# Gordon Campbell in the Kitchen



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macnutt I appreciate your viewpoint because if one does not take into account opposing (if not a multiplicity of) viewpoints then they are ignorant.

Admittedly, I am undecided about Gordon Campbell as Premier. My instincts for judging character are on alert whenever I see or hear Campbell though. There is something serpentine (in the Western sense of the word) about him . I realize this a vague evaluation so I digress. I do recall that as mayor of Vancouver Campbell was involved in some questionable (i.e., dirty) dealings. However, I cannot remember the specifics at present.

As to what I'd call Clark, that's easy because he was undeniably a self-serving crook. Human effluence is more pleasant than Clark but, nonetheless, that doesn't forever doom the NDP in my mind. It'll definitely be some time before they become a party with any sway in B.C. again (hello understatement!). 

The Liberals - which are really conservative - need an official oppisition. I think the case of Campbell is perhaps undecidable because conservative budget management is strengthening B.C.'s economy and yet people are being adversely affected by Campbell's hard/drastic cuts.

Perhaps, I should note that I have a hard time trusting most (if not any) politician. It seems to have become an accepted reality that politicians will lie and break promises to obtain the positions (and the power) they desire. I don't necessarily mean to imply that this power attaining is evil or insidious; however, there is always a real threat that it may become that.

As to the privatization of liquor stores, I don't have a problem with that. In my mind, liquor store attendants don't deserve higher pay than most Customs officers, for instance. However, if Campbell privatizes liquor stores what else will become privatized? Will we follow in Alberta's footsteps and begin to get privatized hospitals? 

I realize I have answered with theory and few solid examples but this is my preliminary response (and my attempt to get more conversation going).

I wonder if Campbell uses a Mac or a PC?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good points CC! Well thought out and well stated...with near-perfect spelling (good on ya laddie!)

I was living and working in Alberta when Ralph Klein was elected and, believe me, he was roundly disliked by all and sundry outside of Calgary proper. Especially when he began to reorganize the provincial economy to make it run like a business instead of a paternalistic handout machine. I saw bumper stickers in Edmonton that said "If Ralph Klein is the answer...then what the HECK was the question!?"

Now...almost a decade later, everyone in Alberta seems to understand what all the cutting was about and even though oil revenues are WAY down and the oilpatch is only running at half throttle the province of Alberta continues to flourish. Albertans contribute more money than Ontarians per capita to the equalization payments that allow the rest of Canada to live a better lifestyle than they can currently afford. 

BC used to be one of those three "have" Provinces and, if Gord Campbell has his way, we will be back to contibuting sooner, rather than later (or NEVER if the NDP had retained power)

I was also in England for a visit just before Margaret Thatcher won her first election and I remember everyone writing her off as a radical right wing tool of big business who would only last one short term. Back then no one thought that Britains problems could be solved. It was called "the British Disease" and "De-Industrialisation". Non-stop strikes, huge taxes, and a massive welfare state that paid people more money to stay home than to go to work....and no way to pay for it all.

Sound familiar?

Both Klein and Thatcher got re-elected again and again and the people eventually began to realize that these politicians weren't there just to obtain and retain power....they were genuinely interested in changing things for the better.

They did succeed (there are several other examples but I won't bore you with a protracted history lesson) Gord Campbell will also succeed as long as he isn't swayed by a lot of whining and booing (the way Mike Harris of Ontario was).

Better hope that he does, if you live in BC. It's the only way we will be able to pay for all those social programs, health care, schools etc. that we have all come to depend on.

Otherwise we will just be one more Province with their hand out pleading to Ottawa for a little piece of the ever-shrinking pie. 

Want to rely on that? I don't.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Pragmatism and conservatism tend to come with age. As you move through life you will observe a great many truisms and see and hear a lot of stuff that turns out to be pure crap, despite how real it may have seemed to a younger and less-traveled version of yourself.

My advice? Keep an open mind and don't let anybody..._anybody_ tell you what's right and wrong without checking for yourself.

Including me!

Watch and observe....the truth will show itself, and you will recognize it...as long as you keep an open mind. Notice what _works_ and what _doesn't work._

THEN and only then, make your judgement. Trust your Scots genes. You come from a long line of people who, if they couldn't tell right from wrong or good from bad or recognise a scam when they saw one...didn't end up passing on their genetic material to the next generation. 

They died before they had kids. Or were killed by their own Clansmen for being total idiots. Trust me on this.

Think hard and long before you decide what side of a debate you want to end up on. Stay open minded and be ready to change if it turns out you were wrong on your first asessment.

Keep a sharp mind and a clean blade and always...ALWAYS...watch that spelling.

After all...language is one of the tools that we use and we Scots are particularly good tool-users, no? The historical record seems to think so.

Not bad considering that English is actually a second language for many of us.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

After emerging myself in English theory (particularly the French post-structuralists), I am very wary to judge if there is any *T*ruth in the world. Nonetheless, I sense and reason that there are truths - relative or not. Perhaps my Scottish genes are a strong part of this pragmatic and inquisitive method of reasoning.

Macnutt have you ever read the book: _How the Scots Invented the Modern World_? I was wondering what you thought of it if you've read it or heard of it. I've been intrigued but haven't had the chance to acquire the book. Even my good friend (mentioned above), who is a Ramsay and a history buff, has yet to read this book.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No, I have not yet read the book "How the Scots invented the modern world" but I can guess what it will say. Everyone already knows that we not only invented the modern world but have fundamentally influenced all modern civilised societies and currently control most of the major corporations in the western world. 

The Mafia has got nothin on us! They regularly pay us big tribute...and ALL of the captains of industry EVERYWHERE in the WORLD sit down together and drink a Scottish drink and when they get together they play a SCOTTISH game (Golf).

What does that tell you?

Why don't they drink an English drink or a Japanese, or German drink? Why don't they play an English or German or Japanese game to relax...instead of Golf?

And why, for God's sake has this tiny, barren country in the northern part of the British Isles had such a dramatic effect on the rest of the world?

Why is it that when you look at the very top management of a major company you see a Scottish name instead of a Greek or German or Japanese or whatever name?

Good question...want the answer?

Then read this:


Wha's Like Us?
Damn Few and They're a Deid (dead)

The average Englishman in the home he calls his castle slips into his national costume-a shabby raincoat-patented by chemist Charles Macintosh from Glasgow, Scotland. En route to his office he strides along the English lane surfaced by John Macadam of Ayr, Scotland. He drives an English car fitted with tires invented by John Boyd Dunlop of Dreghorn, Scotland. At the office he recieves the mail bearing adhesive stamps invented by John Chalmers of Dundee, Scotland. During the day he uses the telephone invented by Alexander Graham Bell, born in Edinburgh Scotland. At home, in the evening, his daughter pedals her bicycle invented by Kirkpatrick Macmillan of Dumfries Scotland.
He then watches the news on TV, an invention of John Logie Baird of Helensburgh Scotland.and hears an item about the US Navy, which was founded by John Paul Jones of Kirkbean, Scotland.
He has now been reminded too much of Scotland and, in desperation, he picks up the holy Bible....only to find out that the first man mentioned was a Scot...King James VI-who authorised its translation.
Nowhere can an Englishman turn to escape the ingenuity of the Scots.
He could take to drink....but the Scots make the best in the world.
He could take a rifle and end it all...but the breech-loading rifle was invented by Captain Patrick Ferguson of Pitfours Scotland.
If he escaped death he could find himself on an operating table injected with penicillin...which was discovered by Alexander Fleming of Darvel Scotland.
Out of the anaesthetic he would find no comfort in learning that he was "as safe as the Bank Of England"...which was founded by William Paterson of Dumfries Scotland.

Perhaps his only remaining hope would be to get a transfusion of guid Scottish blood....which would entitle him to ask....

"Wha's Like Us?"

None indeed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW- you did intend to say "immerging myself" not "emerging myself " did you not?

There is a fundamental difference between the two.  

(that spelling thing again...it's a curse, fer sure) 

Care to try it in Gaelic?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macnutt thanks for the extensive reply. My time as a tour guide in the Royal London Wax Museum rekindled my love of history (But what about herstory? . . .  ) so don't worry about going on. 

I will never think Campbell is a peach or is only concerned with doing what's "right" (whatever that may be). However, I do agree he is trying his best to repair the economy. 

I suppose my views remain split between idealism and (capitalist) reality. On one hand, I feel that medical cut-backs and education cut-backs are detrimental to B.C. as a progressive province. On the other hand, I realize medical problems are in part stemming from the Federal government's lack of money management and unwillingness (or inability) to restructure medicare. Furthremore, I know that--while some people genuinely need government support--many people are lazy bums who get accustomed to handouts and then make the hardworking citizens of Canada pay for it. 
 
Geez! Sometimes I feel like my friend who acts like a stereotypical-old-man caught in a twenty-something's body.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I now have this bizarre image of me _e</>merging from a book. It's the perverse birth scene of a literary critic!

Thanks for keeping me on my toes, Macnutt. I will be ever diligent (in checking the dictionary). 

Who confederated Canada? Sir John A. MacDonald - born in Glasgow, Scotland. 

And though I don't want to dimish the effort and importance of translating the Bible, I have my reservations about King James. Of course, I am not much for monarchs in general. 

Macnutt do you know Gaelic?_


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't speak gaelic when I have had a lot to drink, I speak pikey. And you have to know that god invented whiskey to keep you scots from running the place.

On spelling and word useage, would "immersing" be a better term than immerging? or at least it seems to roll off the....er....keyboard a little better?

And as to gordo, to try to steer us back on course just a tad, I think my single biggest issue is that he has no opposition. There is nothing stoppiing him from doing anything he wants, not even someone else in the legislature that anyone will listen to and then dismiss.

--PB

PS: A quick note, for those spelling woes (which I realise I suffer from also) there is a great little freeware app from the Omni Group called OmniDictionary which you type a word into and it goes online and gets you a definition from one of a few different online dictionaries.

I probably need to use it more, but then I am more Aussie than scot, more Icelandic than Aussie, and never made any claims of mastery over the language.

pb81


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

The problem of no official oppisition isn't just in B.C. but also Canada-wide. God knows that Chrétien is a corrupt S.O.B. and doesn't care if anyone knows anymore.

Did you hear that the Federal Government just admitted to a "wee boo-boo"? Yeah, 5 million SIN cards given out that are not accounted for. In other words, there a 5 million more SIN cards out there than there are people who are of age to possess one. *Implication?* Even if some are owned by Canadians who moved out of Canada recently or are living out of the country temporarily, that cannot account for even 1 million. *Consequences?* People are working here illegally (big surprise. . .) and people are mooching off welfare. *sigh* 
Our Federal Government: grossly incompetent and corrupt. We stand _off_ guard for thee!

P.S. - PB Shaguar's Sherlock has a dictionary that pulls definitions from the internet (Dictionary.com mainly). Also it has a fun translator!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nope....just Spanish, Portugese and a rudimentary version of English.

I have been known to speak in tongues when drinking vast quatities of single malt whiskey though.

I suppose it _could_ be Gaelic....who knows?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

But at least in the huse of commons there are other parties to not listen to. The Refooooooorrrrrrrrrrrmmm party may not have a lot of sway, but at least they are there. I miss their old name too, Canadian Alliance just doesn't roll off the tougne the same way.

--PB


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Well you folk talking about BC politics sure brings back memories of living in Vancouver. (that and any torrential downpore I'm caught in).
Its good to see the more life changes, the more certain things don't.
Robert  

ps: great place to live if you can afford it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You're absoloutely right PB...the word should have been "immersing" but I had already corrected him on it and thought that I was beginning to sound a bit like a snarky English teacher so I backed away (that's my story and I'm stickin to it)

Re: No opposition for the BC Liberals.

That would frighten me a lot more if Campbell and Co. weren't so committed to doing what is really necessary to get BC back on track and if they didn't have such a long way to go to get us back there.

Some seriously difficult and painful decisions remain ahead....like what to do about our dysfunctional and horribly expensive ferry sytem for example...and I have to join with the majority of British Columbians in hoping that they will get on with the painful stuff ASAP so we can get over it and start rebuilding. 

I hear many people complaining that "he's moving too fast" and cutting too deep. 

Cow cookies!

If he took his time and slowly hacked away at the problems that are holding us back and draining our wallets then we would still be feeling the pain when the next election happens. He needs at least two four year terms to accomplish what a clear majority of British Columbians want him to accomplish, and it will be much easier to get the majority in the second term if people can see the light at the end of the tunnel by then.

That's how it happened in Alberta. Klein made his cuts and changes early on, and there was much beating of chests and wailing in anguish...but by the time the next election was called enough people could see the positive results, so he got his second term. 

Kleins third election was pretty much a coronation because , by then, even the most ardent critics were having trouble finding fault with Kleins vision. It just flat-out WORKED! Everyone was better off and the whole province ran smoother.

It' s STILL working that way! Only about half of the oilfield personnel and drilling rigs are running right now and it's been that way for a year or two but it sure doesn't seem to be hurting the Alberta economy very much. The parking lots are full of brand new vehicles, restaurants and bars are packed to the rafters and house construction is booming.

And not a union in sight!

Not many people worry about the minimum wage because there are so many jobs around in a truly dynamic economy (like we in BC USED to have) that, if you feel underpaid, you simply look elsewhere. If a business continues to lose good people because they are leaving for better pay elsewhere then they simply start paying more. It happens all of the time. 

We need to get back to that out here instead of the grinding stagnation in the job market that is one of the many legacies left by the former government.

