Generally, they favor whatever they think will be good for business...
While, I agree that The Economist is generally 'pro-capitalist', I would not call them pro-business, but rather pro-competition; a distinction most people miss. Most businesses, ironically enough, dislike competition and are therefore anti-capitalists.
Actually this is not fact. I also used to believe that Jesus existed, at the very least as a historical figure. However, after reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur, I'm not so sure.
A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare...
Actually, a monkey did eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare and it only took approximately 5 million years.
-PCB
Re:We WANT high labor costs! It's a Good Thing!
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Point taken, I may have jumped the gun.
Re:We WANT high labor costs! It's a Good Thing!
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Too bad the guys who think NW Europe is so great never seem to just go there.
I can tell you have never been there or you would never say that. Most Americans I know who go over to Europe are usually very surprised. I personally would not want to live there for other reasons, but not because of their "quality of life" or their lack of "freedom". Which is, btw, total BS! I would argue that most EU countries have a greater amount of liberty than the US (especially lately). Oh, and their cities are much nicer that most of the cities here. American cities are so ugly.
And telling people to go way because they don't like something is such a shallow and closed-minded argument. You're probably the type of person who tell immigrants who complain that "if they don't like something they should just go home" Right?
...smart people with good intentions often arrive at different conclusions given the same premises
It is smart people with good intentions that propagate misinformation and ultimately cause the greatest harm.
The real reason that the US has backward gun laws is the same reason South Africa has backward gun laws: the white majority is scared of the black minority. And if you believe anything else, you are misinformed. Open your eyes.
Of course beyond all of this theoretical stuff there is the very real issue of crime and what seems to be the case is that an armed populace results in a real decrease in crime.
This is absolute utter BS. If you believe that, you're are more delusional than I thought. Try living in South Africa, you'll change your mind very quickly. Oh, if you're basing your beliefs on the book "More Guns, Less Crime", go here:
The American Revolution is an example. This may have something to do with why Americans cling to the Second Amendment so heartily. Perhaps the French Revolution is also an example, but my knowledge of it is weak so I could not say for sure.
I do not consider the American Revolution as an example (and I doubt many other would as well): It was a conflict between well organized governments. The colonies at the time where more (rather than less) self-governed.
Even if I could not cite an example, the fact that an armed populace has not been exploited in a way that the Jews were during the Holocaust is perhaps evidence enough. There are way too many examples of a government disarming the citizens of a country and subsequently tyrannizing them.
This is a BS statement! Every populace since the beginning of time has been armed in some fashion and this has never stopped a ruling government, king, sultan, etc., from tyrannizing them (refer every country or empire in history as an example). An armed populace has never stopped people in power from terrorizing them. The men in power are in power precisely because they can terrorize the populace, whether the populace is armed or not!
Do you know that when the very long Japanese civil war ended in the 1600s that the only people allowed to keep swords were the samurai and that they could, with no penalty, cut down a peasant for a minor offence?
Do you also know the samurai class were dirt poor and most of the time had to beg for money and food from the merchant class? The Samurai had their swords but nothing else. The real power in ancient Japanese society has always been the merchants. So your statement is meaningless.
Why don't you produce an example of when an armed populace has been subject to extreme tyranny.
Hundreds of examples: Central America (where armed gangs and rebel groups terrorize the populace), Many Africa counties (were armed thugs kill at random), Modern Russia, where crime outside the major cities is out of control (mostly by men with guns). I can tell you have never be anywhere outside the US.
Curious though, if you don't trust (and you imply that you don't) your fellow citizens with guns, it seems to me ridiculous that you would trust your government with exclusive possession of them.
You inferred this statement. I never made any claim as to who I trust. I believe this is often referred to as a self-reinforcing delusion (i.e. you automatically believe that a person who holds a different opinion on one thing also holds a different opinion on all others).
By the way, that last statement bothers me a lot because it shows the typical response of someone who simply regurgitates a catchy slogan. Anybody who knows a little bit about history would not trust their government.
