Cartman

Cdns are sophisticated enough to realize that knowing more languages is better than knowing only part of one. In Alberta, there is tremendous demand for FSL classes and it often outstrips supply (waiting lists exist). I wonder if that surprises people from outside the province? Of course, there is a difference between learning a language and a culture to prosper (not just economically) and being forced to do so for no apparent reason other than to erect cultural barriers. It is shameful when culture is intentionally used to generate hate.

There is a role for the official opposition to play in government and they should not always differ entirely with the government on every issue. Ideally, on issues such as the BSE problem, the opposition parties should be offering their insights to ensure that a government run program helps all Canadians. A good opposition MP does not want such programs to fail. If sound advice is offered but ignored (esp. by this government), then the official opposition has every right to seek power and show Cdns how they would do things differently and better than the existing gov't. The Iraq issue shows how the Cons. failed in this regard (flipflopping rather than being consistent) and how it burned them in the election. They looked too opportunistic. They also had not developed a platform that was different from the existing gov't (so why vote for them) as they did not have the time for a policy convention. If they could not get their act together before the election, then how can they expect to manage the federal government?!

Hugo, let me get this straight because I keep reading posts in this thread and I cannot believe what I am interpreting. Are you saying that you believe negative reactions to the war in Iraq were inspired by a worldwide communist plot (originally from Moscow) and then passively accepted by the majority? If I am in error, please accept my apologies in advance.

BTW...has anyone ever tried to phone federal or provincial government departments for info. or to try and resolve a problem? When I have made the occasional call, I questioned whether anyone worked there. Feds. aren't that bad, but provincially....wow! I hope these folks get what they deserve.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "soon". When I look around here, I find it difficult to contemplate how computers can do much of the work. For example, pouring a foundation, framing a house, the plumbing, electrical etc etc. In mining, I wonder how they would integrate computers to chase after coal seams and haul the material to be cleaned considering that the configuration of the mine is changing constantly. Many of these jobs are so boring, that I welcome the use of computers, but nobody has found a way to do so despite considerable effort. Maybe manufacturing jobs in the east are at risk, but I am not yet convinced that primary resource jobs can be computerized in the near future. If this ever becomes the case, however, I would like to know how right-wingers expect people to live without the welfare state.

I agree that health care should be centralized but I am not in favour of a national pharmacare program (except for exceptional cases). My fear is that corporations would just up the costs of drugs in a serious way knowing that the gov't would foot the bill and individuals would not be too concerned. I like the idea, but I am not convinced it can be done in practice.

Hjalmar, What do you think will happen politically the next time we have a major recession? I think the Libs. are in power because Canadians are generally happy with the economy and the job they have done, but wanted to make them feel some heat from the $$ trough they had created. Regardless of which party gets in, I suspect that the pendulum will swing back to the left when the economy contracts. I am assuming that you accept the likelihood that the economy will seriously contract in the future.

Trudeau and Douglas. Campbell is the worst.

Perhaps, but I am in good company as Mr. Harper, Mr. Martin, Mr. Layton, and any other leader would not endorse your idea to let corporations regulate themselves in entirety. Eliminating this government function (accreditation process) would lead to fraud and chaos. Why else did Mr Harper attend and teach at the U of C rather than a non-accredited institution? Elitism or because the institution is reputable?

I challenge you to offer an example of a country where an entirely free market exists devoid of government intervention. I certainly hope you will not use the US or the UK as examples.

This is what bugs me about the guy.

Bakunin, are you in favour of Quebec leaving Canada? This is a serious question (not dogmatic). If so, why? It seems to me that culture is constantly being rendered irrational and collectivist in the current neo-liberal, globalized context. Will Quebec culture be able to withstand these forces if it leaves Canada? Does not Canada offer protection for Quebec culture and significant autonomy? As someone from the West, I do not quite understand the motive for leaving. I do not understand what Quebec cannot accomplish from within Canada. I am eager to hear from someone who does really understand these reasons. In another post, you claimed to be more comfortable in NYC (I think you said NYC but I might be wrong) than in other Cdn cities. Can you explain further?