Cut these guys some slack PB. Wait and see how it turns out, instead of worrying. If you truly believe that they need an official opposition then you will have your chance to elect one two years from now on a specified date. Gordon Campbell has, after all, limited himself to a four year term and told us exactly when the next election will be.

That's something the NDP NEVER DID. They perferred to cling to power and hold on until the very end of their dubious mandate. That's why we got stuck with them for ten whole years even though there were only two elections during that time....and in both of those elections fully two-thirds of British Columbians voted _against_ the NDP!

Do I wish there were a few more of them in the Legislature to add their voices to Joyless McPhailure in opposition?

Not me. I've heard quite enough from them. Enough to last a lifetime.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It might not all be opposition, I would appreciate even another point of view.

And as to the horribly expensive ferry ride, keep in mind that it could be twice as expensive and still not make money.

--PB


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

B.C. Ferries is a whole other can of worms. On one hand, many entry-level positions are overpaid - in MHO. On the other hand, I know many people rely on their B.C. Ferries jobs to support their families. 

In either case, the ferries are mismanaged and, yet, it is unlikely that they would ever be able to pull themselves out of defecit by mere price increases - not under current management. From my understanding, B.C. Ferries does what so many fat unionized government organizations do: the management hires more management to assess, balance, and screw around the lower employees. I believe this position is ironically called "efficiency expert." Let's hire another moron who won't do anything or isn't able to do anything directly on the level of (mis-)management.

 But I am going to stop ranting. . . (for) NOW.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Want to know how I think that Campbell will deal with the ferries?

1)Turn over all of the food and gift shop concessions to private companies. Dump all of the overpaid drones who currently flip burgers and run cash registers for 55,000$ per year and start collecting serious rental revenues from these underutilized spaces in stead.

2)Dump all of the ticket booth people, night watchmen and floor sweepers who don't actually work on the boats. Because of union rules these peoiple make obscene wages for what are really zero-skill entry level jobs. (BTW-my youngest brother is a ferry employee and works as night terminal attendant at Long harbour. His wife has never worked a day in her life and they own NINE HOUSES!!)

3)Cancel all non-necessary engine room and bridge crew. According to several people I know, the engine room crew is not actually there to work on anything...they just monitor stuff. If anything has to be fixed then they take the boat out of service. If they still use a navigator on the bridge, in this day of Global Positioning, then I have to ask why? Does he actually "plot a course" on a chart for each "voyage"?? Get real.

4)Use the massive amount of revenue that the above changes will free up to order new ferries to replace all of the old rusting hulks that cost so much to run. And make sure that they put the new ferries out for tender and let eveyone bid on the job. EVERYONE...EVERYWHERE! Get the most bang for the buck and then, once the new more efficient ferries are running with the new more efficient (and far less costly) crews are all broken in and the whole reformed system is now making a good profit...then use that profit to improve service or even lower the fares for residents of all the islands. We could have a special pass or something.

BTW-You guys may be a little young to remember it but did you know that when the ferry system was first brought in by the BC government in the early sixties, it was supposed to be FREE??!! Premier Bennet said that road taxes would cover costs and that we should just consider it a part of the BC highway system.

THAT was before the unions got ahold of it. The rest is history.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1)Turn over all of the food and gift shop concessions to private companies. Dump all of the overpaid drones who currently flip burgers and run cash registers for 55,000$ per year and start collecting serious rental revenues from these underutilized spaces in stead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. If it wasn;t for the union the NDP would have done this a long time ago. They talked about it for about 30 seconds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2)Dump all of the ticket booth people, night watchmen and floor sweepers who don't actually work on the boats. Because of union rules these peoiple make obscene wages for what are really zero-skill entry level jobs. (BTW-my youngest brother is a ferry employee and works as night terminal attendant at Long harbour. His wife has never worked a day in her life and they own NINE HOUSES!!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am going to remain on the fence on this one. Security people do require training and can get into some situations where their wages may be justified but I dont see it happening on SSI at all. Or ever really. As for the ticket takers, it really depends on the terminal. Some ticket takers are also deckhands, are also traffic directors, also have a lot of knowledge that can justify their wage. Not all, but some. I can't speak for your brother.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3)Cancel all non-necessary engine room and bridge crew. According to several people I know, the engine room crew is not actually there to work on anything...they just monitor stuff. If anything has to be fixed then they take the boat out of service. If they still use a navigator on the bridge, in this day of Global Positioning, then I have to ask why? Does he actually "plot a course" on a chart for each "voyage"?? Get real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, there are no non-essential crew on most ferries. There are regulations handed down by the federal government that dictate a certain passenger to crew ratio. They may be over staffed on empty trips, but do you really think the seven crew could handle the 600 passengers that the boat is rated to take?

As to engine crew, yes for the most part they "just monitor stuff" but one man is not enough to fix any major problem that may creep up such as an engine dying, one of the bearing cases cracking (a design flaw in that particular hull) or any one of the overhead pipes rupturing. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4)Use the massive amount of revenue that the above changes will free up to order new ferries to replace all of the old rusting hulks that cost so much to run. And make sure that they put the new ferries out for tender and let eveyone bid on the job. EVERYONE...EVERYWHERE! Get the most bang for the buck and then, once the new more efficient ferries are running with the new more efficient (and far less costly) crews are all broken in and the whole reformed system is now making a good profit...then use that profit to improve service or even lower the fares for residents of all the islands. We could have a special pass or something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, new ferries are needed, but we will have to wait until Gordo's other plans pan out first because they need to buy the ferries before the old ones can be sold off. They are much needed though. Did you know that the original plan was to have four super ferries, and three century class (skeena) hulls? So far we are at two and one respectivly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTW-You guys may be a little young to remember it but did you know that when the ferry system was first brought in by the BC government in the early sixties, it was supposed to be FREE??!! Premier Bennet said that road taxes would cover costs and that we should just consider it a part of the BC highway system.

THAT was before the unions got ahold of it. The rest is history. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, until they got their own ministry they were free. In fact there are highway ferries that are free still. Two reasons for the change, 1) they thought they could make some money at the time and 2) they highway taxes and etc couldn;t pay for the increasing costs which are indeed partially attributable to the Unions.

As to your brother, that is a bit of an extreme case. My father is a 22 year veteren of the BCFC and only owns one house. My mother has worked at least two jobs for as long as I remember.

--PB


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macnutt are you sure your brother isn't management for BC Ferries. . . or an 'efficiency expert'?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think the Canadian political scene is in deep malaise. Revelations of favouritism, expediency, carelessness, patronage, greed etc. have reduced my confidence in the political institutions to an all time low. Where is the next real leader going to come from? Indeed, looking around the world, there seems to be a dearth of true leaders. Dubya's a synthetic joke (at least Bill had intellect and as personality). Blair seems to be trapped in Dubya's slipstream and Cretien is now one of the walking dead (no change there....).

The political career process tends to select for self-serving ego-maniacs who are willing to say to the populous whatever is needed to get where they want to go. Occasionally, once in power, they do acquire more magnanimous behaviours, but its rare.

The consquences of poor leadership include political instability (where the public shuffles the government in the forlorn hope that the new group will be better than the last) and voter disaffection. The latter is most troubling since it separates governance from the will of the people. 

Sorry for the depressed outlook but I find Canadian politics have been reduced to parochial matters and diverted by idiotic trivia that the media love to hype and the soporific public are willing to swallow. The local front is an important part of politics, but when its the only part, something is very wrong.

Some politicians realise the trap we're in but have been unable to provide a solution. The stranglehold of the Ontario Liberals in Ottawa has sent the opposition parties into disarray. I'm not saying the Liberals are bad, just that their complacency in the face of zero effectual opposition is an unhealthy state of affairs. Politicians only ever work well when they know their actions are accountable. This is simply not true - currently.

Let's hope that the parties provide a set of meaningful platforms and manifestos which offer real choice before the next Federal election. Let's hear what they stand for, what they are against and how they mean to implement. Let them be honest about the winners and the losers (there are always losers). We need to up the ante and break out of this semi-consciousness and start smelling the roses.

Heck, I'll stop now or CubaMark will think he's been cloned.....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Another amendment to my last post. re: BCFC food staff. In a lot of cases (specific example being the Long Harbour ferry) where there seems to be a lot of catering staff, they are present for a reason. They are factored into the above mentioned federal regualtions regarding the crew/passenger ratio for emergencies, so there is reason in a lot of cases to keep them on an under union control.

--PB


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Two issues:

1) I don't understand why BC Ferries keeps running the Long Harbour ferry. It's a money sinkhole. How many people actually use it? I know they've been threatening for some time to stop it but it's still running.

2) I agree Bill Clinton had some charisma but he was a lecherous dope. (Emphasis on _dope_!) Admittedly, Bush is far worse. I just finished reading a good article on him: <a href=http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Partridge100302/partridge100302.html>What would Jesus do?</a> Definitely worth a look. Anyway, Clinton was too ineffectual and from my understanding he threw away a lot of tax dollars. Some of these tax dollors went to bloated Democratic hand-out organizations and some went into his buddies pockets. "I did not have sexual relations. . ." but I am a lying lecher.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Regardless of how infrequently it runs, it is the only direct route between the main islands and Vancouver, and that is the main reason that it still runs.

Without Long Harbour it would require two ferries to get from SSI to any other island and vice versa, as well as two ferries from any of the main islands to vancouver and vice versa. I don't care how much better the services are on the Victoria-Vancouver ferries, in most cases I take the ferry that goes to long harbour because sitting on one ferry for 3 hours is far better than sitting on one for an hour and half to make a terrible connection and wait for an hour or more to take a 40 minute ferry.

I don't know if you can truly appeciate it when you dont go from the mainland to SSI on a regualr basis.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

First off, let me say to Jwoodget (or the entity who used to be known as Jwoodget).....well said! A good take on the malaise that currently plagues our Canadian political system. Heroes and great politicians with real vision seem to be a bit thin on the ground these days, eh wot? More's the pity.

However...there may be a few bright spots on the Canadian political horizon. Please feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong, but.....

Have any of you thought about Mike Harris as a modern politician with an honest agenda to improve the lot of his province? How about Ralph Klein? Gordon Campbell? If any of them were just in it to obtain and retain power for power's sake then I may have missed something for sure.

Each of them seems to have had a serious agenda that they honestly believe will fix some of the underlying fundamental ills that currently exist in the system. They want to make it BETTER.

Mike Harris got spooked by all of the booing and shreiking (plus some personal problems) and checked out pretty early in the curve. It remains to be seen if Ernie can carry the torch....I suspect he can not, and that Ontario will slip downward quite a bit before the next great leader shows up in our most populous province. Best of luck to ya all....you'll need it in the coming months and years.

Gordon Campbell is, as of yet, an unknown force. He certainly seems to be motivated and clear about where he wants the province of BC to go....and, if the polls are any indication, most of us here in LotusLand seem to think he is on the right track. At this point it is a virtual certainty that he will be elected to a second four-year term and we will all be watching closely to see if his restructuring will have the desired effect. This province is very politically polarized on the far right and far left...currently the revulsion we all feel for the previous NDP government is coloring all of our opinions and casting the weight of public polls in Gord's favor. It remains to be seen if he can maintain the momentum past the next election.

Ralph Klein is an enigma to many inside Alberta and most everyone outside that province. A truly "common man" who, in his first term, could be found drinking with the locals on a nightly basis in many local bars. Nobody anywhere honestly believes he is there solely to stay in power for power's sake (as Jean Cretien and the Federal Liberals are).

He inherited an oil-rich province that was poorly managed and bleeding red ink, despite all of the petroleum revenues. He realised that this could not go on. Or that if it did, at some point the oil money would dry up and there would be an instant economic crisis. He then set about to run the whole place as if it were a family business. Basic Principles of economics here...Money comes in (Taxes and revenues), money goes out (highways, schools, health care, welfare etc.) and somehow the two numbers must balance. 

They didn't.

Alberta, despite the wealth, was spending more than they took in and borrowing money to make up the difference that they then had to pay interest on. That meant that, each year, more of the revenue had to be diverted to pay the interest on the money they'd borrowed previously and, therefore, wasn't available to pay for schools, highways, welfare, etc.

This is the direct polar opposite of compound interest and is a sure spiral into bankruptcy, sooner or later.

Something had to be done....and done NOW!

Unclouded by any prevoiusly established ideology, Ralph acted as almost anyone would if this were their household that was spending beyond their means. He cut expenses and tried to streamline the system that delivered the services that his "family" (Alberta) needed to survive.

He could have just raised taxes to provide the necessary revenue, but there is an ingrained resistance to that in Alberta and besides...he also realised that he would have to keep raising taxes indefinitely unless he addressed the fundamental problems of wasteful, unproductive spending.

So he looked at every single department and said "How can we do this faster, better, cheaper...while still delivering the same level of service that Albertans have come to expect from this particular department?"

Then he set out on what was then called a "radical restructuring" of the whole Alberta government and all of it's services. This had been done elsewhere in the world but was a whole new approach here in Canada.

He decided that paying unionised govenment workers fifty thousand dollars per year to run cash registers and sweep floors was wasteful and quickly eliminated those positions in favor of private contractors. He sold off all of the liquor stores and set the province up as a liquor wholesaler while leaving the retail end of it to whomever wanted to open a liquor store. Alberta now earns just as much as they did previously from alcohol sales, but selection is way up for the consumer and prices are quite a bit lower. Needless to say, there are NO more strikes. There used to be less than four hundred government workers running a relatively small amount of liquor stores across the whole province. There are now more than a thousand workers and more stores than ther used to be workers. And you can buy booze at any hour of the day almost anywhere in the province. Seven days a week. At a lower price. With better selection. A side benefit was that alcohol related crime actually dropped and so did drinking and driving offeneces. Liquor is no longer a "forbidden fruit" that people have to drive a long distance to get or stock up on to cover the two or three days that the government stores are closed because of union rules.