Civilized, democratic counties work because they are based on the rule of law, a balance of power between vested interests, and a culture of tolerance and not because of guns! Most people realize that stable countries are a fragile structure at the best of times and can, and do collapse. This idea that people have to run around with guns to defend themselves from the evil government is laughable. No amount of guns (especially in the US) would be able to do that. Instead ordinary people get killed by morons with guns (who think there are defending themselves from the government - what a joke).
It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true that an armed citizenry is in the end the only way to ensure liberty. Look at all of the modern examples of tyranny (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) and you will see that civil disarmament was a prerequisite to mass murder.
In all the examples you mention, removal of the government was not achieved from within. Nor has an armed populace ever prevented a government from forming or removed a government that was in power (and France is not an example). How about an example of an armed populace achieving the removal of their government that subsequently led to a democratic county or even a just better government (otherwise what's the point - from the frying pan into the fire). I'm afraid you're a victim of your own American propaganda.
Why do Canadians always talk to Americans with that pathetic tone. We are, who we are. Don't be such an apologist...it makes everybody look bad. Canada, like every other country, is just a bunch of people trying to get through life as best they can. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we get it right. There is nothing to apologize for.
Canadians often pay more than Americans for quite a number of things.
Like what? Cars? Food? When I'm in the states, everything seems more expensive in real terms, at least to me (i.e. I can buy the same stuff
in Canada for less).
When I purchased a new car last year, I had to sign a form saying I would not sell it in the US for at least 2 years. This is because
Americans who come up here to buy a car undermine the US market.
This is a growing problem for US dealers near the border. For
example:
That's BS and you know it. If you actually believe that, than you have absolutely no idea how risk works. If you live in the shadow of an active volcano, then you *should* buy volcano insurance because the risk is significant, otherwise the risk is very small and insurance would be a waste of money. It is very simple concept!! However, even if you lives near a volcano and don't have insurance, you might lose you home, but you can always leave and find some other place to live; it is not the end of the world.
However, if the risk of global warming is real then, more importantly, the consequences to the earth's ecosystem will be staggering! Where will you go? Therefore, even if the chances of global warming being true is small, the risk is still too high because the consequences will be devastating. How many ecosystems will vanish? How many plants and animals will die? How many people who live on marginal land will be force to move or starve?
There are 3 important rules of risk:
(1) Never risk more than you can afford to lose...
It's not reasonable to spend billions of dollars to "take action" on this (or any other theory)
Your argument is very poor. The problem needs to be addressed from a
"risk assessment" point of view, where the risk of doing nothing is
also taken into account. Your "I believe this is not true, I need more
proof" point of view is foolish and short sighted. Decisions are always
done with incomplete information, but sometimes the *risk* of doing
nothing is greater than doing something. Currently, the odds are pretty
good that greenhouses gases are causing global warming (not 100%, but
reasonably good - ask any glaciologist about the state of the earth
glaciers and you'll get an earful). Therefore, the possible outcomes
are:
Action: Do nothing
Outcome:
(A) Global warming was all BS, nothing
happens...
(B) Global warming was true, bad
things happen, polar caps melt, etc. (unknown outcome)
Action: Do something...hopefully in
time
Outcome:
(A) Global warming was all BS, nothing
happens...
(B) Global warming was true, nothing
happens...hopefully
So if you were in charge, what action would you take to minimize risk?
What will the cost be of doing nothing if global warming happens to be
true? 10,000 words, due friday!
The legislation you are referring to has yet to be introduced in the house and looking at the current time table for the fall session, it is highly unlikely to be introduced until spring (if at all).
