Birdy

Fun times last night! Thanks KK, TT and DD! Here's a few party pics for the taking... you know who you are!!

I don't really think there's too much to read into here. He answered a question as to who he think should run the country based on his principles, when the media got a hold of that and turned it into the tried and true 'what, you don't think a Muslim can run the country' spin, he had to clarify his point to avoid bad press.

I don't see anything wrong with a religious person voting for a person based on spirituality. There's nothing wrong with that. Do we take this apparent fight against Christianity to the next level and tell people where and with what principles they can vote?

According to Singapore's Ministry of Health webpage... And it's a little dated, but NCPA.org's report on the 2001 international ranking of health care gives the following explanation...

D-rawk, this isn't a disagreement. I see the whole idea of social welfare as a work in progress, where when left up to our own devices we created a system, but that the system isn't perfect and it has a few fundamental flaws... the most important being that it takes away from an individuals ability or want to do good. In thinking this, i can't help but look to alternatives as a way of perfecting what we already have. My biggest obstacle is trying to convince others who think the mode of delivery is the core of the system, that the real heart of it is the actual helping of people.

That doesn't discredit its thoroughness.

I see the political as the method of organizing the philosophical into societal structure, adjusting to make it all fit and work well. And I admitted in my post above that there is a certain level of pessimism about people, but i think where we differ is that you seem to accept that as universal truth, whereas I ask why and look to find what causes it. Where i'm stuck is in your positive moments when you claim 'we' are the government and that we should be thankful we can self-organize to provide care for one another, but then come back with your underlying tone that if left up to our own devices we self-destruct and get all greedy. To lay it all out on the line, i don't think you grant humanity the credit it deserves. My argument exists in that we have societal structures built up and in place that do it all for us, and in doing it for us, make us an apathetic and angry people. And that if one day a nuclear bomb went off and wiped out half of north america, ottawa and washington included, with the other half still standing, you'd see people work together to rebuild and reorganize, helping one another to survive, without tax money being filtered down through government programs. I guess it all falls back to what I said in the union debate, people become comfortable with what they feel secure with. Having to imagine life without it all becomes impossible.

Swifty i hope you guys lined yourself up with a babysitter!

I really don't think this is anything out of the ordinary. If anything the speech writers did a good and thorough job.

Really? I think publication of this article is painfully, horribly, tragically and inexcusably sad. Looks like ABC may have been short on content today.

I think you take too much of a philosophical approach to libertarianism than a political one, and that there may be the problem. That and it seems you believe people at the very root don't care about their neighbour. Which can be a hindrance, in the least! :crazy: For me libertarianism is about deregulation and decreasing the size of government. I think people if left to themselves with no organization from above will create a system of welfare on their own accord, by instinct. It's been happening throughout the ages, beginning in the beginning itself. Where this differs from socialism is in the control factor, when philanthopy becomes mandated. Tax incentives for people/corporations to pay particular heed to not-for-profit charities benefiting those who need care have the possibility to do wonders (and mind you, those not-for-profit agencies have the reputation to be far more effective than their public counterpart). Let alone the mindframe that is created when a person is able to help another and to be able to develop the virtue of humanity versus having an organizing body do that for them. I think a lot of the attitude that people don't care is created by the welfare state itself (see preceding point), and that it creates a bitterness in some people when forced to pay another's way (unfortunate, but true).

I think there's two sides to that coin. O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and other 'free-market fundamentalists' get names attached to them that make 'pussy' look like a white, fluffy kitten. It's been my experience that the left is much worse than the right at name calling. The whole 'people who decide that it's important to start caring about other people' bit of your post above almost drives me nuts! Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly aside, people who may not fall to your side of reality are still capable of compassion.

This confuses me. What do you mean by 'start caring', as if the person didn't care before? And who are you referring to?

Just one more that I found... good luck!

I think it worth note that when you google this writer's name, a whole whack load of "Huffington Post" articles come up.

