Cartman

Great! 775 posts and my cover is blown.

August, Explain to me why "the market" should dictate the lowest wage but not the highest wage.

Big L or small l? I think that media in any country tries to reflect whatever is just within their comfort range of their audience (conformist bias). Media must not significantly challenge people in their beliefs, but at the same time cannot be boring, so it must just reach the extent of their limits and touch a nerve. "Crossfire" in the US, for example, never had an anarchist, liberal, communist debate to my knowledge. Why not? They would rather have .0001 left of centre character debate .0001 right of centre character when they are really debating trivial matters. So boring. Anyone remember the overwhelming difference between Bush and Kerry? They were really clones but we automatically subscribe differences between the two. Similarly, the CBC has the sad old debate b/w "Liberal" (whatever that may be at the time) and Conservative with token NDP crackpot in 30 second soundbites. Ideas are not debated by the media, stupid characters debate. The only good recent coverage I thought was when Peter Mansbridge had the one on one with each candidate. The first US prez debate was not bad. Global warming? Truly, I do not think anyone really "knows" the source of global warming. Scientists do not have long-term temp. measures (and other causal measures) to say anything with confidence. So, what are we to do with their findings? As a conservative person (small c), I believe that we should look at energy savings and eliminate wastefulness. Keep in mind though that governments might not necessarily find it in their interests to do so. For example, in Alberta, our provincial government quickly turned to coal as an energy alternative up north once they learned of Kyoto negotiations. The idea being to raise the production output (emissions) in the early years in order to be able to raise them (in absolute values) in latter years. I admit that I have no "evidence" (at this exact moment) to prove as much, but it makes sense for our government to look after our economy and jobs. We need a serious effort at the individual level and the state level. Maybe the sky will fall and maybe it will not, but can it really hurt to be efficient where possible?

We are missing the point here. Why did the United States so quickly offer so much relief $$ to a muslim nation that has been suspected of considerable terrorist activity? Would we not be suspicious if the same were to happen to Iran (devastation followed by massive US relief)? Seems to me that the US has something to gain in all of this. Can relief agencies help those hardest hit; in Aceh? Why not?

IMR, I do not see the contradiction here. Anyone who criticizes capitalism in a capitalist country would be hypocritical by this criterion. Would Moore's views be more relevant if he lived/moved to a communist country? I criticize (validly I believe) the Liberal federal government even though I live in Canada. As a prof, I do not see myself as hypocritical if I criticize my institution's treatment of students. I think you should enlighten me on your criticism of Suzuki. I simply do not understand it (really).

What a stupid title to a thread! It completely ignores the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers and their families who suffered in WWI, WWII, Korea and those who served in Vietnam. How ignorant!!! Yeah, I guess we just don't get it like you do. :angry: Exactly. This is the point of having responsible freedom.

Hugo, Hugo, Hugo, I doubt anyone else is interested in this, but I would take you to task on this one. Marx argued in favour of the law of accumulation in which empirical, material circumstances would become so difficult and obvious that people would be unable to ignore their subjugation. This is why he divided his subject into "a class in itself" and "a class for itself". You should know better. It suggests that a person (proletariat) can be enslaved (by the bourgeoisie) yet not recognize it. As an anarchist, you say the same thing, but you are unable to explain why people accept their own oppression. After all, anarchists argue that we are all enslaved by government, yet most people believe the state to be legitimate. Why? Why are we on this forum all not anarchists? Anarchists made the same mistake as SW feminists. While second wave feminists (but not all women) argued that all women are oppressed, anarchists argue that all legal subjects are oppressed. In both cases, they (women/legal subjects) just don't realize it yet. Why? Are they both just too dumb? At least Marx was smart enough to realize that the proletariat had a stake in conformity/capitalism and that potential rebellion was based on the realization of empirical, material oppression. If Marx was such a moron, then why is most of the world (esp. industrialized states) governed by redistributive governments? Seems to me he has a legacy. What will be said of Hugo and Cartman? What will be said of Bachunin (not the MLW Bachunin)? Back to practical matters though, what surprises me is that all of you right-wing Conservative types seem to believe that a minimum wage is wrong, but at the same time argue against maximum wages (i.e. a free market in the NHL which the players advocate). WTF? By arguing against the minimum wage and against the NHL players demands for a free market, you sound like union representatives or feminists demanding specific wage ranges for certain jobs. Rather statist and hypocritical IMO. High wages for owners but not talented hockey players? Why? What is the difference? Was Pocklington more important to hockey than Gretzky?

Pateris said: Prove it! Give me a citation to demonstrate that a peer reviewed article or book actually says as much and I will read it. I don't want a link from the web 'cuz anything can be put on the web. No, I did not think you could do so. Pateris said: So, how did he become so well known? Did scientists keep rejecting his ideas forever? Who came to his rescue? Pateris said: Does Suzuki support the eradication of traditional energy sources? Funny, 'cuz last I heard he argued that we should look at ways to reduce energy waste rather than seek out new sources of energy. Are you against reducing energy waste? Pateris, you pretend to be very knowledgeable about the scientific method. Can you show me that smoking tobacco has been "proven" to cause cancer or any other disease? Do not dodge the question or resort to consensus (common sense) which you have argued against above, just answer it. You cannot, because science cannot "prove" anything; it is beyond the realm of this epistemology. In fact, it is an inherent belief built into this epistemology because a superior belief should always be potentially accepted. All scientific theories should be potentially falsifiable. If you want "truth", then read the Bible. It seems wise to me to pay attention to scientists and find ways to reduce our energy consumption. Why would you be against this? Is it that hard to drive a smaller vehicle (or use public transportation), purchase better windows for your home, use more efficient appliances etc? If scientists are correct, what is your alternative? Well, we agree on one thing.