The interesting bit is that last year the Ontario Court of Appeal deemed that the portion of the criminal code dealing with pot is unconstitutional and gave the Feds 1 year to change the law or the current pot laws would be declared void. This was the reason the new law was drafted: the Feds had little choice in the matter. Well, 1 year has been up for quite a while now which means that all laws concerning pot in Ontario (and only Ontario) are now void. The courts have instructed that the police not to arrest people in possession or even selling of pot (since all the laws are now void) because the they will not be heard in court. The courts have also instructed the police not to even seize pot from people because they are not allow to seize private property and could be sued for doing so.
Ideology drives all judgement, ultimately. "Common sense" doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Your just pulling words out of your ass! What the hell does that mean!! Please explain. If your going to say that our environment determines how we view the world, don't bother...that not what you said. Ideology is a conscious belief structure that is constantly reinforced by examples. The problem is people tend to internalize only examples that reinforce their world view. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Your also wrong about common sense, it is not based on ideology. It is base on judging the facts and seeing what the reality of the situation is before deciding on a course of action. This is not very deep or complicated so don't make it deep or complicated.
To me, there's one basic valid purpose of government, and that's to defend the individual rights of its citizens.
If you actually believe that then you are either very young or very sheltered (or perhaps both). I realize I sound trite and condescending, but I hear this sort of thing all the time. The basic problem with your assertion is that you are making decisions based on ideology rather than common sense and this has, and always will, lead to errors in judgement. In fact, I would argue that most incorrect decisions are made because of this very reason. There are many legitimate functions of governments that falls outside your very narrow definition that is the best solution to a given problem. By choosing a different solution is just because you *believe* that the government shouldn't be involved is simply shortsighted. Just ask the citizens of Atlanta about what they think about their water works. Of course it goes both ways, certain tasks that are currently performed by the government should be handed over to the private sector. Anyway, the world is not black and white and we shouldn't try to make it so.
As mentioned before, NA does not have the best power grid in the world. In fact, many would argue that NA has the oldest and most unreliable power grid amongst the developed nations (most of Europe and Asia have much better systems). Refer to this article.
You missed the point. You said that all decent people would dislike Clinton. You think you are better and more moral than me because I liked Clinton. That's self-righteous!
"Clinton was a far better president than GWB. Let me guess, you're a religious fruitcake.
Therefore anyone who disagrees with you is a fruitcake?"
I must have hit close to home. Most religeous types are usually very judgemental.
...were more loathed by the military (and all decent people.)
What the hell does that mean!! My god, what a self-righteous statement. What, are your morals better than mine. Clinton was a far better president than GWB and what he did in private was none of your business. Let me guess, you're a religious fruitcake.
This is complete and utter BS. I'll bet a lot of money that the poster has never been to Europe, probably never left the state or city he lives in, and maybe has never even left his house!
The US is in general a lot less free and less liberal than most other western countries (think drug laws, does 'Total Information Awareness' ring a bell, how about laws against gays, its 2003!!!). This is type of thinking is the result of constant brainwashing by the US media that the US is the 'land of the free', where in actuality it lost that title a long time ago. You should get out more.
I realize this might sound awfully petty, but in SI, there is always a space between the number and the unit (i.e. 16 mm, not 16mm). I see this formating error very often in US publications and documents. Very petty I know, feel free to ignore.
It is a part of Canadian law that is harder to fight and drop then you might imagine.
This is simply not true. Both Quebec and Newfoundland removed religious based schools from their public systems within the last 5 years. In both cases, this required a constitutional change. This did not prove difficult (as no other provinces objected - I believe you need 8 out of 10 provinces or greater than 50% of the population to affect a constitutional change - but I could be wrong). In the case of Newfoundland, I believe a referendum was also held, which obviously passed.
The fact that Ontario still has a publically funded Catholic school board is both strange and backwards. I'm not sure which other provinces have religious boards, but when I moved to Ontario from BC I found the idea very strange.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that if you held Picasso to the same artistic standards as his predecessors, he would be useless trash too...
That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've heard said around here in a while. Exactly which predecessors are you referring too?
Sorry, it had to be said.
Generally, they favor whatever they think will be good for business...