Oh don't get me wrong. I've never turned my head in disgust when i see a picketer, and i also understand unions have taken industry, safety-wise, in a very positive direction. I just think that a lot of unions are in dangerous territory, where they've tipped the balance scale of power in their favour, and like d-rawk said, start to resemble the management bodies that make them exist in the first place.

The million dollar question! I'm of the 'perhaps it's too late' camp where i think any kind of progressive change will weigh negatively on those it effects because it's 'change' in general. People, en masse, are too reliant on instant gratification to physically go through the motions and lose what they've become secure with. I think we're going to continue to lose production-related companies to cheaper labour elsewhere and trade unions will bargain themselves to death. The outcome already has been devastating on some communities, but i think in the very long run it will force us to sit down and create another type of worker assembly that fits better into the economic/social situations we face today.

You're on the same road as me but didn't veer to the left when you should have. People generally are always going to rely on each other and instinctively create communities in order to survive. My problem is in the organization and the levels of power it can wield. If unions existed merely for the purpose of policing exploitation and unfair work practices, i'd be all for it. But when unions demand such things like across the board pay raises, benefits packages galore, and job security, i tend to get opinionative. As long as the world is based on competitive markets, you won't find too many businessfolk who aren't concerned about their investment returns and who aren't constantly looking to save that extra dollar. It almost seems to me that the very existence of a union could entice investors to automatically explore cheaper, hassle-free labour. I can't help but think that some of these union demands are rather idealist, considering the nature of the economy. But that's just the finances of it all. Until this top-down organization changes, there does exist a group of people whose side doesn't get voiced and who are robbed of their thoughts both from their peers and their representative body. People who acknowledge that they work in a fair environment and receive fair compensation for the work they do.

obviously whoever drafts such union constitutions see plenty reason to include a violence clause.

Absolutely not, but outsourcing labour to underpriveledged nations is a reality and it isn't going to change. As long as unions are delivering a bottom line that make it a no-brainer for the average investor, you'll have plant closures and weekly layoffs. Business is business, it isn't a government wealth redistribution program. I can't help but think with all the 'they're filthy rich though!' comments that come out at strike time some unionists fail to recognize this. It's a war that the good guys aren't going to win and the result is an Iraq... a waiting game for total destruction. Sure it may be policy, but it still happens. Whispers behind people's backs, no more 'let's go to lunch' offers, etc. One teacher my mom knows had his car keyed a few years back because he voiced an opinion and nothing was done about it. For what? Not agreeing with you? Dare I say case in point?

She doesn't 'hate' unions at all, she was simply happy with her job in it's current state when she started getting emails from her representative to his 'brothers and sisters' outlining everything that she 'should' be unhappy with. Office politics run deep, but union politics run even deeper. And in an office with union representation, it's even worse. My mom and a couple of other teachers were actually scared to speak out and let their voices be heard. Scared to the point where they thought some amount of physical harm could come their way... to themselves or their property. The sad reality of this, is there's actual cases to back their fear up. Is this what all this 'brotherhood' and 'sisterhood' is about? Pitting people against each other to the point of violence and social alienization? No. But it is what it creates and I don't like it. So, you can throw around terms like 'exercise your right to participate' all you like, but if the consequence of such participation means putting yourself in harm's way or standing out as the sore thumb of dissent, than that ain't cool. Unions represent the majority, but who represents the minority?

So noone can feel differently than the union? I can see the good in unions, but i can see the bad too and the bad is very, very, very bad. Unions have destroyed 3/4 of the town i live in and have taken people who once had good paying jobs and a place to go monday - friday to completely unemployed-- all in the name of overtime compensation and benefits packages.

You strike, regardless. My mom's been down this route before with the college teacher's union. She's of the mindframe 'hey, i have an awesome job and get paid extremely well, i'm lucky!', but her union tells her that she's not getting enough. She had to report to strike duty x amount of hours every week. She hated it and thought it bullshit. I agree.

Bally McKeough! They have the best little boat house out there on the lake that we used to party in years ago! The 'other half' for sure!

Is the lot severed from all that farm land surrounding it? If it is, i can't imagine it being much.. it'd be cool for a bunch of interested parties to go in together!