Maybe they all have families they want to now spend time with or new directions to explore in their careers?

Black Dog said: Crossfire will be turfed. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...ire_1&printer=1

Well I agree entirely, but the problem is that we are stuck in an individualistic mindset where government intervention is a bad thing. Full testing, as these three scientists suggest(ed), would require spending money which requires taxation. The government would rather give people the freedom to consume unsafe meat rather than make them pay for safe meat. Meanwhile, ranchers never get my tax money to help bail them out and I cannot be assured of the safety of Alberta beef. Maybe McDonalds should offer a "vegetarian" burger. If the US again bans our beef, I wonder if Albertans will want a socialist, interventionist approach by our government (i.e. tax $$$), or if they believe that the market will respond quickly enough? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

No, we just put up signs advocating separation from Canada (i.e. on the #1 and #2 highways).

Ouch, a damn hook in my mouth! I wonder why they never actually quoted Suzuki directly? But hey, maybe you are right. Remember all that fear mongering he did about BSE? As if it would be a problem in North America. Ha! What an idiot! Here is how it works. You see, scientists have an agenda. They have nothing to study about the universe because everything is known whereas corporations have no agenda because they already make money so why would they want more?! Scientists will do anything to make a point. They want to eliminate freedom and happiness. No American University like the University of Chicago, the University of California Berkeley and the University of Utah would ever hire him!

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_Dav...kly11080005.asp Suzuki is a great scientist. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_Dav...d_Suzuki/CV.asp

Just when it looked like it was all over. http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/Article...?hub=topstories I would not surprised if Bush put another ban on Canadian beef. He is already under pressure from his own beef industry to do so and now this? As Suzuki said, this sounds like Britain all over again. Just to clarify, I know we are all aware of this development but earlier we claimed that the animal had most clearly not entered the food chain at all and now we are retracting that just like we did the first one. Japan will also have something to say about this.

In My Life, Bill Clinton argues that the logical extension of perceiving abortion as murder is to either place these women in jail for life or to face the death penalty. He goes on to say that even those who blow up abortion clinics generally do so, apparently, when nobody is present.

I wondered why our flags were at half-mast.

CS said: Greg said: Then CS said: Then Greg said: Then August said: I will take a wild guess here August. Because he continued to make improper statements after being warned not to do so? Or maybe Greg just had a bad cold that day? August said: Hmmm...Greg just said "see you in a month" so I'm thinkiiiinnnng a month? August, every now and then you generate posts that make me, and others I am sure, sit down and think. Why detract from these strong posts with crap like this?! Why the attitude? Have you ever thought that Greg might be expected to moderate this forum in a professional fashion? IMR makes a far stronger case.

By "resources", I don't think that fleabag just meant revenue, I thought that it meant that governments are under much greater scrutiny than are corps. (esp. private ones) in their day to day operations.

Did I get this right Caesar? Having the Canucks is a good thing?! I never know who to cheer for in a Buffalo/Vancouver game and I used to live in Van!!

France was told in the late 1990's (by the US and the WTO) that they faced trade sanctions if they kept on putting the country of origin on their meat products. So, I am not so sure labelling is that easy. Good question.

They were not inconsistent Hugo. They never advocated banning McDonalds or Wendy's, NDPnic suggested ad restrictions. I suspect that they would be against advertising marijuana also. I admit this is just speculation, but there has been a fitness craze on for decades now and McDonalds did try to sell that McLean burger a while back and it failed. Maybe you are right, but I am surprised that you would take me to task on this matter. If I am right that they are altering their behaviour due to fear of state sanctions, then does this not give further support for your general outlook?

While I generally agree with you RB, I would argue that there are increasingly more men out there who care about their looks. They are spending more $$ on clothes, hair etc and will use creatine or roids to get more buff. BTW...after these holidays, I need to lose more than 5 lbs!!

How in the world is the military a Conservative issue in any way, shape or form BBM? WTF? Neocons believe that if people want something, like a military, public health care, schools etc etc, people should be free to pay for it voluntarily with charitable donations. To suggest otherwise is to be part of the socialist/communist camp comrades. You might as well ask for the precise solution to Pi because it will be just as irrational and whimsical.

Although I agree that these joints have made some changes, if temporarily, do you really believe that this is the result of market forces or fear of state intrusion? C'mon Hugo, they are afraid that they are the next victim of a moral panic just like tobacco companies were/are. For once, I actually agree with you here (for the most part). McDonalds and others are simply victims of their own success. They offer something that people truly enjoy but are afraid of being punished for it. Much English and German food (and I suspect other "ethnic" food) is actually more fattening than this stuff but only fast food meets with potential state force. Why? Because they are easy targets due to their success. The problem still remains, however, when it comes to child obesity and we should not equate frequenting fast food joints with marijuana use or homosexual acts because we are often talking about children going to these places. I don't care if adults choose to eat this crap (I personally enjoy this crap myself), but what about kids who go to these places? What should be done? You never really answered my last question and neither has anyone else so far. Do parents have the right to let their children become obese? We would not allow parents the right to let their children smoke dope or engage in sexual acts so why let them neglect their kids in this way?