While, I agree that The Economist is generally 'pro-capitalist', I would not call them pro-business, but rather pro-competition; a distinction most people miss. Most businesses, ironically enough, dislike competition and are therefore anti-capitalists.
PCB
Jesus was a real man who actually lived...
Actually this is not fact. I also used to believe that Jesus existed, at the very least as a historical figure. However, after reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur, I'm not so sure.
PCB
A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare...
Actually, a monkey did eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare and it only took approximately 5 million years.
-PCB
Point taken, I may have jumped the gun.
Too bad the guys who think NW Europe is so great never seem to just go there.
I can tell you have never been there or you would never say that. Most Americans I know who go over to Europe are usually very surprised. I personally would not want to live there for other reasons, but not because of their "quality of life" or their lack of "freedom". Which is, btw, total BS! I would argue that most EU countries have a greater amount of liberty than the US (especially lately). Oh, and their cities are much nicer that most of the cities here. American cities are so ugly.
And telling people to go way because they don't like something is such a shallow and closed-minded argument. You're probably the type of person who tell immigrants who complain that "if they don't like something they should just go home" Right?
...smart people with good intentions often arrive at different conclusions given the same premises
It is smart people with good intentions that propagate misinformation and ultimately cause the greatest harm.
The real reason that the US has backward gun laws is the same reason South Africa has backward gun laws: the white majority is scared of the black minority. And if you believe anything else, you are misinformed. Open your eyes.
Of course beyond all of this theoretical stuff there is the very real issue of crime and what seems to be the case is that an armed populace results in a real decrease in crime.
This is absolute utter BS. If you believe that, you're are more delusional than I thought. Try living in South Africa, you'll change your mind very quickly. Oh, if you're basing your beliefs on the book "More Guns, Less Crime", go here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/
http://www.gca.org.za/facts/briefs/31.htm
The American Revolution is an example. This may have something to do with why Americans cling to the Second Amendment so heartily. Perhaps the French Revolution is also an example, but my knowledge of it is weak so I could not say for sure.
I do not consider the American Revolution as an example (and I doubt many other would as well): It was a conflict between well organized governments. The colonies at the time where more (rather than less) self-governed.
Even if I could not cite an example, the fact that an armed populace has not been exploited in a way that the Jews were during the Holocaust is perhaps evidence enough. There are way too many examples of a government disarming the citizens of a country and subsequently tyrannizing them.
This is a BS statement! Every populace since the beginning of time has been armed in some fashion and this has never stopped a ruling government, king, sultan, etc., from tyrannizing them (refer every country or empire in history as an example). An armed populace has never stopped people in power from terrorizing them. The men in power are in power precisely because they can terrorize the populace, whether the populace is armed or not!
Do you know that when the very long Japanese civil war ended in the 1600s that the only people allowed to keep swords were the samurai and that they could, with no penalty, cut down a peasant for a minor offence?
Do you also know the samurai class were dirt poor and most of the time had to beg for money and food from the merchant class? The Samurai had their swords but nothing else. The real power in ancient Japanese society has always been the merchants. So your statement is meaningless.
Why don't you produce an example of when an armed populace has been subject to extreme tyranny.
Hundreds of examples: Central America (where armed gangs and rebel groups terrorize the populace), Many Africa counties (were armed thugs kill at random), Modern Russia, where crime outside the major cities is out of control (mostly by men with guns). I can tell you have never be anywhere outside the US.
Curious though, if you don't trust (and you imply that you don't) your fellow citizens with guns, it seems to me ridiculous that you would trust your government with exclusive possession of them.
You inferred this statement. I never made any claim as to who I trust. I believe this is often referred to as a self-reinforcing delusion (i.e. you automatically believe that a person who holds a different opinion on one thing also holds a different opinion on all others).
By the way, that last statement bothers me a lot because it shows the typical response of someone who simply regurgitates a catchy slogan. Anybody who knows a little bit about history would not trust their government.