Then he fired all of the overpaid drones who worked for the Motor Vehicle Branches and all government licencing departments from housing to marriage to dog licences. Then he told the public that anyone who wnated to could set up an "Alberta Registry" and issue licences for almost anything as long as they followed all of the established guidelines. Pretty radical stuff, indeed!

But it worked! 

Any of these new "Registries" who abused the rules were heavily fined and shut down....pretty soon Albertans could count on finding a place to get a drivers licence or building permit or dog tags (or pretty much anything else that the government used to provide) in almost every mall or street corner. No lineups, fast friendly service and NEVER a strike that could hold you up!

As long as your paperwork was all in order (they check this VERY carefully) you would be approved for whatever in a matter of minutes. It took me all of eight minutes to switch my clean BC driver's licence for an Alberta one when I got there! It would take six weeks to actually get the licence in BC....after a two hour wait just to get to the desk and apply.

Welfare rates are now lower than they were in the 1980's as well and I have walked the streets of Calgary and Edmonton (as well as almost every other Alberta town and hamlet) without tripping over people living on the streets. Jobs are plentiful and cost of living is quite reasonable. People get jobs and start having actual lives because that is the best alternative and they usually feel a lot better about themselves as a result.

I could go on and on with more examples, but you get the idea. If you don't, then I suggest you spend some time in Alberta and see for yourself how well it is run. People are flocking there for a reason and Calgary now has TWICE the number of corporate head offices as Vancouver....even though Vancouver has far better weather and is twice the size. Most of these corporate head offices have absoloutely nothing to do with the oil business as well.

The place is open for business and _thriving_...and I honestly think that Ralph Klein will be remembered as a real leader with vision by future historians.

Mike Harris _could _ have been had he stayed the course.

Gord Campbell _might_ be...if he can stay focused and get re-elected.

So, that's my take on it. Here are three examples of Canadian politicians who have made a difference and who did not seem to be there just to grab power and loot the place. Something that can't be said for most of the miserable, corrupt buffons that we are forced to choose from both provincially and, especially, Federally.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Honestly Macnutt, how are we supposed to follow a post like that?

I'd just like to re-iterate that my single concern is that there is no other party in the house what so ever. There are only two MLAs that aren't liberals, Joy McPhail is one of them and i can;t even remember the other one's name. I don;t think many other people in my demographic can either, we are more concerned with the fact that if he wanted to Gordo could run through any legislation he wanted.

It also concerns me that gordo does seem a little pre-occupied with what his business buddies want as opposed to what the people are asking for in some cases.

I mean, look at the restructuring of the health care districts. After repealing raises given to a lot of the lower down workers, they had to let go many of the directors of areas and these people were given as much as five years pay as severence in the most extreme cases. We can't afford to give teachers and nurses more money but we can afford to give the former director of a health district (that is oone person for those of you not keeping count) 765, 000$ in one shot? How can we afford to swallow that but not give out raises to teachers and nurses (not that I am necessarily on the side of the teachers and nurses, just trying to make a point.)

All I am saying is that the man is a bit more on the shady side of a lot of dealings than I personally feel comfortable with. For the most part I do not feel at this time he has my interests in mind. I do not feel very well represented by my provincial government. I didn't feel very well represented by the NDP either, but that was one of the things that was supposed to change wasn't it?

--PB


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmmm... I agree that Ralph Klein has a strong personality and does what he says and thinks. I also admire him for publically recognizing his drinking problem and doing something about it (a true indication of strength). But, Ralph does not show much compassion for those less fortunate, is intolerant of issues that are important to others and, frankly, has been in power too long. The last point is not to denigrate him per se, but his government is complacent and self-protective. I think this is a common symptom of any long-running government.

Mike Harris certainly started his reign with a clear agenda but his bailing out without seeing it through, his slight of hand in passing a variety of questionable orders in the last couple of weeks in power and his unwillingness to take any responsibility for those actions suggests to me that he basically lost interest. Ernie Eves is portraying himself as a kinder, gentler Mike Harris. He probably is. There again, while I don't agree with much of Harris's actions, I admire him for taking "a" stand. We don't need "kinder, gentler" if that means fuzzy and slippery.

Dalton McGuinty and Howard Hampton seem to be operating under the same rules as the Federal opposition in simply pointing fingers at the party in power and each other. McGuinty has raised some platform issues, but none of these have hit the sweet spot with the electorate.

Basically, while the Ontario economy is strong (as in Alberta), the PCs know that they simply have to diffuse flare-ups and the voters won't demand a change in government. Better the devil you know. If the economy goes South (literally) upon an invasion of Iraq and the consequential fallout (!), then all bets are off.

Kinda scary that the best chance the provincial liberals have of getting into the government benches in Queens Park is if Bush declares war on Iraq. Wonder what McGuinty is thinking?

I'm glad we don't have ferries in Ontario.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually Jwoodget, I wouldn't be quite as concerned about a war with Iraq as I would with a Canadian implementation of the Kyoto agreement.

A war with Iraq seems a virtual certainty at this point (although there are a LOT of dissenting voices....even in the US itself).

I suspect that the Iraq campaign will be rather swift and things will return to normal shortly thereafter. History has shown us that when the US goes to war with an enemy state and wins, then they usually inflict peace and prosperity upon their defeated enemy. See the recent actions in Kuwait or Afgahanistan. (Or Japan and Germany for that matter)

Kyoto, on the other hand, will definintely result in a massive movement of industries out of Ontario. They will be "going south" as you put it....and they WON'T be coming back. Fuel prices will go through the roof and so will the prices of everything that is made using fossil fuels or hauled using fossil fuels. That covers just about EVERYTHING. Massive job losses from the vacating industries and the resultant loss of Provincial tax revenue will fundamentally change the lives of everyone in Canada. Especially in Ontario and Alberta, which are currently the only "have" Provinces and the two that help the rest of us maintain a higher standard of living than we can currently afford. The worst thing is that air quality won't improve one bit as the industries will still be pollouting...they'll just be a few miles across the border.

Not much to look forward to if Kyoto becomes law in Canada. Pray that cooler heads prevail and we reject this silly excersize in favor of a real agreement that includes _ALL_ industrialised Nations....one that will actually address the problem instead of just moving it around.

Posterboy: Regarding the huge payouts made to Health administrators who'd been turfed....

The NDP had padded these health boards with lots of their political buddies and given them long term contracts that stipulated a very high payout if they were canceled early. Since most of these people were appointed during the last year or so of the NDP administration then we can only conclude that this was a simple excersize in "wealth redistribution" NDP style. They knew they were going to be defeated and did this because they knew that it would result in very bad press for the incoming Campbell government. A nice side benefit was that several million dollars would be transferred to their supporters and less cash would be available for the current government to provide services with. They would, in opposition, be able to point out the huge payments and say "why wasn't this money spent on health care instead of paying off a few already wealthy individuals??" And people like yourself would frown and say "yeah, why was this done?"

Our current health minister appeared on the news and pointed out that all of these people were appointed by the NDP and their contracts were set up for a huge payout by the NDP. Breaking those payout clauses would have resulted in long legal battles that would have cost a lot of additional tax dollars to fight in court. Did you miss this little revelation on the news? Check it out and you will see that I am correct on this subject.

Re: Nurses and Teachers. The nurses union and BCTF are big supporters of the NDP party and they agreed to defer their wage demands for several years before the last election. They asked for no real increases and waited to see what would happen in 2000. When the party they were supporting financially was defeated then they released all of that pent up wage demand and we were faced with a lot of labour strife in the first year of the new government. Had the NDP won, we would have faced the same wage demands and they would simply have borrowed more money to pay them off. 

Campbell's Liberals....determined to balace the budget and not let BC's credit rating drop any further (it's dropped by three basis points since the NDP came on the scene) decided to settle with the nurses at a rate that would set them up as some of the highest paid in Canada (the nurses union had been asking for a FORTY per cent increase!!) and they also settled with the already highly-paid teachers by imposing a settlement. Since enrollment is actually dropping everywhere in BC and costs are rising astronomically, the Liberals decided to just give local school boards the money and let THEM choose how they spend it. 

Buy books, build schools, update the computers....or pay huge salaries to teachers who are already very well paid. (an elementary teacher in BC gets almost 60,000$ per year for six-hour days, ten months of the year) 92% of the education budget goes straight into teachers pockets...the remaining 8% is left over to build and buy all of the infrastructure.

This puts the pressure on local school boards and should make them more accountable to the taxpayers who live in their jurisdictions, and who pay the bills.

Want to give the teachers or janitors a big raise? Great...where's the cash coming from? Especially since there are less students entering the system all of the time. Victoria provides a lump sum based on how many students there are in each school district....how they spend it is up to them. The amount per student that is provided by the government is in excess of the amount that the NDP provided.

Still think that Campbell is a big meanie? Or are you starting to realise that he has a tough job to do repairing all of the damage inflicted by the union supported NDP?

We need to get back to a stuation where this province is self-supporting instead of asking for handouts from Ottawa. We should be contributing to Canada instead of consuming from Canada. The provincial debt increased exponentially during the NDP administration and the interest we now pay on that accumulated debt each year could buy a lot of new highways or keep several hospitals from closing or purchase a whole new fleet of ferries or support a bunch of people who really can't work due to disabilities or.....

You get the picture.

Campbell is doing exactly what we elected him to do. He's getting BC back on track. If you don't agree with his program then feel free to vote against him in the spring of 2004. We are very fortunate that we are allowed to vote on what direction our government is taking us. Some people do not have this right. North Korea, China, Cuba and most of the Arab countries come to mind here.

Don't like where we're going? Then excersize your right to express that displeasure on voting day.

But please..._please_...look very closely at the issues first and then make your decision.

Don't just take anyone's word on something (including mine)...look into the stuation and find out everything before you form an opinion.

As they say....the devil's in the details.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Sorry, if they can pull out of a contract wage increase to the workers then I have a hard time believing that they couldn't pull out of a contract with the workers bosses.

For the nurses, I didn't want to see any increase in money as they are among (if not the) highest paid in the country. I'd like to see the Liberal implement a program that would allow more entry level nursing jobs, thus evening out the pay scale a little (as opposed to having all senior nurses) and the whole hours situation. I sympathise with the manditory overtime situation, but asking for more money isn't the answer, asking for more nurses to relieve the need to have manditory overtime is. Just my thoughts on this.

As to the teachers, i don't know enough to comment. As I said though, I am not really on either side at this piont on either of these issues as there is just too much spin on everything i get to read or hear.

Yes, Our adoption of Kyoto is going to ruin us in a lot of ways. I think Kyoto is a good first draft of what needs to happen, but unless everyone signs it (and I mean everyone) then it is not worth it.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure which "contract wage increase to the workers" you are referring to. What was it exactly that they pulled out of?

Individual contracts to managers that specify a big yearly remuneration and that have a clause that states they will be paid a large part of their salary if the contract is canceled early are another whole kettle of fish. These are regularly challenged in court, and it almost always results in a big settlement for the injured party (the canned manager) and a big legal bill for the employer who wanted to cancel the drone (in this case, the Provincial government).

There is a lot of legal precedent here. Both sides knew this and the Liberals decided to just settle and get on with it.

In the private sector large companies that hire a new CEO or Director have to guarantee that person several years work in order to get them to come on board. If they want to cancel their ticket early then they have to pay, because the assumption is that this person could have been somewhere else, earning a similar pay package instead. Besides....some companies in the past have hired a hot shot to come in and clean up their operations and then canned him as soon as things were running well in favor of someone who works cheaper or is related to the owners or something. That's what gave rise to the legal precedents in this particular segment of corporate jurisprudence.

This sort of contract law is on a totally different level from the average unskilled or semi-skilled union worker and their collective agreement. A totally different universe, really.

Besides....these sort of people have the cake to hire a REALLY good lawyer and totally screw up your day if they want to.

The average union worker, on the other hand, has to hope that the union will go to bat for them and the union's only real weapon is withdrawal of services.....and that particular threat doesn't carry much weight when the employer (the government in this case) is already trying to downsize. 

That's why this particular situation is truly like "comparing apples and oranges"

Besides....do you really think that Campbell wanted to pay out big settlements to NDP clones who were not really doing anything anyway?

I'm bettin he ground a few millimeters off his bicuspids when signing those goodbye cheques, for sure!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I can't remember the details as in all honesty I wasn;t paying as much attention as I should have been, but I do seem to recall a mention of a raise to one of the unions that they pulled out of jsut before the huge payouts started. I could be wrong, or remembering teh details wrong.

As to the nurses union, one can only hope that somehow they will be forced to re-organise so that young nurses and doctors can get in on some of this hot work action. I believe Gordo could accomplish this, I am not sure of the best way to, but hopefully, well, I hope anyway.

And the pay scale for overtime? If they are anything like the unions I am familiar with, most notably the BC Ferry and Marine Workers Union, then they get a rate that I like to call "Metric Time": double and a half time.
--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I should add this about the nurses union....

