# I'm disappointed...



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

That no one thinks the World AIDS Conference and the events surrounding it are worth writing about. I'll leave the commenting to you all, but here's a place to get started.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/09/aids-lewispoverty.html

Stephen Lewis and a group of social development, anti-poverty and AIDS services organization have called on Canada to show more leadership in the global fight against HIV-AIDS.
------
He said they want Ottawa to take a stand, rather than lapse into the "amorphous banalities and irrelevance to which the Canadian government seemed so severely addicted."
-------
Louise Binder, who co-chairs the federal ministerial advisory council on AIDS, said she is disappointed with Harper.

"It's not a political matter for me," she said.

"This is the most serious health problem the globe has ever seen, and we're hosting the largest conference with the most media that's ever been and our prime minister can't come and say a few words of welcome."

Richard Elliott of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, an internationally recognized think-tank, shared the view.

"I think [Harper's decision not to attend] sends a very poor message about the level of commitment of the Government of Canada to dealing with this epidemic," he said.
------------


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Pardon me, but I'm not disappointed. That appears to be a typical CBC-TV slagging of the Conservatives and the PM.

Once again the CBC shows it's real anti-Con pro Liberal agenda.

No wonder I never watch that sh!t.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

But the Cons control CBC... beejacon


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Pardon me, but I'm not disappointed. That appears to be a typical CBC-TV slagging of the Conservatives and the PM.
> 
> Once again the CBC shows it's real anti-Con pro Liberal agenda.
> 
> No wonder I never watch that sh!t.


CanWest take on it

edit - and further, what I said I was disappointed in was the lack of discussion here. Does no one other than me think this is important?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> But the Cons control CBC... beejacon


Not yet they don't. It takes a very long time to purge the poisoned minds the Libs created over the last 30 years.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Pardon me, but I'm not disappointed. That appears to be a typical CBC-TV slagging of the Conservatives and the PM.
> 
> Once again the CBC shows it's real anti-Con pro Liberal agenda.
> 
> No wonder I never watch that sh!t.


Maybe you can spout a few anti-MS rants into here also SINC....


> Also on Wednesday, the foundation of Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife promised a $500-million US for AIDS assistance in poor countries.


Of course AIDS is a gay disease so I don't expect much sympathy from you, next thing you'll is that they'll insist on SSM....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe you can spout a few anti-MS rants into here also SINC....


Sure, be glad to AS!

Any particular areas you would like covered?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> edit - and further, what I said I was disappointed in was the lack of discussion here. Does no one other than me think this is important?


I agree that it is an important issue and I am glad you raised awareness of it in this thread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> edit - and further, what I said I was disappointed in was the lack of discussion here. Does no one other than me think this is important?


Sure it has a place on the list of so many things to do:

Since charity starts a home, let's fix our aboriginal relations problem first.

Then how about we fix our homeless problem?

Perhaps after that we could invest enough in our justice system to stop releasing murderers and pedophiles?

After that, could we invest enough in our military to make them safe on the missions we send them on?

Perhaps then we could tackle our drug problems?

And then maybe we could squeeze in the inner city gang problems?

Oh, come to think of it, our own environment could use a helping hand.

Should we consider our single parents out there and the problems they face?

A quick peek at kids in foster homes might be worth a look at some point, non?

City services are falling apart across the country, including fresh water supplies and what are we doing?

Highways in some provinces are so bad they are a hazard to drive on, but we continue to allow that to happen?

Toxic waste is being hauled across the country in unsafe containers and not a one of us bothers to say a word?

Utility companies are holding homeowners hostage with ridiculously high rates that continue to rise and that's not a priority?

Gasoline prices continue to rise due to some artificial BS based on something that happens half a world away and we charge OURSELVES more for what we produce?

Housing in this country is fast becoming beyond the reach of our next generation, is it not?

Hell, I could go on, but I might bore you all.

AIDS in Africa is a very low priority with most Canadians except perhaps the CBC-TV folks.

Me, I’ve got more important issues here at home to worry about and I will support any PM does just that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sure it has a place on the list of so many things to do:





SINC said:


> Since charity starts a home, let's fix our aboriginal relations problem first.


That was destroyed by your PM....


SINC said:


> Then how about we fix our homeless problem?


You could get Klein to scream at them again...


SINC said:


> Perhaps after that we could invest enough in our justice system to stop releasing murderers and pedophiles?


You mean get rid of activist judges.... surely....



