Reverend Blair

Most seasonal workers do try to work in the winter, at least the ones I know. There aren't as many jobs in the winter though and those that there are depend a lot on weather conditions. Most of the seasonal worker I know operate heavy equipment. They did betterthan most years this year because we had a lot of snow. That is not guaranteed work though...they have no way of knowing if it's going to snow much or not when autumn rolls around. On the other hand you'd look pretty silly if there was nobody to pour your concrete, pave your driveways, landscape your yard, fix your streets, mow your grass etc. We need the people who do the seasonal work and our climate is not their fault. Perhaps their employers should pay them all year around, even when they can't work due to weather? The employers could make up the extra expense by charging double what they do now. The seasonal workers would have more money to spend when they weren't working in the winter, driving the economy more. Of course you really don't want to pay double what you are now for all your seasonal needs, do you?

There is much more to a country than the economy, Stoker.

You'd be proud of me Caesar...I only go to the doctor if I'm bleeding profusely. Health care in Canada is in trouble. There are pressures from an aging and increasingly unfit (even the young) population, but the big pressure is coming from south of the border. Corporations want to grow, their shareholders demand it. We are a market of over 30 million aging and increasingly unfit (even the young). We look pretty lucrative to them. Our governments, neo-conservative and neo-liberal, have been underfunding health care for a couple of decades now. The politicians have been shown to have at least some ties to health-care corporations in the US. I don't think the underfunding is just a coincidence.

I know a pair of lesbians who are raising two kids. They are, actually, doing it in a rather traditional way because one of them stays home. That is not a traditional family though, because there are two mothers. I know several single parents who are raising their kids with the help of day cares, family and friends. The kids are turning out as well as the kids of married couples in the same peer group. I know several couples where both parents work. Again they depend on relatives, friends, and daycares a lot. The kids are turning fine. I know people who have been or are being raised by grandparents or aunts and uncles because the parents, for one reason or another, cannot do it. Again the kids are turning out fine. I know people who are living as extended families, even though they aren't necessarily related. Those kids actually seem to be brighter and more personable than most. The traditional family...father works, mother stays home, kids go to school...is less common than it used to be. Over the course of history it is not the only model though. Children have been raised in every condition from polygamy to being brought up by siblings who were really children as well. The traditional family is a relatively modern invention.

I addressed his point about the sabbath quite directly. Our labour laws address that already, requiring over-time (a penalty against the employer) if an employee is required to work without having a day off. I would prefer laws that insist on two consecutive days off and give us more vacation time and statuatory holidays, but the code in the Bible does not address that.

No Hugo, I am citing examples that show that what we are currently doing is not working. You are saying that capitalism has caused us to advance, but you are wrong. Capitalism has been around since villagers began trading sheep for beer so they could enjoy the weekend, yet there were few real societal advances until we began introducing human rights and democracy. Capitalism, in its present form, often tramples on human rights and undermines the basic tenets of democracy. If you look at some of the things that have gone in the pharmaceutical industry, you find that it can also undermine the scientific method. Now before anybody calls me a communist or some other equally inaccurate epithet, notice that I said, "In its present form."

Yesterday I told a photographer that his basic set-up was wrong and the shot wouldn't work that way because of the way light travels. He did it anyway. Today he is re-shooting it. The thing is that he thought he could over-ride the laws of physics. The Canadian physicists have, as a group, come out against Star Wars. The laws of physics make it too difficult to carry out. The Chinese and the Russians have stated that they are currently working on weapons systems that would be less susceptible to a working missile defence system. They weren't doing that before Georgie started walking away from treaties so he could have some new toys. This system doesn't make you more safe, Stoker. The chances of North Korea committing nuclear suicide by launching a missile at North America is much lower than somebody floatig a nuke into a port and setting it off. Star Wars takes money away from port security, and everything else, because it is massively expensive. In the end it makes you more, not less, vulnerable. The military-industrial complex stands to profit hugely from this, but that isn't really what I meant in this case. Martin and Harper are both afraid to stand up to the US on anything because, they argue, the US could Canada financially. Given their respective positions and connections in the corporate world I would say they are more concerned about their personal pocketbooks than Canada.