I recently watched an article on the news hour about a Canadian nurse who had moved to the United States about ten years ago but now wanted to work back here in the Vancouver area to be closer to some family members. She was mega-qualified and had been trained in Canada originally....but when she came back here she found that she could only get a few hours per week of work, no matter what hospital she applied to. Apparently the nurses union has it set up that the senior nurses get full time employement PLUS guaranteed overtime (at god know's what pay scale) and then all of the younger nurses get to live on the crumbs that are left.

This accomplishes two things. Firstly: the nurses union can point out to the media that "nurses are working vast amounts of overtime on a regular basis" We have all seen this statement made by Deb MacPherson, the giant beluga that heads the nurses union.

Secondly: It chases younger nurses out of BC and allows the nurses union to proclaim that "there is a serious shortage of nurses" and usually leads to some big pay increase demands.

BTW-when I was trying to get my Cuban girlfriend/fiancee into Canada I spent quite a bit of time talking to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and did a lot of research on the situation of foreign medical personnel finding work here in Canada.

Guess what? There is NO SHORTAGE of fully qualified Doctors and Nurses in this country!!!! There is, however, a serious problem with getting them properly certified by the sanctioning bodies here in Canada. Therin lies a tale....

My girlfriend has two PHD's and TEACHES groups of visiting Canadian doctors on a regular basis....but she was informed that she would only qualify to be a first year nurse here in Canada and that would be AFTER a two or three year wait!!

I have since heard several stories about Cuban doctors working as janitors and taxi drivers after emigrating here. Same goes for some medical personnel from Eastern European countries. Why can't we just give them a series of tests to determine if they are competent or not?

Because (...and I really think this bites the big one.)... if there were no shortage of Doctors and Nurses then there would not be...could not be...ever increasing demands for higher pay by their respective unions. These people are already very well paid and ,by choking off the supply of doctors from countries outside Canada, their sanctioning bodies guarantee that this situation will continue indefinitely. Canada does not graduate enough Doctors or nurses from it's own universities to fulfill demand.

Sad,eh? a whole bunch of Doctors in this country can't work as Doctors because the Doctors that are already here won't let them....and then proclaim that there aren't enough Doctors so you have to pay us even more! 

Same thing with nurses. And it's even worse because the older ones hog all of the pay and starve out the younger ones.

In "union speak" this is known as a "closed shop".....and I think it SUCKS!

It certainly doesn't help out our beleagured public health care system one little bit.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Metric time it is, PB! My youngest brother has told me of some senior ferry employees who, on holiday weekends, are paid more than 80$ per hour! I asked him what these people did that was worth eighty bucks an hour and he said "well the two people I know in that wage class just walk around carrying a bucket!"

Gee....I wonder why we can't afford to buy any new ferries to replace the aging fleet?

As for solving the medical personnel problems (some would call them abuses) I think that we should look to socialist Sweden for the answer. They had a similar situation invoving big government unions and rapidly escalating heath care costs and they dealt with it (partially) by allowing private clinics and hospitals to provide care. They still fund the procedures through their public health plan, but the hospitals are no longer owned or staffed by the government. And there is no necessity to have a union presence there either.

It's just in the early days in Sweden but most other countries that have a public health care plan are heading in this direction. If you have a variety of different hospitals around, and they are all governed by the same unions then they can all go on strike at once and we will have to cave in to their demands. Outside of the union world this would be known as "extortion". Inside the union world it is known as "job action to suppport a collective agreement".

If you have a mix of union and non union hospitals, privately run and government run, or even several different competing unions then you will not get a total withdrawal of services and the union can not wield enough power to demand huge increases to already rich pay packages.

Same goes for breweries, car factories or what have you. One big union means one big problem for pretty much everyone involved....except the fat cats who are running that union.

One of the reason that we are hearing so much about health care workers these days is that there is a battle going on between two conflicting ideologies right at the moment. Pretty much everyone accepts the fact that, when the baby boom generation hits their declining years, then this richest and most populous generation in history will be filling up the hospitals in numbers never seen before. Our health care budget in BC already consumes 42% of all of the money that the BC government takes in and that could concieveabley go to 60% in only a few short years if it is not dealt with. 

This is a HUGE amount of money! If the various health care unions can prevent any private, non-union hospitals from providing services then they will have a blank cheque to make any kind of wage and benefit demands that they want, because they will be the only game in town. A protracted strike would directly affect the largest and richest group of voters and their outcries would force the government to settle quickly. For whatever the unions wanted.

Chew on that one for a while and think about the implications. Pretty scary stuff,eh?

There is a great deal at stake here and both sides know it. It's a giant chess game with the unions trying to position themselves for total control before the clock strikes midnight and the boomers start hitting the hospitals in droves. 

The government can step in now (as Alberta and BC are doing) to try and limit union power and solve rising costs BEFORE the problem gets out of hand, or they could grit their teeth and just try to ride it out like Ontario, Sask, Quebec etc. all the while knowing that this is a "hot button" issue and can easily defeat a government. That's why most are leaving it alone. Heck....they won't even be there when the sh*t hits the fan. Why not just defer the problem for a later government and let them take the heat?

Right now the big unions are mounting major public relations campaigns that say, essentially, "this government wants to take away your health care!" and some people are buying it. It's a battle royal for public opinion.

The worst thing is this....if the unions get their way then we will almost certainly lose our health care system eventually because we won't be able to pay for it. If BC and Alberta are sucessful then we will still have some form of state-supported system....but either way it's gonna change, like it or not.

Fasten your seatbelts and return your seat back trays to their upright positions.....it's going to be a bumpy ride.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt said: 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A war with Iraq seems a virtual certainty at this point (although there are a LOT of dissenting voices....even in the US itself).

I suspect that the Iraq campaign will be rather swift and things will return to normal shortly thereafter. History has shown us that when the US goes to war with an enemy state and wins, then they usually inflict peace and prosperity upon their defeated enemy. See the recent actions in Kuwait or Afgahanistan. (Or Japan and Germany for that matter)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

US rebuilding of Japan and Germany were completely different from Kuwait and Afganistan. The Marshall Plan was probably the most foresighted American policy ever and saved millions of lives as well as propelling the world economy forward. US investment in Kuwait has been limited to oil exploration and there has been no impact on Kuwait, per se. It's a rich country that is a benign dictatorship. Afganistan is an utter mess. The country was decimated by the USSR invasion and the lack of interest from the rest of the world enabled a breeding ground for the Taliban to emerge. I see little evidence of the US or the allies rebuilding this country. It's in constant danger of receding into warlord control. We need a Marshall plan for Afganistan. Some chance....

You also forgot Somalia. Great example of how the US (or any other Western nation) lacks the understanding in dealing with wrecked countries. Heck, why should anyone give a damn about a country in which life has so little value (voters don't). As a result, we go in, spread some high tech mayhem and get out leaving Medecine sans Frontiers and the Red Cross to pick up the pieces.

The US is descending into a paranoia where it trusts noone and will pre-emptively lash out at rogue states to deflect realization of the fact it is incapable of ensuring protection of its way of life. If 5,000 law enforcement officers can't track down one sniper in the Washington 'burbs, how can they be expected to deal with the threat of mass terror? Britain went through this with Northern Ireland in the 70's and 80's. The solution wasn't to bomb Belfast from 50,000 ft. Ditto Iraq. The enemy is not the Iraqi people - at least not until they are forced to start defending themselves.

If the US pre-emptively strikes agaist Iraq, the world will have taken an irrevocable step backwards. Only rogue states have assumed the right to shoot first. That detente will evaporate faster than Dubya can choke on a pretzel.

Kyoto is another matter. I seem to remember doom and gloom predictions from Free Trade and Canada's economy seems to be doing just fine. That said, there has been extraordinarily poor discussion of the implications of signing with debate largely being conducted by lobby groups on the two extremes. I doubt most Canadians question the need for reduction of emissions but they are not going to write an open cheque or hand out free pink slips. The Feds are being secretive, knowing that this is a hot potato. 

We need informed debate and clear understanding of the consequences and options. Since the US has not signed on, it's clear that Canada cannot assume it will "work itself out". The Feds are acting like osteriches*.

* In 200 years of observation, there is not one documented examples of an osterich with its head in the sand. In 1 minute of observation of the House of Commons, 200 human examples have been recorded by C-SPAN of the same behaviour.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

You know what the US should do? Hold a Civilization 3 Tournament during their next big war. Then when the war is over, put the winnoer of said tournament in charge of rebuilding the demolished country. If you think about it, some of the people who are good at Civ probably have a lot more country building experience and know how than a lot of the generals they would otherwise give the job.
They could start right now and hold a tournament to decide who rebuilds Afghanistan.

Just an idea.  

--PB


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Just another nore on ferry workers, it really depends on the employee (as in their seniority and their job description and their training) as to what they do and what they get paid. Pointing out on example of an employee who "carries a bucket around" for 80$ an hour on a stat holiday presents a little bit of a one sided and narrow view of what is actually going on.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I realize that this ferry thing is a bit of a sore point with you PB. I recall that in a past post you mentioned that a close family member (your Dad?) was a 22 year veteran of the BCFC. I fully understand why you would become defensive on this subject.


Ask this ferry employee about the "Inland Waters Act" which is the segment of shipping law that should be governing our inland ferries (they are never out of sight of land). I believe it specifies a much smaller crew on board our boats, but the BC ferry Union has vehemently resisted the implementation of this set of regs....even though virtually every other ferry system in the world is governed by it. I believe that the next time the ferries go on strike or take some sort of job action, Gord campbell will declare them an "essential service" (which they most certainly ARE) and that will prevent any further strikes. With the option of service withdrawal removed, the union will no longer have the power to force an issue and Gordo will probably then invoke the Inland Waters Act. This is entirely within the law as it stands now. 

At that point it will no longer be necessary to have all of those catering staff , among others, as certified crewmembers....or union members.

And I seriously doubt that we will see the sort of wage abuses that have led to huge deficits and an aging fleet that we cannot, under current conditions, afford to replace. The ferry corp will pay the people that are REALLY needed to run the ship a good wage and excellent benefits, and there will be a whole lot of entry level jobs opened up for part -timers or students in other areas. They will not be governed by any union agreements. Because the ferries will have been declared an essential service, the union will be powerless to do anything about this. 

Jobs like running cash registers and sweeping floors should be governed by the same rules of economics as they are in the real world. These jobs are NOT worth 55,000$ per year. That is slightly above what a cop makes, fer cryin out loud! No business can run (without heavy subsidies) under these distorted wage rules....and remeber this, every dollar that goes to subsidize the huge wages in the ferry system in BC is a taxpayer dollar that isn't going to health care or improving schools or helping people out who really need it. Or building the new ferries that we so desperately need to replace the (mostly) forty year old fleet.

Makes you think,eh?


Now...on to Jwoodget.

The US and it's allies are only in their (our) first year of helping Afghanistan turn itself around but the stories I'm hearing are mostly all positive. Only a year ago all of the naysayers were proclaiming that Afghanistan would be a quagmire that would defeat the US just as it had done to the USSR and Britain in the past. No way we were going to win that one any time soon. It was predicted to be "another Vietnam".

What a difference a year makes.

Somalia is a special case. The American public weren't even aware that Somalia existed until public outcries about the famine finally got their attention.

When the somewhat distracted (ahem) administration of Bill and Hillary Clinton finally got around to sending in food aid they began to get back reports that the ships were being prevented from docking at the Somalian ports unless huge "tribute" was paid to the local warlords who ran the docks. Somalia was, at this point, pretty much in the grip of anarchy and different segments of the country were being controlled by different warlords. Reports came in that the food, onece unloaded, was being used as a weapon. It was witheld from certain needy groups unless they supported the warlord who had contol of the groceries and further to this, the "tribute" paid at the docks (upwards of sixty thousand US dollars per shipload of food) was being used by the warlords to purchase weapons that would be used to continue the wars which had directly led to the current food crisis.

Bill and Hillary, never too clear on foreign policy at the best of times, decided to send in the military to escort the food supplies and see that they were delivered to the people who really needed it . 

This didn't go over too well with the local warlords and several noteable confrontations ensued. The warlords also used their control over food supplies to galvanize the local populace into strong anti-American protests. (remember that the Americans were there trying to help by bringing in food....and that they had been dragged kicking and screaming into this particular mess) 

These confrontations between the US military and the warlords led to a helicopter being shot down...the incident became the basis for Ridley Scott's movie "BlackHawk Down"...and the American people, who thought they were helping the poor starving people of Somalia, were treated to the sight of their dead airmen's bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu while crowds chanted and cheered. I believe there was also some of the now cliche "Burning of the American Flag" type behavior as well.

I was in the States at the time and, let me tell you...that particular television image didn't go over very well at all. To put it mildly.

Your average American citizen thought they were doing something to help a foreign country in dire straights and when they saw this on TV they went absoloutely ballistic.

Needless to say, there won't be any serious help or rebuilding for Somalia from the United States for...oh, I'd say...a generation or so. They got the heck outa there and left them to their own devices. Rightfully so, I think. The Americans felt like they'd reached out a helping hand to someone in need and pulled back a bloody stump. It made an impression on ALL of them, trust me.

Kuwait was a differnt situation entirely. Kuwait is a very rich country and Kuwaiti citizens enjoy a higher per capita income than Americans do. The US went in, took out the bad guys, and restored their country to them. It could quite easily have become a province of Iraq. 

That sounds like fun,eh?

Kuwait could afford to rebuild itself so the Americans pulled their military out and left them to it. They were back to what passes for normal in the oil-rich Arab states, in no time at all.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, will get better and better as time goes on. It's already getting better there. Women are no longer being beaten on the streets for wearing the wrong color shoes and they are using the football stadium in Kabul for football matches instead of weekly executions.