SINC said:


> After that, could we invest enough in our military to make them safe on the missions we send them on?


What missions would that be - the search and destroy ones? 
Surely not a priority... BTW, where's that Arctic protection we heard about...

Of course your PM prefers pork barrelling unheard of even in the Cretin years...


> The decisions on how and where the money will be allocated will be made out of the public eye, with no?detailed oversight or Parliamentary scrutiny.


http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=107&cat=48&id=704917&more=




SINC said:


> Perhaps then we could tackle our drug problems?


Sure, legalize it - end of story.


SINC said:


> And then maybe we could squeeze in the inner city gang problems?


See above...




SINC said:


> Oh, come to think of it, our own environment could use a helping hand.


No chance with Petro dollars and your PM's taskmasters...




SINC said:


> Should we consider our single parents out there and the problems they face?


Too bad your PMs bribe did nothing for them.... Maybe a real child care proposal would go a long way...




SINC said:


> A quick peek at kids in foster homes might be worth a look at some point, non?


Pretty horrible there....





SINC said:


> City services are falling apart across the country, including fresh water supplies and what are we doing?


Spending it on the military of course!



SINC said:


> Highways in some provinces are so bad they are a hazard to drive on, but we continue to allow that to happen?


I knew there was a good reason to buy a SUV  





SINC said:


> Toxic waste is being hauled across the country in unsafe containers and not a one of us bothers to say a word?


Where have you been? And just wait when Ontario goes even more nuclear...





SINC said:


> Utility companies are holding homeowners hostage with ridiculously high rates that continue to rise and that's not a priority?


Talk to your PM....





SINC said:


> Gasoline prices continue to rise due to some artificial BS based on something that happens half a world away and we charge OURSELVES more for what we produce?


But it's good for Alberta....




SINC said:


> Housing in this country is fast becoming beyond the reach of our next generation, is it not?


Yup...




SINC said:


> Hell, I could go on, but I might bore you all.


No this was amusing....




SINC said:


> AIDS in Africa is a very low priority with most Canadians except perhaps the CBC-TV folks.


Untrue - but then again it's very hard for you to see past our borders except to find an enemy...




SINC said:


> Me, I’ve got more important issues here at home to worry about and I will support any PM does just that.


So the honeymoon is over between you and Harper?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So the honeymoon is over between you and Harper?


Not at all, but I'm flattered to see you took the time and trouble to rebut my every point. Now THAT takes some stretching of the truth to make all those comments work.

Many would not agree with you, I among them.

And for the record, Harper has been head and shoulders above that lame brained last guy we had. What was his name anyway?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> CanWest take on it
> 
> edit - and further, what I said I was disappointed in was the lack of discussion here. Does no one other than me think this is important?


I'm not sure about everyone else, but I don't just base my discussions here on my concept of importance (see QC sports team thread). Sometimes it's for fun, sometimes importance and sometimes for very little reason.

I consider this an important issue. With the amount of disease out there and constantly in play, poverty is a much greater concern thus, personally, I'd be more interested in broader discussions of tackling global poverty (as different from developed nations' poverty). But then that gets into chicken-and-egg political stability problems and trade theory. 

The four points are interesting and take a somewhat broader view:

Commit to a timetable to bring its development assistance up to 0.7 per cent of its gross national income.

Contribute five per cent of the funding needed by the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria over each of the next five years.

Put money into the public health care systems of developing countries.

Cancel the debt of developing countries to free up money to fight AIDS and poverty.


All well and good for the short-to-medium term focus, although the last two points may have pretty serious problems. What next?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Another view, from the United Church

Thoughts?

The highlights:

*	Cancel 100% of the debts owed by countries with high HIV rates.

*	Untie debt payments from conditions involving forced
privatization of health care services, limits on hiring of health care
workers, and user fees for public services.

*	Increase Canada's contribution to 5 percent of the funds needed
by the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and increase
Canada's Official Development Assistance to 0.7 percent of Gross
National Income by 2015.

*	Amend Canada's pharmaceutical laws to remove disincentives for
exporting less expensive medicines to countries without pharmaceutical
production capabilities.

*	Make a commitment to give priority to women and children in all
efforts to address HIV and AIDS, and to address the fundamental gender
and age inequalities that fuel the pandemic.

*	Ensure adequate health care for all people in Canada with HIV,
including immigrants and refugees.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Odd. This part mentions broad and longer-term issues:
...................
The prescription for stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS will not be found in a pill bottle.