Actually I think the movies are more realistic than Georgie's little scheme. What do I think of it? It's expensive, it doesn't work for its stated purpose, it already started a new arms race, and when it is done it is as likely to be used as an offensive weapon as a defensive one. If Martin or Harper signs on to this thing it is because they are short-sighted morons and full of greed...just like their political master in Washington.

No concession given. Your last post contained references to posts that were not mine, so I thought I'd leave it to the person you were quoting to answer. You, on the other hand, have not responded to the last post I addressed to you in any real way. I'm waiting....

Okay, DAC, let's just have a look at the ten commandments. 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Oh? Why not? What about all those who do not come from a Judeo/Christian Background 2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... I'll make images of whatever I please, thanks. 3. Thou shalt not not take the name of the Lord in Vain Oh yes I will. 4. Remember the Sabbath Which sabbath? Different religions, and even sects of Christianity, have different sabbaths 5. Honour they father and mother I have no problem with that because my parents earned that honour. I know plenty of people with parents who earned nothing but derision though 6. Thou shalt not kill Common to every culture and most cultures make exceptions for their own purposes 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. In the culture at the time that was written it applied only to women and meant unmarried sex, not extra-marital sex. While the meaning of adultery has changed, the Bible has not so which meaning do we use? 8. Thou shalt not steal. Again, common to every culture and most cultures make exceptions for their own purposes. 9. Thou shalt not bear false withness against thy neighbour. This is commonly interpreted as not lying, but it is really only an admonishment against libel and slander. Most cultures have prohibitions similar to this, it is not exclusive to Christianity 10. Thou Shalt not covet.... What does covet mean? To lust after, basically. Our society is based on coveting. The advertising industry is fully dependent on it. I, personally, think our covetousness is a bad thing, but there really are no laws against it. So you think that a list where only 30% of the entries can be applied in our secular society is a good thing to base our laws on? And that 30% is common to almost every other culture on earth as well, no matter where their laws came from. We need to make laws based on the good of the greater community, not any peculiar religious code and not against any peculiar religious code. If we want to base our laws on something, why not the preamble to the Declaration of the UN? It embraces human rights, not religious beliefs.

Sorry Stoker, but I know quite a few seasonal workers. That happens in a climate that varies as muchas ours does. They pay into EI, and they collect the benefits. Those benefits are not beer money, they go to pay mortgages, buy food, and so on. When work is available, these guys do go out and work and they work damned hard.

Man and a good part of Sask aren't interested, Stoker. There is no advantage to us in being second-class citizens to Alberta as opposed to Ottawa, but we are, at least, able to access some decent social programs from Ottawa.

He didn't really have a question...what he offered was a justification as to why his beliefs should be a guide to Canadian law. I responded to that. If he cares to ask a direct question without giving the only answer he is willing to accept in the next sentence, then I will answer it. I have nothing against MPs being religious. My MP is Bill Blaikie. He's an ordained minister. I support him because I agree with the things he promotes and like the way he stands up for our rights. Bill does not suggest that we base Canadian law on the Bible of his religion though.

Perhaps it is on the drop because it has outlived its usefulness. It isn't disappearing though, instead it is evolving into something that individuals in "alternative families" find matches their circumstances better. Why would we do anything about it?

Paul Martin was on a CBC Town Hall last night. He stated unequivocally that he will not seek to form the government if he gets fewer seats than Harper. He could do so, but won't. Assuming he means what he says (he also tried to tell us the missile defense would not lead to the weaponisation of space) it shows him to be a wiley old fella. If he gets more seats than Harper(the polls are pointing that way, slightly) he gets the government, likely with support from the NDP. If he manages that right he can parlay it into a majority next time. If he gets fewer seats, Harper has to form a minority government. He will not have the support of the NDP or, most likely, the Bloq. His government will fall quickly, possible even more quickly than Clark's. Canadians will feel that the Liberals have been taught a lesson, Harper will have been shown to be unfit to govern, and we'll go back to the old ways. No matter what happens or who you support/vote for it's time for proportional representation. The old ways don't work anymore and our two leading parties lack leadership.