They just had free elections and , recently , International Women's Day was celebrated openly. Females of all ages are attending schools and learning to read. None of this would have happened if the US and their allies hadn't stepped in.

They've got a long way to go in Afghanistan, but they're off to a good start. And it's been less than a year since the US moved in. 

Not bad, I'd say.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The BC Ferries already are an essential service, as legislated by Glen Clark and the NDP, which is why there have only been job action in the last two series of, well, job actions.

BE Ferries regulations are set forth by Marine Transport Canada, not the province. Gordo can change this, but i am skeptical as to why he would, it has kept the BC ferries one of, if not the, safest ferry company afloat. The Inland Waters act is all well and good, but consider this. On the Ferries between Manhatten and Staten Island that you so often see in movies jam packed with people there are only seven crew members. These ferries hold hundreds of people at a time, do you think you would like to be caught on board in an emergency with only seven crew members to help get you off safely?

The Skeena Queen by contrast also has seven crew members (including the Captain), and they have to handle a maximum of 600 passengers. Honestly, I still wouldn't want to be on board.

Yes, it does seem unreasonable that some of the employees who spend most of their time running cash registers and wiping down tables get 55000$ yearly, but on the other hand all of them are trained in marine evacuation protocols and methods to satisfy standards set forth by the federal government and a good number of them recieve lower to mid range First Aid training as well. Deckhands go even further, recieving industrial and marine first aid training, marine fire fighting training, and a host of other certifications.

It is also worth noting that because BC Ferries employees recieve training to meet federal standards they are not limited to working just on ferries. A captain with a ticket to captain say, a Spirit Class (super) Ferry has a ticket to run any 170 meter (550 foot) hull, through both shallow waters and deep. The radar certifications that the navigators on board have to take also are good for any ship in the sea. And the reason that there is still a navigator? Because if the power goes out GPS is useless.

I am not saying you are all wrong, the few employees who work soley on dry land I don;t believe need to be payed as much as some of them are, but there is a hell of a lot more involved in working on a boat. 

So yes, maybe privatising the catering staff would get rid of some of the more overpaid workers and replace them with lower paid workers, but then their would have to be more crew with sufficient trainging added to fill the gap in the regs set forth by Marine Transport Canada regarding crew - passenger ratios. The Spirit Class hull is rated to hold over 2000 passengers, how many 10$ an hour catering staff would you trust to get your butt off safely in the event of an emergency?

Maybe I am a bit on the defensive side, but I am just trying to paint you a more complete picture of one of the situations I happen to know a lot about.

My dad, yes.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One final word to Jwoodget about the coming action in Iraq.

I seriously doubt if anyone in the United States has any desire to "make war on the Iraqi people" per say. And that includes George dubya.

I suspect that they have something much more surgical in mind. "Pinpoint Action" I believe it's called.

When I was working in Wyoming and Texas I had a couple of people in the mobile laboratory with me who were US National Guardsmen, and they both told me...on seperate occaisions...that "the stuff we used in Desert Storm was the old equipment. We needed to get rid of it before the 'best before date' was up and we didn't even get to use the new weapons. They're MUCH more accurate"

That was ten years ago. Care to guess what they have up their collective sleeves this time? Some pretty sophisticated stuff, I'd imagine.

I suspect that the Iraq campaign will go something like this....

A massive containment and confrontation of the Iraqi forces by the US military, without much ammunition expended at all. There will be the usual retreats and widespread surrenders by the demoralized Iraqis and then....suddenly...we will hear about the capture or rapid demise of Saddam Hussein.

A few days of confusion and cleanup action will ensue and then the country of Iraq will start to rebuild and....who knows...possibly even have proper elections to choose a new leader. 

Or not.

Freely elected leaders that follow the will of the general poulation are, after all, a comparative rarity in the Arab countries.

We can only hope.

There is a good chance that Saddam could let fly one of his ICBM's on Israel while all of this is going on (he has done this before) and that could result in a retaliation by Israel. Israel is a Nuclear power, after all. 

Things could get very messy in a real hurry if that happens...but I suspect that the US already has several contingency plans in place should this particular scenario happen.

I would bet real money that, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, the rest of the Arab states will stay well clear of this confrontation. Just as they did in the last Gulf War.

I'm betting that this next US/Iraq confrontation will be over almost before it begins....barring any unforseen circumstances (such as a biological or nuclear attack by Iraq). I honestly think that the people of Iraq are so ready for a change, and so cognisant of what happened last time they faced the US, that the people who are in charge of firing these weapons will simply refuse to do so...and quickly surrender to the nearest US/Allied forces who happen to be in the area. There is a well established precedent for this from the last Gulf War.

Groups of Iraqi soldiers were seen surrenduring...without firing a shot...to tiny unmanned and unarmed drone aircraft that the US military uses for battlefield reconnaissance. Several large groups of Iraqi soldiers actually surrendured to a French camera crew documenting the battle. The French were only armed with cameras.

I think that this thing will be over very quickly....and without any great loss of life on either side.

Saddam will be gone....dead or captured...and there will be no long streams of body bags coming back to North America. This as has been the case in the last few military actions in this area. More US soldiers were killed in traffic accidents while unloading trucks full of matieriel than were shot by the enemy in Desert Storm.

A final word on this for anyone who thinks that "this is all about the Americans wanting Iraq's oil resources"

I can tell you...as a twenty five year participant in the oil business...that the very LAST thing that US oil companies want is for Iraq's considerable oil reserves to be released into the oil market. 

The oil market has to stay at an equlilibrium. If supply drops, then prices jump. If supply goes up, then prices drop. Quickly.

Iraq has an enormous amount of very high quality oil and, if it were suddenly available on the open market, oil prices would plummet and the major oil companies (who have invested large amounts of cash on drilling and producing lower quality oilwells over the last ten years) would be hurt badly. 

A sudden influx of Iraqi oil on the market is the LAST thing that the big oil companies want. It would devastate their portfolios and render ten tears of expensive exploration worthless. Prices would drop and companies would have to consolidate. It would not be good for the oil industry.

The consumer would enjoy very low fuel prices for quite a while, though.

Still think that this is "all about oil"?

Think again.

George Bush knows all of this...but he is going ahead anyway. He is from a family that is heavily involved in the Texas oilpatch. Texas will be particularly hard hit by renewed oil trade with Iraq and so will Alberta. Increased supply of high quality crude will put North American oil supplies (which are more costly and of lower quality) on the back burner. Nobody will be buying what they're selling.

Think about that the next time someone says "it's all about oil".


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I doubt this is true, but does anyone else get the feeling that this whole Iraq war push is being a little bit encouraged by George Sr? Or at least the previous actions involving Sr. in Iraq are motivating Dubya to go in there guns a blazing? I mean, Saddam did try and have Sr. killed and all.

I doubt it, but I do get that feeling when i watch him on TV butchering some old saying or another.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think we have two different threads running here consecutively Posterboy.

And I seriously doubt if anyone outside of this corner of BC is really interested in a discussion of "why the BC Ferries don't work the way they should".

However, I will deal with this subject one last time. Then I think we should either....

A) continue this conversation using private messages...

B) meet face to face and fight it out with Rubber Fish at fifty paces. Or...

C) start another thread so that the ehMac citizens who are interested in geopolitics and the middle East crisis will not be distracted by a heated discussion about the BC Ferry system and all of it's problems.

What's your choice? I'll go with it....just tell me your preference.

Meanwhile, I'd just like to point out that....despite all of the much-heralded training that the ferry employees recieve...the last three serious incidents that have occurred on the BC Ferries (which, by the way were caused by Ferry employee negligence) were delt with by regular citizens who were riding on the ferries as pasengers. The highly trained crewmembers were...shall we say...not in attendance at that particular moment.

TWICE in recent memory the big ferry from Swartz Bay to Tswassen pulled away from the dock while the cars were still loading. The first time this happened a minivan with a fammily of four fell off of the upper loading ramp and plunged into the sea. Several regular citizens dived in and rescued the occupants who hadn't actually been killed in the crash while the Ferry crew ran around like chickens with their heads cut off and tried to figure out what to do. According to all reports the crew totally LOST IT and it was up to passengers with no training to rescue other passengers who were in danger. So much for the extensive training regime that BC Ferries personnel recieve.

The only person who actually died was the father of the family...an RCMP officer...and most of the rest of the now fatherless family only recieved serious injuries. Several citizens (NOT Ferry employees) retrieved them from the sinking minivan. The Ferry employees, as mentioned earlier, were running around on deck yelling and screaming and wondering what to do. This is well documented and was the subject of an investigative report on either W5 or the Fifth Estate, I can't recall which.

There were two more instances in the following weeks of Ferries pulling away from docks before loading was complete. Luckily no one got killed during these particular incidences.

They finally changed the procedure...despite union rules to the contrary...and that particular problem was solved. Thank God. In none of these cases did Ferry employees offer any help to the people involved in the incident. They always seemed more concerned with observing the union regulations which are set out to prevent any hardship to union employees. Violating these regs can result in the Union dismissing the employee. The Ferry Corp. can't easily fire someone but the Union can. They just pull their union card and that's it!

Think about this.

Less than a year later the Horseshoe Bay/Bowen Island Ferry left on it's early morning run (in the dark at six AM). The Ferry smashed into several boats that were docked nearby and totally destroyed an historic motor yacht built in the thirties (that had just been restored). It then proceeded to drive straight over a government dock and crashed into a well kown reef.

Marine regulations state that a ship of the sea that has had a catastrophic incident with another ship or a section of shoreline should stay where it is or proceed carefully to shallow water in case it has suffered hull damage that could cause a sinking incident.

Guess what? The Ferry crew just proceeded along their usual route into deep water and headed for their next stop. They didn't seem to care (or notice) if the boat was in danger of sinking or not.

Everyone on board knew what had happened and several of the passengers were totally outraged. 

Probably they would have been the ones who would have conducted any evacuation while the Ferry employees were checking the union rules book to see what was the correct response for this particular situation.

Sorry PB, but that's my take on this situation. And I'm not alone, judging by the public reaction recorded by the TV cameras after the event.

The third event was quite recent and it was on the Skeena Queen bound for Fulford Harbour.

Apparently a visitor had a heart attack just as the Skeena was pulling out of Swartz Bay. This person tried to wave to a Ferry employee (he knew they had First Aid Training) but all of the Ferry employees dissappeared into the upstairs lounge a few seconds after the boat left the dock.

He laid there in anguish for the next thirty-five minutes until just before the boat docked at Fulford. When all of the cars and people had departed the ferry at Fulford one of the ferry staff finally noticed that this guy was in serious distress. He was almost catatonic at this point. 

What did the highly-trained ferry employee do? Did he perform CPR or try and give some sort of aid?

Nope. He ran up to Patterson's and dialed 911. Twenty minutes later the disabled passenger actually got attention from someone who knew what they were doing. Almost a full hour after the first attack. Pure luck the guy didn't die.

So much for the advantage of highly trained ferry employees.

These incidences are all very well documented and easily checked. God only knows what sort of situation will come up next.

I say can the union and get back to reality. We will all be much better off for it.

And I don't think your Dad will have to take a pay cut at all. Nothing of the sort.

But , at that point, he will be free to do what's right in an emergency....without having to check the union manual first.

This is a good thing.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Page A11, Monday's Globe & Mail - article on the great job we've done in rebuilding Afganistan. Out of sight, out of mind. Not sure if this URL will stick:

Globe article

Macnutt, you didn't respond to my concern about the US taking pre-emptive action - first strike. I don't think promises about superior killing machines, precision strike capabilities or sanitized war are particularly relevant on that point. Indeed, use of those technologies seem to be aimed at reassuring the US public that US killings are clean and humane compared to terrorist killings. I'm not sure how killing a wedding party in Afganistan from an aerial gunship is any cleaner than a car bomb. 

War is unpredictable, no-holds barred horror and to be avoided whenever possible. No calculation is accurate, no scenario can be completely foreseen. The smartest bomb can't deal with orphanages placed next to bomb factories. The smartest bomb is only as clever as its operator.

Ask any veteran who's seen combat on the ground whether they support war. I forget the details but during the primaries there was an informative comparison between the service records of John McCain and Dubya. Dubya's path seemed designed to avoid contact with the enemy at all costs. Pity he's not so averse to putting other Americans in harms way.

And, for the record, I don't think this has anything to do with oil either. In part its due to a real concern to avoid another 9/11 disaster on US soil during Dubya's reign. I can understand that. But in part its also a useful way to demonstrate US might and to rally the people around a cause. But is it a just cause?

If we were in Dubya's position and were presented with various hints of the nuclear or germ warfare capability of Saddam, what would we do? No concrete recon - the hints before 9/11 were hardly written in bold type.

This may sound stupid, but I think we have to take the risk and hold off. We should do everything in our power to prevent use of such weapons short of invading the country. But, if we act pre-emptively then a line is crossed for the Western world. The tremendous power of detente is instantly devalued. Who would be next? Do we bomb Bali? Kurdistan? East Timor? Cuba?

Democracy is about paying the price of being slapped before slapping back.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

These are all valid points, Jwoodget, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that war is to be avoided at all costs. I was working in Guatemala during their civil war and I never,_ever_ want to see that sort of brutality again. Especially close up.

It would be a far better world if we could all just live in peace and pursue more worthy goals....instead of trying to blow each other off the face of the earth.

Most Americans I've known have similar reservations about entering into any type of confrontation. Especially the two National Guardsmen that I used to work with. They would be on the front lines in any sort of conflict, after all.