Civilized, democratic counties work because they are based on the rule of law, a balance of power between vested interests, and a culture of tolerance and not because of guns! Most people realize that stable countries are a fragile structure at the best of times and can, and do collapse. This idea that people have to run around with guns to defend themselves from the evil government is laughable. No amount of guns (especially in the US) would be able to do that. Instead ordinary people get killed by morons with guns (who think there are defending themselves from the government - what a joke).
It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true that an armed citizenry is in the end the only way to ensure liberty. Look at all of the modern examples of tyranny (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) and you will see that civil disarmament was a prerequisite to mass murder.
In all the examples you mention, removal of the government was not achieved from within. Nor has an armed populace ever prevented a government from forming or removed a government that was in power (and France is not an example). How about an example of an armed populace achieving the removal of their government that subsequently led to a democratic county or even a just better government (otherwise what's the point - from the frying pan into the fire). I'm afraid you're a victim of your own American propaganda.
Why do Canadians always talk to Americans with that pathetic tone. We are, who we are. Don't be such an apologist...it makes everybody look bad. Canada, like every other country, is just a bunch of people trying to get through life as best they can. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we get it right. There is nothing to apologize for.
-PCB
Canadians often pay more than Americans for quite a number of things.
Like what? Cars? Food? When I'm in the states, everything seems more expensive in real terms, at least to me (i.e. I can buy the same stuff in Canada for less).
When I purchased a new car last year, I had to sign a form saying I would not sell it in the US for at least 2 years. This is because Americans who come up here to buy a car undermine the US market. This is a growing problem for US dealers near the border. For example:
C$24,640 Toyota Matrix (2003) in Canada (ON)
US$19,235 Toyota Matrix (2003) in the US (NY)
The canadian dollar was $0.67 at the time, therefore the car purchased in Canada was US$16,508. A good deal for Americans.
PCB
...everyone would be buying volcano insurance.
That's BS and you know it. If you actually believe that, than you have
absolutely no idea how risk works. If you live in the shadow of an
active volcano, then you *should* buy volcano insurance because the
risk is significant, otherwise the risk is very small and insurance
would be a waste of money. It is very simple concept!! However, even if
you lives near a volcano and don't have insurance, you might lose you
home, but you can always leave and find some other place to live; it is
not the end of the world.
However, if the risk of global warming is real then, more importantly,
the consequences to the earth's ecosystem will be staggering! Where
will you go? Therefore, even if the chances of global warming being
true is small, the risk is still too high because the consequences
will be devastating. How many ecosystems will vanish? How many plants
and animals will die? How many people who live on marginal land will be
force to move or starve?
There are 3 important rules of risk:
(1) Never risk more than you can afford to lose...
(2) Never risk a lot, to gain a little...
(3) Make sure the odds are in your favor...
PCB
Your argument is very poor. The problem needs to be addressed from a "risk assessment" point of view, where the risk of doing nothing is also taken into account. Your "I believe this is not true, I need more proof" point of view is foolish and short sighted. Decisions are always done with incomplete information, but sometimes the *risk* of doing nothing is greater than doing something. Currently, the odds are pretty good that greenhouses gases are causing global warming (not 100%, but reasonably good - ask any glaciologist about the state of the earth glaciers and you'll get an earful). Therefore, the possible outcomes are:
Action: Do nothing
Outcome: Action: Do something...hopefully in time
Outcome: So if you were in charge, what action would you take to minimize risk? What will the cost be of doing nothing if global warming happens to be true? 10,000 words, due friday!
PCB
Thus, "pot" isn't legal here in Canada
Actually you are wrong.
The legislation you are referring to has yet to be introduced in the
house and looking at the current time table for the fall session, it is
highly unlikely to be introduced until spring (if at all).