How about looking to a place that has tried the tax cut route, Goldie. The deficit there has risen. State and municipal taxes have risen to cover shortfalls in revenue from the federal government. User fees have been introduced to counteract shortfall in revenue from the federal government. I'm talking about the United States and George Bush's tax cut. Stephen Harper's plan is very similar and will meet with an equal lack of success. Our taxes pay our bills. Not really any different than paying the mortgage, heat, power, etc. I don't like paying those bills, but I want my house and I want it to be warm and I want this magic typewriter to turn on when I push the button, so I pay the bills. Harper is suggesting that we only have to pay part of the bill. At the same time he's promising to buy us a bunch of new stuff. He's like a crack addict with a shiny new credit card.

It was very clear that the UN did not support the invasion of Iraq, Krusty. The US did not prove that Iraq was a clear and immediate threat. Even the Bush Administration has backed away from those claims. The argument that the US was just enforcing an old UN resolution ignores the fact that you cannot enforce those resolutions without the consent of the UN. I'm not trying to dodge anything. Read the title of the thread. That implies a larger argument, not the selcetive and narrow one that you are presenting. The US has shown an overall disdain for international law, treaties and conventions they have signed, human rights, and the general well-being of the planet. That includes, but is by no means restricted to, the invasion and occupation of Iraq. My argument is that it is unpartriotic, and to the detriment of the entire planet, to NOT criticise the US when they act in such a manner. That you are reluctant to argue the entire shows you to be the one practising avoidance. It was led by a former US cabinet member. It looked at the evidence presented. Bush did not show to defend himself. He was tried and found guilty in absentia. Blix did not feel that the violations were severe enough to give the US the right to invade. As the guy in charge the call was really his, not George Bush's. The US, and likely Britain, would have vetoed any such attempt. I'm not sure where you were during the lead up to the war, but it was all pretty obvious, so I assume you were someplace without any form of media except maybe a Johnny Horton 45 and an antique record player. No, we can go at it now. The thread is about whether we should criticise the US, not whether we should be bound by your narrow boundaries or whether the US is guilty of war crimes in the invasion of Iraq. Actually it was up to the US to prove something. That's why Colin Powell went to the UN. He had no evidence, so they laughed at him. Bush went to war anyway. They submitted evidence, but it was not believed. They did not have hard proof of the sort that the US was willing to accept, but the inability of the Bushites to find anything kind of backs up the evidence submitted. You require evidence from us, but all Bush required of his CIA chief was a colloquial basketball reference? For all intents and purposes, Geoerge Bush went to war because his PNAC buddies told him to. If he was at all critical of the information he was being given he would not have accepted it. He lied about yellowcake from Nigeria, somebody in his office tried to destroy a CIA agent (a criminal act) because her husband said so in public. He sent Colin Powell to the UN with "evidence" so embarrassingly stupid that children were laughing at him. His "proof" was so disturbingly weak that the only way he could garner support for his coalition of the bribed and bullied was by bribing and bullying smaller nations. Even with that, most told him to piss off. Still though, you have to give the man some credit. I don't why, Krusty, but apparently you do feel that need. So lets get on to the larger argument, the one the thread is actually about....that it is very Canadian, American, British, French, German, Spanish, and just plain old human to criticise the policies of a government that makes the world a more dangerous place in order to enrich a few close friends of that government.