The point I was trying to make is that the US is preparing to remove Saddam before he commits some sort of horror on the rest of us. He currently funds the families of suicide bombers in Israel (I believe the current remuneration for having your son blow himself up on a crowded bus is in excess of 25,000$US)

Further to this, there is no question in my mind that he is working hard to obtain nuclear weapons. Iraq's top Nuclear Physicist, who escaped last year, has said that it is only a matter of months until Saddam has some sort of nuclear device.

This frightens the heck out of me. The collapse of the Soviet Union has allowed quite a lot of fissionable material to appear on the black market and it's only a matter of time before this stuff ends up in Iraq.

If it hasn't already. 

Additionally, the Soviets developed a small device that is often referred as a "suitcase nuke" (it's actually carried in a backpack) and several of these have gone missing. Just imagine what would happen if one of these were to find its way into one of America's larger cities and was then detonated.

Total chaos!

People would flood out of all of the major urban centers in the justifiable fear that their city could be next. Life, as we know it would stop for a while.

It would accomplish just the sort of nationwide terror that the planners of 9/11 had in mind. It could bring the US economy to it's knees. Ours too.

The reason I bring up this possible scenario is because it does not require any sort of sophisticated delivery system that could be interecepted by US defence forces. Just a guy with a backpack. The devices exist and are, at present, unaccounted for. There is also no shortage of volunteers for a mission such as this, I'd expect.

It's a nightmare scenario...and just one of many that are possible as long as Saddam remains where he is. I agree that a pre emptive strike is most definitely "crossing the line" and I would suggest to you that a vast segment of the American public also shares this concern. Even members of George Bush';s own cabinet are digging in their heels on this one. 

However, I also believe that...in this case...it must be done. The sooner the better and with as little loss of innocent lives as possible. That is why I was talking about a surgical strike and pinpoint accuracy. The US is capable of making a single building, or even just a targetted portion of that building, explode from quite a distance. Wouldn't it be nice if that building were the one that Saddam was occupying at that particular moment?

I seriously doubt if there would be any need for massed armies or pitched tank battles after that.

I honestly belive that this is what George Jr. has in mind when he says "we need to remove Saddam from power", not a giant invasion but a quick strike to end the threat.

Saddam has been funding terrorism for decades and he has launched missiles at several of his neighboring states. He has built and used weapons of mass destruction before....even on his own people. His top nuclear scientist says "it's just a matter of time"....

Those of us who argue against quick action on this are just buying him the time he needs.

And I'm not at all concerned about this somehow leading to some sort of "open season" on other world leaders who are not friendly to the US. The American people have an extraordinary amount of say in how their government deals with events on a day to day basis, and they'd never put up with a President who went on a killing spree. Only just slightly more than half of them agree on this particular one. 

It's distasteful and troubling to most everyone involved, but waiting around and doing nothing could be just what Saddam is hoping for.

He needs the extra time. Let's not give it to him.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

This will be my last post here on the issue, If you want to keep going, I say private messages or email.

Yes, there have been accidents, there are always accidents in every workplace. Yes, there have been tragedies and I can;t say that every single employee is infallible.

This gentleman on the Skeena, Where was he exactly? Keeping in mind that to get upstairs you have to go all the way to either end of the ferry and walk up one level and that the skeena queen is just about the loudest of the small ferries, even if he called out I doubt anyone would have heard him. Was he in his car? If so you have to realise that every window from the bridge looks down on the cars, and unless he was in a convertable there is no way they could have seen him.
I am not saying it is right that he wasn't noticed, I am just saying that I can see how it could happen. 
And you don't administer CPR to a guy with a pulse. When it has been that long after a heart attack you call someone or search for a doctor. A ferry crewman can patch up a sucking chest wound, but only an MD, possible a nurse have the kind of training to be expected to seriously help after that amount of time.

As to the Swartz Bay incidents, the two of them (spread out over a number of years) happened like this.
The ferry parks in swartz bay ass end in, and cars load from the read. The Captain, Navigator and helmsmen sit on the bridge making preparations for departure. Radioing back and forth to terminal control and to the crews to see what is going on. In both cases they were radioed saying that loading was complete and started the departure sequence. They radioed for clearance and in both cases were given clearance and proceeded to leave.

in the more famous of the two, yes negligence on the part of whomever said "OK go!" before they should have, in the second of the two the ferry was already preparing to depart when the passengers were told the could sneak on. The terminal attendant didn;t radio the capt. to get permission to tell anyone anything. 

Again, in the first of the two, the lower ramp was already raised and the deck mostly cleared. There was one deckhand on the lower deck at the time of the accident, and no mater how tragic this may sound it is his first responsobility to infor the captain and crew of what is going on before just diving into the water to save someone. Yes, someone else did do that, but I don;t think that someone else had any idea how big the propellors are or how very very wrng he was to jump in the water before they stopped spinning, They didn;t need anymore bodies in the water at this point.

When the Mayne Queen ran over that boat and wharf and didnt stop I was flabbergasted. I didn;t know him personally, but I seem to recall that captain being let go, which is not something that happens a whole heckuvalot in that union.

There have been a great many other accidents involving BC Ferries as well, most notably the collision between the Spirit of Vancouver Island and the Star Ruby in which two people died, and was entirely the fault of the operators of the Star Ruby, or the time that the commuter fast cat (the little ones that stopped running soon after, not the Pacificat) smashed into the Victoria-Vancouver ferry, which was again the fault of the operators of the commuter fast cat, not the ferry. 

The BC Feries are stil the safest fleet afloat, compared to other ferry services comparable in size and smaller. Their record is exemplary despite the few blotches. 
Keep in mind any time you hear of an accident with the BC ferries, few if any people die as opposed to every accident you hear about from other companies where a ferry sinks and 60 people die.

There have been as many as 10 (but I can only remember about 5 or so) major incidents in 40 years, a lot of companies dream of a record like that.

Private messages sound fine to me.

--PB


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

No question that Hussein is a despicable villain. The news that he allegedly proportions "support" to the suicide bomber families in relationship to the number of Israeli body bags is evidence of that, not to mention the brutal repression of the northern Kurdish population, etc., etc. 

However, if, as you say (and I've no reason to doubt it), the US is so technologically superior and has planes constantly flying within 100 km of Bagdad (the northern and southern no-fly zones), why have we not seen gotten prima facie evidence over t he past 10 years to support the contention of clear and present danger? Add to this the incompetence of the Iraqi dictatorship (as you pointed out, their military forces fell to pieces in the face of the counter-attack) and the dysfunctionality of the country as a whole, and I'm left wondering quite how much a threat Hussein really is. It may be Hussein's greatest achievement - to project the image of a credible threat when he's really a local megomaniac/despot.

I don't deny that there are many people and organizations around the world to worry about but if Hussein could be "taken out", would that even dent the capacity of the terror groups "at large"? Would it not, instead, further strengthen their support in a battle against the trigger-happy, interfering Americans?

As for the threat of nuclear capability, we were warned that Hussein was within 6 months of achieving this state a decade ago. Sure, it is possible but we usually require proof before we arrest (let alone bomb) a criminal.

Tony Blair stood in front of the British house of commons and declared he had seen proof of Saddam's capabilities but he shed no light on this proof. Not one single piece of evidence. Protection of sources, not letting the Iraqis know what we know, etc. are all reasons for keeping the cards hidden. But this is an enormous issue - one that is unprecedented in modern history. The first use of force by a developed country against another sovereign target - that is not retaliatory.

It's not even about trust. I don't think Dubya is lying. I think he (and Blair) are genuinely worried. So am I. But I also think Bush lacks the evidence that Hussein is going to use a weapon of mass destruction. Bush has a shoot first, ask questions later mentality. This is dangerous when you're a tiddly little country. It's positively incendary in the case of the world's only current superpower (with China watching closely).

Principles are not subject to expediency. Bush currently has no moral authority to attack Iraq. I just want to be as sure as we can be that if we are to break the principle of defensive force that we are doing it for a damn good reason and not some hunch from a trigger-happy politician.

For the sake of everyone, I hope that we never experience the use of a weapon of mass destruction. But I also doubt that removing one despot would significantly reduce the likelihood of that scenario. Where would it end?

Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree with almost everything you said in your last post, Jim. There are a few exceptions, though. I'm not sure that I would characterise the Americans as "trigger happy". If they truly were ready to use their vast military strength at the drop of a hat then we wouldn't be having this debate. Saddam would have been taken out quite some time ago from a great distance and the whole area would probably be a giant smoking crater by now.

For that matter we, and Mexico and probably most other countries would be client states of the US instead of independant countries. The former Soviet Union comes to mind here. Once they moved in they never moved out . The whole sordid mess finally collapsed in on itself, as we all know, and left these unfortunate countries in terrible shape when their lifelines to the Soviets were suddenly cut.

Despite all of the wailing from certain writers here in Canada, we are still a seperate ,sovreign country that determines its own leaders and folows it's own destiny.

This would not be the case if the US were truly "trigger happy". They depend totally on our resources and it would have been easy to annex us if they were truly as aggressive as some would lead us to believe.

For that matter, they could easily take on and conquer pretty much any country in the world using their military strength. The fact that they have not done so speaks volumes. Also, the US is not a monolithic nation that speaks with one voice. There are three hundred million of them and they sure aren't shy about speaking out. Especially when there is some military action in the offing.

Which brings me to the second exception that I have with your last post.

I don't think that Iraq, as it is currently governed, could be called or should be referred to, as a "Sovreign Nation".

The people of Iraq are held under a cruel tyranny and have never had the chance to choose who they want to run their country. Saddam is in no way related to any sort of local "Royal Family" and he didn't inherit the country from his old dad...which is how it's done in that region sometimes.

He took power in Iraq during a murderous bloodbath and holds power in the most ruthless manner. He regularly has his top aides and generals shot (he even does it himself sometimes) and has murdered several members of his own close family to keep everyone in line. The Iraqi people live in mortal fear of this megalomaniac and there is no evidence whatsoever that they agree with the direction the country is taking. They have no say at all in what happens.

To my way of thinking, this is not indicative of a "Sovriegn Nation" at all. It is a dangerous madman controlling vast oil wealth and visiting untold horrors on his own people and those of other countries while holding the population of the area he lives in at gunpoint. 

Sovreign Nation? Not by half.

In short....it is a situation that must come to an end. Before we all suffer something terrible.

Hopefully the action that the US will take will be focused on removing the dangerous despot and not harming the Iraqi people while doing it. As far as I know, this is just what George has in mind. He has repeated said "we do not wish to make war on the Iraqi people, but Saddam must go". He's letting them know, in no uncertain terms what needs to be done.

I supect that a lot of Iraqis would agree with him. Perhaps some of them are even doing something toward those ends. That would be the best possible outcome, really.

As for this being the thin edge of the wedge and the beginning of a wholesale takedown of other world leaders...I seriously doubt it. It wouldn't "play in Peoria" as they say down south.

However....the war on terrorism is an ongoing process. George Jr.has said that he will root it out wherever he finds it and that the US will not rest until there are no more fanatics blowing up innocent citizens or spreading destruction among people who are just trying to go about their daily business.

I say great! Let's get on with it! Enough of this nonsense...we should not have to live in fear of some terrible act initiated by someone we don't even know, who is trying to make a point about something that is not our concern.

And, quite possibly, removing Saddam will frighten the others who are contemplating this sort of activity into at least _thinking_ that the US has their name on the list next.

In my mind this is a good thing. Show everyone in every country everywhere that it is simply bad manners to blow people up and rain destruction on the innocents.

THEN perhaps we can get on about building a better world. For everyone, everywhere. 

Am I worried by that giant military machine that lives just across the border from me? Hell no!

I'd be worried if it _weren't _ there.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmmm.... the US is a benevolent giant that also happens to spend $200 billion on defense. The US can and does project that power for its own aims. When it does so with the blessing of the UN, there is reasonable legitimacy in thinking this is for the common good. However, when done unilaterally, its for reasons of US interest.

US military power is most effective as a deterrent. Using it against aggression is simple to justify. If its actually used to inflict control then it becomes are a far less effective asset. The US military is not in place to control its people (unlike the military in Iraq), neither is it designed to fight domestic terrorism. In fact, its almost useless in that arena. My feeling is that an attack on Iraq will simply add fuel to an already threatening fire. I severely doubt we can go in andsurgically excise the Hussein tumour without wholesale blood letting (whether it be contemporaneous or a year later). His own ass is all Hussein seems to care about and his survival to date suggests his brutal methods are effectual.

I also have no respect for the Iraqi regime but it is hardly the only non-democratic state. "Sovereign" is defined as: One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.

Doesn't infer anything about quality or morality or royalty. Indeed, Libya is also a sovereign state.

I don't mean to play on the meaning of words. The principle is simply that invading another country is against international law. We can't apply one set of rules to one country and another set to ourselves.

We'll see how this plays out. Dubya has now gotten internal support for his sabre-rattling. He has the authority to act from the US standpoint (both Congress and the Senate have conferred that power). Lets see if he is able to convince the rest of the world to go along or whether it'll be the US alone vs Saddam. I hope he doesn't act unilaterally. I also hope that Hussein is toppled from within. I don't have much confidence in either scenario but we live in hope....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We do indeed!

I disagree that the US is considering acting unilaterally with it's miltary machine "strictly for US interests"

This concerns _all_ of us....it's not just about the USA. They were the prime target on 9/11 but lots of people died during that terrible event who were from countries other than the US... and people are dying in horrible ways every day due to terrorism all over the world. Innocent people who did not ask for (and do not deserve) this sort of brutality.