The interesting bit is that last year the Ontario Court of
Appeal deemed that the portion of the criminal code dealing with
pot is unconstitutional and gave the Feds 1 year to change the law or
the current pot laws would be declared void. This was the reason the
new law was drafted: the Feds had little choice in the matter. Well, 1
year has been up for quite a while now which means that all laws
concerning pot in Ontario (and only Ontario) are now void. The courts
have instructed that the police not to arrest people in possession or
even selling of pot (since all the laws are now void) because the they
will not be heard in court. The courts have also instructed the police
not to even seize pot from people because they are not allow to seize
private property and could be sued for doing so.
--PCB
Ideology drives all judgement, ultimately. "Common sense" doesn't exist in a vacuum.
.
Your just pulling words out of your ass! What the hell does that mean!! Please explain. If your going to say that our environment determines how we view the world, don't bother...that not what you said. Ideology is a conscious belief structure that is constantly reinforced by examples. The problem is people tend to internalize only examples that reinforce their world view. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Your also wrong about common sense, it is not based on ideology. It is base on judging the facts and seeing what the reality of the situation is before deciding on a course of action. This is not very deep or complicated so don't make it deep or complicated
--PCB
To me, there's one basic valid purpose of government, and that's to defend the individual rights of its citizens.
If you actually believe that then you are either very young or very sheltered (or perhaps both). I realize I sound trite and condescending, but I hear this sort of thing all the time. The basic problem with your assertion is that you are making decisions based on ideology rather than common sense and this has, and always will, lead to errors in judgement. In fact, I would argue that most incorrect decisions are made because of this very reason. There are many legitimate functions of governments that falls outside your very narrow definition that is the best solution to a given problem. By choosing a different solution is just because you *believe* that the government shouldn't be involved is simply shortsighted. Just ask the citizens of Atlanta about what they think about their water works. Of course it goes both ways, certain tasks that are currently performed by the government should be handed over to the private sector. Anyway, the world is not black and white and we shouldn't try to make it so.
--PCB
The US has the best power grid in the world
As mentioned before, NA does not have the best power grid in the world. In fact, many would argue that NA has the oldest and most unreliable power grid amongst the developed nations (most of Europe and Asia have much better systems). Refer to this article.
--PCB
I must have hit close to home. Most religeous types are usually very judgemental.
-PCB
...were more loathed by the military (and all decent people.)
What the hell does that mean!! My god, what a self-righteous statement. What, are your morals better than mine. Clinton was a far better president than GWB and what he did in private was none of your business. Let me guess, you're a religious fruitcake.
-PCB
This is complete and utter BS. I'll bet a lot of money that the poster has never been to Europe, probably never left the state or city he lives in, and maybe has never even left his house!
The US is in general a lot less free and less liberal than most other western countries (think drug laws, does 'Total Information Awareness' ring a bell, how about laws against gays, its 2003!!!). This is type of thinking is the result of constant brainwashing by the US media that the US is the 'land of the free', where in actuality it lost that title a long time ago. You should get out more.
16mm and 21mm
I realize this might sound awfully petty, but in SI, there is always a space between the number and the unit (i.e. 16 mm, not 16mm). I see this formating error very often in US publications and documents. Very petty I know, feel free to ignore.
-PCB
It is a part of Canadian law that is harder to fight and drop then you might imagine.
This is simply not true. Both Quebec and Newfoundland removed religious based schools from their public systems within the last 5 years. In both cases, this required a constitutional change. This did not prove difficult (as no other provinces objected - I believe you need 8 out of 10 provinces or greater than 50% of the population to affect a constitutional change - but I could be wrong). In the case of Newfoundland, I believe a referendum was also held, which obviously passed.
The fact that Ontario still has a publically funded Catholic school board is both strange and backwards. I'm not sure which other provinces have religious boards, but when I moved to Ontario from BC I found the idea very strange.
-PCB
Plus my GSM phone works fine in the DC area
Your phone is GSM 1900 and will not work on the European GSM 800/1800 standard.
-PCB
The U o T press release with a bit more info can be found here.
-PCB