Well, the good news Hugo is that there are already plenty of people in this country with non-accredited diplomas and degrees etc. (self-accredited by the corps that offer them). I am certain that at a very attractive price, they will offer you lots of medical advice, dental services, and legal advice when you purchase a home or defend you in court. But, I assume by your disposition, that you already know of such "educated" folks. I wonder which party would entertain your idea? Don't expect too much support from Harper because he holds a respectable U of C MA in economics and used to teach at the U of C.

You should have ended with Svend making off with her ring. I don't think I would have said that.

I am not sure whether you are being serious here or not, but hey, I encourage you to bring forth such a resolution in any political party in this country (or the US). Do you think that all those economists and lawyers will be exicted about your proposal?

I think the point was that the error might put them at the same %. Harper could be as low as 13 and Layton as high as 16.

The left has evolved. In fact, many leftists are suggesting that the problem with our society today is not so much that people go without the basics, but that our economy is over-developed and provides too much. That is why, for example, starvation for people in the West is less of a problem than is obesity. Giddens and Beck suggest that we will likely face a serious crisis of legitimation as people are increasingly faced with these serious man-made risks (which are more dangerous than ever in history). Nuclear power, chemicals and bacteria in our drinking water, BSE, SARS, flesh-eating etc. have demonstrated that neither government regulation nor corporate self-regulation are working well at all. As these risks created by corporations in the first place, accumulate in frequency, intensity and duration, and scientists demonstrate that they cannot even ascertain or measure risks well, there will be a crisis-point. Gov't will become more relevant because self-policing has failed.

Wrong for so many reasons and on so many levels (shiver here). Never knew he was a Lib (shiver here). Not knowing very much about the man but willing to listen, you want to explain a little further?

I agree wholeheartedly on this matter (mark that on the calendar 'cuz it happens rarely). My belief is that taxes should always "slide" where possible. That is why I am in favour of income tax, but believe sales taxes are regressive. We in Alberta likely all agree that a PST is not helpful. I would suggest Hugo, that if we are going to include all information when we make claims about the levels of taxation, we should do the same when it comes to the benefits of taxation (services). Include clean air, drinking water, regulation of food services, roads, etc. etc. What can I say? I believe about 36 million Americans are not insured and a serious illness could destroy a family economically. I disagree and every study I have looked at suggests that I am correct. Economists are able to include the factors you mention. Accreditation is important to ensure that people with bogus "degrees" are not perceived to be at par with others in the marketplace. This is protection against fraud. For personal enjoyment, go ahead. I do again agree that there is more to learning than just economic benefits.

Quite frankly, I have yet to find any glorious insights from you on this matter August. Yup...that is a good part of it. If unions have such a trivial effect upon wages, then why are so many people, including yourself, so worried about them destroying companies? Never been there. Are you suggesting that more people there own a home 'cuz they are so cheap relative to earnings? I believe it is fair to say that economists have reached a consensus on this matter. Agreed.

That was not the rate of taxation last time I looked. Where did you get that from? It is been well established that Canada spends less per capita on health care than in the US even though we cover our entire population. Our system is more efficient because profit has largely been eliminated. If you believe that about education, then fill out your ICS matchbook cover and get that non-accredited "certificate" in VCR repair.

100% absolutely right.

I am just happy that I live in a society where working class demands (in the form of unions or the welfare state laws) have benefitted most of us. I think that free market theorists would claim this is "artificially inflating" the level of wages. You right-wingers ought to critically think of the consequences of removing these protections. If you want third world wages, I encourage you to make such a request to your employer.

You have an odd notion of "choice" if the option is b/w starving or working in a sweatshop.

I agree with this generalization and suspect that it holds true if you go even further back in time. I do like our system compared to many others. The democratization of education has been very successful but, as I have suggested earlier, it needs some modification. Many positive changes are slowly taking place. I am quite concerned though that a four year degree does not mean very much anymore (and has not for some time). I mean after 16 years or so of school? I really think we need to take a hard look at hs and university. Do you agree?