Almost none of them are American.

Witness this weekend's carnage in Bali. A horrific crime visited upon the poor souls who were vacationing in this little paradise. Senseless savagery. It makes my stomach turn.

This attack is almost cetainly the work of Islamic fanatics, possibly Al Queda, possibly (probably) trained and financed by Saddam in one of the many terrorist training bases that have taken up residence there since Afghanistan got too hot for them.

Could be all rumor and heresay...but I tend to think that he had a hand in it somewhere. I also believe that he had something to do with the embassy bombings in Africa, The USS Cole attack and 9/11. Osama is (or more likely was) working either with Saddam or for him. It's not a giant leap of faith to believe this, once you've studied up on him a bit. It certainly wouldn't be out of character either.

Want to wait and see what he does next or should we " snuff that critter right now" as my buddy Jack says.

As to International Law...wonder who will be enforcing that one? And what if the US attacks only the illegitimate and unelected tyrant who is holding Iraq hostage...and not the sovreign nation that he occupies?

Wonder what International Law would say about that particular scenario?

The US is trying very hard to get as much legitimacy as possible before they make their move. At this point it looks as though Canada, Australia and Britain will be right there alongside them when they go after the Butcher of Baghdad. 

I guess we'll all have to deal with the question of whether we've broken the rules by making a pre emptive strike against Saddam.

Or not.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW- Happy Thanksgiving to Jwoodget and anyone else who happens to be following this thread. I'd really meant to say that earlier, but I was somewhat distracted by the nature of the debate.

Here's hoping for a safe and happy holiday for all.....and many more to come!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Further to my last post.....

Wouldn't it be wonderful if, two or three Octobers from now we could breathe a sigh of relief because we knew that there would be no more innocent people being blown up in public spaces by radical fanatics?

It could concieveably happen...if these twisted subhumans were made to realise that they will be rooted out and dealt with swiftly by a powerful military machine that cannot be stopped. The military jargon has a term for this..."sanction with extreme predjudice at the earliest available opportunity"

Maybe that would stop this craziness. Or at least give the authors of this particular horror novel pause.

They are basically cowards, after all, who send others in to do their dirty work. If any of them thought that they, themselves, were personally threatened by any action they may take, then their strategy might have to shift to something else.

We have been letting despots get away with murder...literally...for a very long time.
They think that we in the West are soft and an easy target. They know that we live in democracies and that there will be a lot of dissenting voices from within whenever we contemplate taking retalitory action against them.

They are counting on this. It buys them time to move, or to plan the next horror.

Swift action might just change a few minds. Terrorism might just go out of style. Or the people who fund and instigate the terrorism might just "go out of style". Or dissappear in a puff of smoke....if you know what I mean.

No more terrorists and no more terrorism would be, truly, something to be Thankful for.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

While I've no answers for dealing with terrorism, snuffing it out with military action has proven far from effective and has, instead, tended to amplify and expand international terrorism. It's a dilemna. While it may "feel good" to hurl a few hundred Exocets at various "installations" over the horizon, it achieves virtually nothing positive in real terms.

Afganistan has been pounded to dust over the past 20 years and is still a breeding ground for ferment. What can you take away from a country that has nothing? Instead, we need to be giving to these countries and rebuilding their economies.

I'm kinda sick of the band-wagonning going on as well. Heck, Bush jumped on Bali as being the work of Al Qaeda. He wants us to believe there isa defined enemy that we can isolate and attack. It doesn't exist. It's a loose collection of very dangerous people who have little organization, little in the way of assets but a common cause - to bring upon the downfall of the US. They are pathetic and irrational. They will only succeed by instilling terror in us that is massively disproportionate to the damage they can inflict. 

The tourist exodus in Bali is a good example. Here's a Hindu country that relies on tourism. A couple of bombs kill and main several hundred poeple and the 200,000 tourists abandon the island bring the economy crashing down and initiating instability and unrest for thousands of Bali people. Screw the terrorists. They cannot be allowed to change your life. That's the ONLY way they can win.

If we believe in our way of life, we have to live it and not hide under it as it'll disappear. I'm hopping on a plane to the UK tonight and am taking the Chunnel to France tomorrow. It would be infinitessimally safer to not go. Life is dangerous but it sure beats the alternative.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree with you that it is a "loose coalition" of Islamic fundamentalists and that they are bent on wreaking havoc on what we call the developed world from many different directions.

But they need financing and training to do this. Most of these people are too poor to buy a car or van and certainly too poor to afford the Semtex explosives to blow it and the surrounding area to rubble. I think it likely that they wouldn't even know how to do it unless someone showed them.

That would happen in a terrorist training camp, and the most likely place to find that would have been Afghanistan....

...until we shut that down this year.

Most of this activity has moved to Iraq and this is one of the most valid reasons for removing Saddam from power. If we keep these people on the run and continue to successfully remove their funding then they will be a lot less effective in their endeavors. It took an estimated half million dollars US to plan and carry out 9/11 and required some fairly serious training. Think about that.

I also agree that we have to continue with our daily lives...otherwise they will have won already. Even if they only blow up a few people every year or so, if we cower in our homes... then it's over.

Best of luck on your trip Jwoodget. I used to travel a lot and often found myself in some pretty unsavory places. It was not always fun. To put it mildly.

But if we stop doing what we're doing then they will have succeeded, no question.

Just be glad you aren't travelling in the Middle East right now. Have a good...and safe...journey, mi amigo.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Thank you all for sharing your viewpoints and making this thread interesting & informative!

I've enjoyed reading.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, it's not done quite yet!

Stay Tuned.....more to come!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hey Macnutt, where's the evidence of Al-Qaeda shifting its camps to Iraq??? If there was even an inkling, don't you think George Dubya would have pasted this on every TV set on the continent? He's got Predators stalking every back passage in Bagdad.... As unsavoury as Hussein is, I do not think he's trying to attract any more bad press. He tends to support misery in other ways.

Am currently at Heathrow, BTW, waiting to return to TO. The Air Canada plane that I flew out on (a 747) had to return to Pearson because the pilot couldn't get the undercarriage flaps up. We were greeted by about 20 fire engines and eventually got out about 5 hours later. The landing was super smooth and no one panicked....


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm glad the epic thread will be continuing!

Presently, I have two thoughts. (More would cause my wee head to ache.)

1) Why haven't the Americans assassinate Sadam and his top officials? This questions is partly rhetorical. The high-tech U.S. has failed thus far and that alarms me. Moreover, I realize that Bush wishes to keep damage to a minimum but last I heard they were planning to bomb Iraq. That means there is going to be "collateral damage" and I am sickened to think what acceptable collateral damage might be for the U.S. military. Any thoughts?

2) Hasn't terrorism already succeeded? I'm thinking of the elusive sniper, for instance. This sniper has been vaguely described as dark-skinned. True this person _may_ have been dark-skinned but with the fear & prejudices in America now they may have been pale white or purple even and someone would have reported dark-skin. It's human nature to uncover what we at some level believe or suspect. I'm not talking about gut instinct. I mean this is confabulation. Seeing what you want to and what you've been conditioned to (fear) is a symptom. Now this person may be a terrorist. But I'm not convinced and I think over-speculation and paranoia are starting to take hold.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

On one, part of the problem is that a lot of the time they really don;t know if it is him or not. They guy has a troupe of look-alikes that make appearances and do whatever to throw us all off. If they hit one of the look-alikes, that could be the spark that Iraq needs to start a war. 
I think it was time magazine recently did an article on Saddam and his look alikes, and by analysing photos of his public appearances they estimated that we haven't acrually seen the real Saddam in something like 5 to 7 months, and there have been several public appearances in that time.

on 2, the whole point of terroism is to inflict terror. If we assume that every crazy with a gun killing people at random is a terrorist.....oh wait...uh....well...yeah. bad example. Point is, If we are paranoid then they have already won. If we jump when someone says "BOOM" then they have already won.
Personally, I think the most signiifigant hit back America has given their attackers was the raising of the flag on the day of the attack. It symbolised their will to go on, their strength in the face of great hardship. If the US can rebuild and prosper despite anything that has or may happen, then the they will win. If the citizens can walk around the streets of a major city without worrying that bomb will go off or a plane will fall out of the sky, then the US has allready won.

Just my take.

--PB

PS, has anyone noticed the statling similarities between the predictions of nostradamus and the terroist attack on New York? the timing was a bit off, but the details are very close. kind of wierd.

pb81


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Excellent take on the present situation PosterBoy! I doubt if I can add much to your observations. You've hit the nail on the head!

On Nostradamus....
I was fascinated by this legendary sage while in high school and read volumes about him and his numerous predictions. My curiosity was first piqued by his uncanny predictions concerning Hitler and the second world war. Reportedly, Nostradamus actually called the second antichrist "Hister". That's pretty close, in my book. This guy had my attention.

Consequently I watched very closely as world events unfolded during my adult life. I was interested if any of the prophet's predictions would come true and, if they did, would I be able to use him as some sort of guide to future world events? I was particularly concious of this as my job often took me to far flung areas of the world....places that were worlds apart from the safety of civilised western Canada.

Here is what I have personally found after almost three decades (and several Major World Events) of observation.....

Nobody, absoloutely _nobody_ seems to be able to correctly interpret Nostradamus's predictions and make them fit any real events until _after_ the event has happened.

This could be because he wrote his predictions in quatrains and the original language was an antique version of french. Words cannot sometimes be translated directly between two languages and it makes it even worse if the language in question is no longer in general use. Or has to rhyme with other sentences in short poems (quatrains). Some artistic licence was inevitable in the proper construction of sentences and spelling,,,,still a bit of an arcane art...was hardly subject to stringent rules back then.

I have watched as scholars who have spent many years studying Nostradamus, and trying to figure out what he had predicted for our current age, suddenly came forth with news confrences and magazine articles calling out alarm at some upcoming event that was supposed to affect us all. 

So far, they were totally wrong....every single time.

And yet... _after_ an event such as 9/11 it is pretty easy for anyone to see that Nostradamus had accurately predicted what was about to happen. It's there in black and white.

If you can translate from archaic french and interepret "man made canyons that are hollow, and are cosumed by fire from the bowels of the earth" as the World Trade Center falling after being hit by two jumbo jets.

_IF_ the archaic french words actually translate as that. I have no way of knowing, really. I have enough trouble trying to translate early twenty-first english spelling into something that I can relate to .(!)

Still...he certainly did seem to have something going on, didn't he? As did the American "Sleeping Prophet" Edward Cayce back in the 1930's and 40's.

There were some pretty uncanny predictions made from both of them that seem to be coming true nowadays. Makes you think ,eh?

But the one thing that troubles me about prophets is that it is much, _much_ easier to make their predictions fit the events after they have happened. Not before..

Otherwise we could have avoided a lot of nastiness...don't you think?

Personally, I take it all with a healthy dose of skepticism these days.

But I do like to keep an open mind.....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim...I believe there was an article recently in one of the major newpapers where the nuclear physicist who recently defected from Iraq claimed that there were several terrorist camps recently set up near his ranch in a remote part of the country. He said that these had appeared after the attacks on Afghanistan had started, so the natural assumption is that these were displaced from there. I'm not sure if Al Qaeda is the only group training terrorists or not....and to be honest the whole thing is tied together with rather thin string at the moment . But I do tend to think that Saddam is either funding, or helping to train, (or both) many of the terrorists who are currently attacking innocents in different parts of the world.

There is some evidence to support this, after all.

I also find it rather troubling that North Korea has just admitted that it has an active nuclear weapons development program. Revealing this fact _after_ they have at least one or more working devices would be the usual course of events. Nobody calls out attention to this before they have the actual working devices. Not Israel. Not India or Pakistan. The list goes on.

That way, anyone who would want to march in and shut them down would have to contend with the possibilty of mushroom clouds and glowing craters where cities used to be. This makes all involved move with considerably more...ahhh...shall we say...diplomacy?

It is a matter of record that North Korea has developed long range missiles that could deliver such a weapon. At least to their nearest neighbors, such as Japan et al. They have been selling technology to Iraq to improve the range of the SCUD missile for some time now. This is fact, not speculation.

Is it such a huge leap of faith to imagine that North Korea, a desperately poor country that needs both oil and cash, would trade some nuclear technology to Iraq in return for oil and cash? 

Perhaps even trade a fully working nuclear device, along with the means to deliver it?

Not possible? A total fabrication? Or a nightmare scenario that has some real validity in light of recent events? I await your thoughts on this Jim.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

MacNutt your suggestion about N. Korea trading nuclear weapons with Iraq is frightening. 

The sickening thing with N. Korea is that they could have been spending the money the U.S. gave them to feed their poor. However, being a corrupt and malicious dictatorship, they've spent it to develop nukes. I bet the U.S. is choked; it was Clinton who made this foolish deal long ago.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

While I am sure my knowledge of Nostradamus is more limited than yours, the passages I was more referring to are the ones that talk of the third "anit christ" (the first to widely being accepted as Napoleon and Hitler, and yes, it was Hister as I recall.) striking out from his desert palace.

I can;t remember the exact wording of it, but the general interpretation was that a Man from the middle east was going to strike out with a missle attack on the new world, and the first city to be hit was going to be new york city. The timing was wrong though, he predicted it to happen when the planets were in a particular alignment, which happened back in 1994 or something.

But if you think about it, the "missles" could be the Airliners, and they did strike New York. 

