to lose all credibility, you started off with none. For instance: It says no such thing, implies no such thing, has no basis in fact and "...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." ( - Prncipal Max Anderson, Bill Madison, 1995)

Do you disagree with this statement?

Yeah and I mean, above it all there was Stephen Harper bailing out those auto-manufacturers and dropping millions into local infrastructure programs last year. What the HELL was he thinking? Damned socialist CPC'ers.

This is directly from your "proof:" All you did was post a boo-hoo article about some illegal business distributing international mail. So again, do you want to try and show how UPS and CanPar can deliver the mail cheaper than Canada Post?