Well, since I do not share your religion I find your willingness to force me to follow it's tenets a more than little outrageous. it would be like me stating that Churches should be forced to perform gay marriages and any woman I deemed an unfit mother, no matter her personal beliefs, be forced to undergo an abortion should she become pregnant. Hell, I firmly believe that no woman should have more than two children. I wouldn't make that law though, not unless the future of Canada was seriously threatened by an all-Canadian population crisis. If you want an example of the separation of state and religion, one performed by a political leader that I have little use for BTW, you need look no further than Jean Chretien. He supported, politically, both gay marriage and abortion. The Pope was threatening to send him to hell by special pope decree, but Jean held his ground. Chretien, by most accounts, is a fairly pious Catholic. What the Pope says carries a lot of weight with Catholics...I know that because I was raised as one. Now have a look at your Bible. Do you really think we should start imposing its own peculiar laws on non-Christians or even Christians who believe the more peculiar laws to be archaic remnants of a primitive tribal society? Should I be strung up for the statue of dope-smoking Jesus beside my desk? How about the Budda thing in the knick knack cabinet? The Gaia figure that stands beside it? If we base our laws on your religion, then am I required to follow those laws since I do not believe in your god? That's not even getting into the contradictions in your Bible. Do we turn the other cheek and let criminals run wild or do we start poking out their eyes? Actually turning the other cheek can also be interpreted as an act of defiance towards authority. Does that mean if I don't believe in a law I am entitled to openly challenge the police? To what extent? Which laws can I break? We are a secular society. We do not come from one religion or from any religion at all. Our government's decisions need to reflect that.

All that needs to be done for a case like this is a toughening of the dangerous offender legislation though. Harper's plan is to put everybody in jail for as long as possible. We've been seeing that not work in the US since Reagan was President. Why do something that we've seen fail before?

I live in Winnipeg, Bill Blaikie's riding. The guys I worked with who had been in prison were all in Stoney...2 for drugs and one for weapons offenses. All three had previous records for stealing cars, shop-lifting, etc... They were all members of native youth gangs. All would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if they had been able to hire their own lawyers instead of having an over-worked, under-experienced lawyer appointed for them. They had all been through the system as kids. They had all lived on-reserve and in Winnipeg. None of them finished high school before they got into trouble. All were at least partially politically motivated even while in the youth gangs. All three have straightened themselves out, mostly by quitting the cocaine. All find politics interesting. I really think that taking their votes away while in prison would be an assault on democracy. Remember, part of the reason they got into the gangs was political. It was party time and peer pressure and all the rest of that, but it was also a chance to act out against a society that had left them out.

Not much of a platform really, is it? It also is not at all clear that they'll be able to do it without cutting programs and introducing user fees, which could well cost more than $1000/year.

The redefinition of marriage is not being forced on anybody, bobocop. Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages and nobody is going to force you to marry anybody. As for polygamy, why not? If a man wants five wives or a woman wants five husbands or if somebody wants to enter into a polygamus same sex marriage, what the hell business is it of ours?

You can't cut or charge for emergency room visits until you fix the problem with the doctor shortage. Wouldn't it be a better idea to hire more doctors and introduce things like more home care that actually reduce medical costs? Getting people more fit (says the guy who has coffee and cigarettes for breakfast most mornings) would also go a long way toward cutting costs. I'm dead-set against work-fare. It is little better than slavery, does not address real social concerns, and doesn't really work. It's a short-term reaction to a long-term problem. I'd prefer to see a higher minimum wage combined with free daycare and real training programs for those on social assistance. We should let people who own property and are then forced onto welfare to keep their property. I recently read about a case a while where a woman owned her own house, fully paid for, and had to sell it in order to get social assistance. I'd rather pay her $1000/year in taxes than her $500/month rent, thanks.

This time around I'd vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of office. I'm not convinced that Kerry will be any better, but it is worth a shot. Last time I would have voted for Nader and next time I'd likely vote for Nader too.

Two years less a day is the sentence given when they don't think somebody should have to go to a federal pen. Beyond that I'm not sure but the city jail here seems to be for holding people until their bail hearing or trial. Convicted offenders, even for minor offences, go to Headingly, the provincial jail.