Has anyone seen that bad 80's movie hosted by Orson Wells talking all about the life and predictions of Nostradamus? It is an interesting watch. You could make a drinking game for it too, every time he says "The views here are not those of the producers of the film".









But yeah, scary.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes, PosterBoy, I've seen the Orson Wells-narrated movie about Nostradamus several times and I think that you COULD very well make a drinking game out of it....Orson, himself, certainly did. He was well known for showing up for a take totally blitzed out of his mind and unable to do anything more than gurgle and fall off his chair. Rock 101 in Vancouver recently aired a couple of outtakes that he did for a wine company commercial back in the eighties and I laughed so hard I nearly drove off the road and wrecked the truck.

This was a man who lived his life and career in _reverse_! He came out of the gate with, what many people think, was the greatest movie ever made (Citizen Kane) as his very first effort on the big screen....quite a hard act to follow. He went progressively downhill from there. By the time he made the Nostradamus semi-documentary he had been reduced to doing anything he could for booze and food money. Quite a sad case of pure genius that collapsed under the weight of it's own early successes. He ended up as a giant quivering mass of lost opportunities totally besotted by the fruit of the vine.

Think Jabba the Hut, wearing a painter's smock and french beret, spouting Shakespeare and you will have a good idea of what this former shining star looked like to all of us at the time. Too bad...I honestly think he had much more to show us. We'll never know.

Anyway, that "documentary" was pretty cheesy stuff. There was a lot of that back then....semi-documentaries about Noah's Ark and the like. We didn't have all of the specialty channels on TV and so this stuff was actually shown in theatres as "featurettes" or on saturday afternoons and at odd times of the day. Too bad, because it cheapens a subject that bears closer examination.

Was Nostradamus onto something? Will there be a third "Antichrist"? He certainly seemed to nail the first two...but then again, I should point out that his predictions were only fitted to the actual facts _after_ they had transpired. And, no one I know can correctly translate his garbled quatrains from a language that is, after all, no longer currently in use. 

In short...I'm pretty skeptical about the whole thing.

Will Saddam or Osama turn out to be the third Antichrist? Or is it someone we haven't seen yet? Or is there even any validity to this at all? Who the heck knows!

As I said before...sure as shootin, somebody will manage to make Nostradamus's predictions fit the historical events....

_AFTER_ they happen.

Until then, I suggest to all who are reading this, just sit tight and watch the great kaliedescope of life unfold before you and watch in awe as the world changes before your very eyes. Even when nothing big is happening, it's better than what's on TV.

Right now, it's gettin downright interesting!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I am not a complete skeptic. To an extent "I believe." Hey who turned that X-Files music on?!

However, I can't view Nostradamus as anything but a fortune teller. There are some insightful predictions but nothing mystical or magical. Anyone can make vague predictions and then have people fit events to them after the fact. It's not special or even amazing. The only spectacular thing about Nostradamus is the sizable mass of predictions he made. At least that's what I've been led to believe. How long is the collection of quatrains exactly?

I do realize that no one was taking him too seriously. I just needed to rant about how people are easily influenced or need to believe or something to that effect.

One last thing, I don't know about the whole "Antichrist" thing. I'm with that gentleman--whose name slips my mind at present--that said "The last Christian died on the cross." Now that's cynical! *sigh* I better stop now or this will offend people and really it should be in a whole new thread.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

To Cynical Critic....

Yes, it is quite scary. Thank goodness there is a relatively benign Superpower ready to deal with this as best it can be dealt with. Just imagine if Russia or China (or Germany or Japan, for that matter) were the current "big guy on the block"!

Now _that_ would be truly scary!

As for Clinton and his "treaty" with North Korea regarding the end of that country's nuclear weapons development....

Well, what the HECK did everyone really expect out of that stupid exercise, anyway.??!!

Think about it....the _worst_ President of the twentieth century (Clinton) signing a deal that the _second worst_ President of the twentieth century (Carter) had set up with a rogue state...one that also happens to be the very last Marxist/Stalinist dictatorship on the planet...in which the rogue state (North Korea) agrees to swap some enriched uranium and a huge amount of much needed fuel oil in return for their "honest word" (ARF ARF) that they will stop all development of nuclear weapons.

I mean...._REALLY_!

Only a buffoon like Clinton would actually believe that North Korea would abide by their word on this. You don't suppose that he was slightly....er...distracted...do you? Or was this one of Hillary's decisions?( Nice to have an unelected "co-President" actually running the show while her idiot husband is chasing everything that looks even vaguely female around the White House. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns)

Consider the situation with total clarity...the USA actually handed over the nuclear material required to build an atomic bomb, and then handed over the fuel oil that North Korea needed to run their industry (which was crucial to produce an atomic bomb) in return for a piece of paper that said they wouldn't...honest *****...actually PRODUCE an atomic bomb!!

It would be a real kneeslapper fer sure...if it hadn't served to arm a backwater communist nation with nuclear weapons. One that spends (like the old Soviet Union) two thirds of their budget on bombs and guns while their people starve to death.

The USA, by comparison, has never spent more than six per cent of their budget on bombs and guns.And the American people can buy their own food because they aren't relying on a flawed centrally planned communist system to dole out rations to them. The fact that the free market economies have too much food for their own good and the socialist/communists ones can't seem to produce enough for their own needs says a lot, don't you think?

So, we now know that they have a delivery system that will reach several of their peaceful neighbors and, almost certainly, a nuclear warhead to arm it with. They are starving to death and stagnant, while the rest of the countries in their area move forward rapidly...including China (which isn't looking very communist at all, these days)

Charming.

The fact that Jimmy Carter just recieved the Nobel Peace Prize only adds insult to injury. And it further diminishes the Nobel Peace prize...a prize that was already seriously undermined in the eyes of the world when it was awarded to a known terrorist...Yasser Arafat.

Those Swedes have quite a sense of humor, all right. With that kind of good judgement in evidence it's no wonder that the much-vaunted Swedish system of "cradle to grave" socialism is currently falling apart. 

BTW-you did know that Albert Nobel...the guy who set up the Nobel prizes and endowed the committee with the cash to keep it all going....was the inventor of Dynamite? What goes around, comes around.

Let's hope that George W. and his crew can get a handle on all of this before things get really stupid. Like him or not....he and his people are our only hope right now.

We live in "interesting times" indeed.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm a Canadian fence-sitter. I think in politics we need balance between being liberal and conservative. Extremes tend to be irrational, self-interested, and corrupt.

Is it just me or does the media seem overly skewed towards liberal propaganda? If a Republican president had in any way supported North Korea in it's development of nuclear arms, they would have been roasted in the media. But there seemed to be almost no blame on Clinton. Heck the connection seems to have been completely overlooked! It's just another reason why I take every news report with a grain of salt. Facts indeed.









Again I'm not really a huge Republican fan because I'm undecided on capital punishment and as for guns, they are only good for one thing: killing. In other words, I'm all for gun-control and Americans not bearing arms. There's a reason the U.S. has the highest amount of gun-related deaths out of any nation. The stats are frightening. However, I realize the Democrats would not be able to take away the Americans guns. To paraphrase Michael Moore: 'Are Americans gun nuts or just nuts?'


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think I'm right about where you are politically, Cynical critic.

I would probably describe myself as a "Republican" if I were an American citizen....with some reservations about guns and capital punishment (although I DO think that, in rare cases, it is justified)

I'm also concerned about the latest revelations regarding North Korea's nuclear weapon program and how it might have affected Saddam's ability to obtain these weapons. Especially when we remember that North Korea and Iraq are trading weapons technology.

I'm particularly interested in Jwoodget's take on all of this. He is one of Canada's leading research scientists (you did know that, didn't you?) and is, therefore, one of the best minds in this country. 

I'm anxious to hear what he thinks of this latest development.......


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is another question while y'all are talking about politics and whatnot.

What do you think of John McCain? Do you think he could be/would be doing a better job than dubya? 

I have been seeing himon TV a lot lately (Letterman, Hosted SNL (first sitting senator to ever host SNL)) and with all of the speeches I saw when he was campaigning and all the campaign propoganda I read at the time, he really seems like a guy I could get behind. 

But I am more interested in all of your takes on him.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

John McCain is an interesting public figure. A fighter pilot who was shot down over VietNam and spent something like six years as a prisoner of war in the "Hanoi Hilton". He lived through a type of hell that few of us could ever imagine ,even in our worst nightmares. For most of that time, he didn't even know if he would EVER be set free.

He's the real deal, alright, and a truly brave man.

I'm not sure that he would be the best man to run the United States, though. He has a legendary temper...and this is not a good attribute for the duy who has his finger on the nuclear button. The American people have rejected him because there are a great many of them who, like us, would rather NOT see the US jump into each trouble spot with all guns blazing. Most of the time, it's better to have a few months of careful consideration before you get it on with an enemy....even if you have a Rapid Deployment Force all ready and waiting to go, like the US. Or, for that matter, nuclear-tipped missiles that can solve any problem, from a very great distance, in six or eight minutes. Without worrying about any US soldiers coming home in plastic bags. Or being imprisoned in foreign countries for six years or so.

Do you begin to see why the American voters have not endorsed John McCain?

A good man, for sure....and a great addition to the American political landscape IMHO....but better off as a supporting actor, not as the big chief. 

Of course....if it were a contest between John McCain and...say...Al Gore, or Bill and Hillary Clinton...then I would be backing Big John all the way. No question.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Jwoodget is seriously a research scientist? 

Wait. What exactly is a research scientist? 

On an analytical note, aren't the terms "research" and "scientist" almost redundant.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hey, I'm just a Mac user who happens to do cancer research - certainly doesn 't make me any wiser than anyone else (but I could wax lyrical about the chasing down the devious nature of cancer for a few eons.....).

For the record, I don't side with any party (in other words, no politician can take my vote for granted). I don't have a high regard for US politicians simply because the election process selects for a phenotype that is more to do with photogenics and deep pockets than bright ideas. I also don't subscribe to the view that Bush understands what he's up against. I didn't trust Clinton either (but I think he had broader handle of world politics than George W.). 

As for North Korea's nuclear program. Hello? Where's the story? This is the same country that admitted to abducting Japanese nationals and holding them for years to teach their own agents Western habits, etc. Why is anyone surprised that they have nuclear capability?

There are many other rogue states controlled by dictatorships. I really don't think that taking out Hussein (even if surgically possible) would solve too much. Sure, the world would be a slightly better and safer place but there are plenty of nasty surprises hidden under the surface. If the US unilaterally invades Iraq these other countries will know its open season. Has the US got the political will to invade 5 unpalatable states?

I was in Rockville, Montgomery county at the weekend. The place was quiet, to say the least. No sign of kids and no pedestrians. That was before the bus driver was shot early Monday morning. The whole area was shut down. Freeways, schools, etc. The chances of being killed by the sniper are calculated at 1 in 514,000 (based on his "catchment" area). This degree of threat is enough to paralyze the capital city of the US. WOMD are certainly scary but terror can be elicited in much easier and cheaper ways and we're all vulnerable. So, while Bush is pondering the threat of Iraq, I can't help but think he is simply aiming at something the US military can see.

While on the Washington subway, I spoke to a New York scientist who had been born in Poland before the war, had been imprisoned in Germany, then, after the war moved to Israel and got her degree at the Weizman Institute. She moved to the States 20 odd years ago. She remarked that we take much for granted and that human misery often lacks perspective. As violence and chaos increases, so does tolerance of it - life goes on and we adapt. The people in the Middle East are numbed by the daily bloodshed. The people in Washington are still raw. Let's hope we never get used to violence. The only way to do that is to avoid any form of escalation because the world is a powder keg. No matter what anyone says, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is escalation. There have to be alternatives.

I'll go back to studying cancer now - another unscrupulous and dispicable entity that is hard to see and claims more lives per year than a stadium full of snipers.

As for "research scientists", I guess there are also Christian Scientists, Research Analysts etc. who have nothing to do with science.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wise words Jwoodget....as always.

(and, in my opinion, you are _far_ too humble regarding your important contribution to our modern society)


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

It is much better to be humble than over-confident or zealous. (Not that I'm saying you favoured the latter MacNutt; this is simply an observation on my part.) 

IMHO too many Americans lean towards the latter. I think they're generally called patriots. However, I don't want to American bash because those who are over-confident and dogmatic are prevalent throughout every society. It's just hard not to notice the Americans when they dominate the media.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You are right Cynical Critic...the Americans DO dominate the media. They are, by far, the most powerful and richest country that the world has ever known. It would be quite strange if they, and their actions, _didn't_ dominate the media....and our daily lives.

IMHO we are living in a very fortunate time. It could...quite easily... be an era when the world was dominated by a superpower like Russia...or China...or even India. How do you think our daily lives would be affected if that were the current reality?

Think about this for a moment....then give silent thanks that we have a relatively benign Superpower living right next door. One that values personal freedom and liberty above all else.

Things _could_ be a lot worse, after all.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Well it seems this epic thread has ended.

My final thought: It's true that things _could_ always be worse in the world but I will never stop wishing and striving to make things better. Maybe I'm idealistic but anyone who has a problem with that can kiss my dirty cynical boot.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Never, _ever_ stop wishing and striving to make things better. That is what has led us to our current state of development, and what has given us our modern world.

If it weren't for that particular human drive (to make things better) we would probably all still be scrabbling for food and trying to defend it from marauding bands of similarly destitute savages......instead of having this kind of instantaneous electronic discourse between civilised individuals spread across vast distances.

The modern world is pretty good, really.

But only if we keep striving to make it better, eh?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

ehMac brother, ehMac!


----------