To stop the crisis, we must also tackle poverty, lack of clean water, education, poor housing, and long-term development.
...................


But their points don't really deal with the broad and long-term issues, except in general terms like 0.7% funding could be assumed to address them (questionable assumption if it is being made). The points are pretty much the same as the previously mentioned ones. Broader than just HIV/AIDS, but not saying much regarding the long-term.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> That was destroyed by your PM....


I'm sorry, this whole aboriginal issue should have been handled by the provincial Liberals, but that would require McGuinty actually doing something during his mandate.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Odd. This part mentions broad and longer-term issues:
> ...................
> The prescription for stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS will not be found in a pill bottle.
> 
> ...


Well, there's also

Untie debt payments from conditions involving forced
privatization of health care services, limits on hiring of health care
workers, and user fees for public services.

and

Cancel 100% of the debts owed by countries with high HIV rates.

But yeah, it is a bit odd. Our tri-ennial (every three years, I think I got that right) policy meeting starts in a week, I would guess that people are a little distracted. They still should have done a better job of this. But hey, at least something is being said.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If they focussed on that first statement, they could put a together a dual-pack of requests. "Here and Now" and "The Long-Term". The long-term ideas may get into controversial areas unless they are relatively vague and empty. Not an easy issue to tackle in a meaningful way, but it certainly is something for a church to have a strong stance on.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Just the facts: 

HIV is NOT a "gay disease"

There are 2500 NEW cases of HIV infection in Canada every year. 
2500 reported cases per year in the past 3 years.
They live longer productive lives because of new therapies which our health care system subsidizes.

In 2005, 29% of new cases are women, of which most are in the 15 to 29 year old age group.
The rate of HIV + female infection is rising every year. 

There could be as many as 65,000 people HIV + in Canada.
Quebec does not report to the Public Health Agency in Canada.

source: Public Health Agency Canada, April 2006 report

We can't avoid it, it's here and it's not getting any better. Africans are dying in the millions from this disease and if anyone thinks we can't be affected by it, are sadly mistaken.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

RevMatt
I don't know if you've been following it, but the SUN has been running a week-long series on AIDS this week. They're concentrating on AIDS in India. I had no idea AIDS was such a huge isssue in India - Turns out it's the second-most infected continent, behind only Africa.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

When you start to look into it, the spread and devastation of HIV/AIDS is really shocking, especially in the third world.

I only became aware of how terrible the impact of HIV/AIDS is in the world through my church. When our international staff come by you expect to hear about famine, lack of clean water and lack of education...instead they can talk about the HIV/AIDS epidemic for hours.


----------



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

Here is a disease that could be mitigated and stopped in its tracks if we really wanted to. We can't yet immunize against it (as for smallpox and polio) but that will come. What we can do now is increase the supply of triple cocktail retrovirals to developing countries, promote condom use among married men in these countries, wipe out the myths propagated by some of the African leaders that HIV/AIDS is not a virus, change behaviours, protect the status and bodies of women and support the sick. 5-10,000 deaths a day from a treatable disease is not something any human being on this planet should feel is irrelevant to them.

I'll give Bill Gates his due, his donation through the Gates Foundation of $500 million to the global health fund to fight HIV was truly inspirational and will save many lives.

In Canada, African-Americans represent 1.5% of the population yet 15% of the HIV cases.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Soy - I try and stay away from the Sun. It and I have historical and ongoing issues. But good to know that is out there. I'll see if I can get my hands on some parts of it.

zoziw - this is one of the few areas where churches are showing the kind of leadership they should. Glad to hear that yours is, too. Mind if I ask which church, just for my own curiosity?

utbjw - Yeah, Gates deserves his due for this one. He is shaming many governments, not the least of which is our own. I'd rather he hadn't made the money in the first place, but at least he is using some small portion of it for good beejacon 

I am finding it increasingly hard to suppress the suspicion that the demographics of those most affected is a significant part of why the current government is carrying past government lack of caring to new heights.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> But the Cons control CBC... beejacon


But the CBC is still full of old Liberals...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> I'd rather he hadn't made the money in the first place...


That money wasn't created in a vacuum. You can't just re-organize the world along socialist lines and expect the same amount of total wealth to exist.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> zoziw - this is one of the few areas where churches are showing the kind of leadership they should. Glad to hear that yours is, too. Mind if I ask which church, just for my own curiosity?


Currently I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church. As a point of similarity, I did attend the United Church until about 1990 - 91.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Currently I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church. As a point of similarity, I did attend the United Church until about 1990 - 91.


Fair enough  I ask because I know what we are doing, and some of the others, but I am always curious what others are up to.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

*Defend the Media*



SINC said:


> Pardon me, but I'm not disappointed. That appears to be a typical CBC-TV slagging of the Conservatives and the PM.
> 
> Once again the CBC shows it's real anti-Con pro Liberal agenda.
> 
> No wonder I never watch that sh!t.



Sinc, that kind of weird conspiracy theory stuff belongs better on the skewd Christian Right chat sites of the US than a balanced Canadian forum. Stephen Harper is prime minister on-loan until the more reasoned political forces of this country sort themselves out and re-form. The conservatives are a minority administration that only came to power based on a well timed vote to take advantage of Quebec frustration. Thank goodness Harper and his religious puritans don't have a parliamentary majority, then we really would feel the sting of God's wrath. And not even the "evil" liberals at CBC (spit, hack, that negative word "liberal" again) could change that. 

It always worries me when politicians and governments start declaring God is with them. Hitler did it, Khomeini did it, the Taliban did it, George Bush does it..and so does Harper. That kind of religious talk begets intolerance, social division and leads to hostility (read: oppression and war). One basis of democratic society is the division between church and state. We should be very wary of any government that tries to merge the two.

If you want to criticise CBC for the journalistic quality of it's news reports, that's one thing - they are often weak, the journalists of mediocre calibre and parochial - but asserting the whole organisation is anti conservative is to jump on the liberal-bashing bandwagon of Bush, Mulroney and Harper. In other words, just because you don't get sycophantic media praise, like Conrad Black and his erstwhile right wing press gave the conservative cause, you brand those journalists who fail to spout the party line as enemies who must be dispensed with. 

Open your mind, Sinc. Political plurality means a free and open press. Free to say what they want about the government's performance. The post-Mulroney years the conservatives spent in the wilderness were caused by the tories' own un-electability. The CBC is not a political whipping boy, paid to praise the government. Perhaps that's the misunderstanding. One does not need to "purge" the CBC and enstate right wing hacks. That's the old Bucharest school of media politics. Chretien and Martin hated the CBC too - who do you think slashed CBC's funding in the 90's? 

Politicians whining about the media is a very good sign. Very good. We should be concerned when it stops and be willing to defend the media's right to investigate, report, expose and comment - especially in the face of politicians who believe they are above everyone and everything.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Deep Blue said:


> Sinc, that kind of weird conspiracy theory stuff belongs better on the skewd Christian Right chat sites of the US than a balanced Canadian forum.
> 
> If you want to criticise CBC for the journalistic quality of it's news reports, that's one thing - they are often weak, the journalists of mediocre calibre and parochial - but asserting the whole organisation is anti conservative is to jump on the liberal-bashing bandwagon
> 
> Open your mind, Sinc. Political plurality means a free and open press.


I retired from the working press in 2001 after 42 years sir, and I know full well when an organization is tainted like the CBC. I have an intimate understanding of the inside of the working press at the very highest levels from 20 years in senior corporate management.

As for my view not belonging on a balanced Canadian forum, you can put that opinion where the sun doesn't shine.

I know exactly what an open and free press is capable of, and incapable of, like CBC-TV.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

*No need for Disappointment, your colours are clear*



SINC said:


> I retired from the working press in 2001 after 42 years sir, and I know full well when an organization is tainted like the CBC. I have an intimate understanding of the inside of the working press at the very highest levels from 20 years in senior corporate management.
> 
> As for my view not belonging on a balanced Canadian forum, you can put that opinion where the sun doesn't shine.
> 
> I know exactly what an open and free press is capable of, and incapable of, like CBC-TV.


So how 'bout this: I have 21 years experience as a journalist and foreign correspondent. I have worked on three continents covering every story imagineable for print, radio and television. I have been a contract worker, staff and freelance. Until you've had a door slamming, knock down argument to save a story your editor has cut, tampered with or spiked you don't get to enter the Media Club. Not even as a proxy know-it-all. I count many of the world's biggest media outlets among my clients. I'm not a suit or a boardroom member. I feel qualified to talk about the media. 

Corporate management may lend an aura of power but wearing a pinstriped suit, and being paid obscene amounts of company money for it, provides no insight into the workings of the press. Those in government and the ivory towers of big business always feel maligned by the press because they can't manipulate journalists' writings the way they can the Mini-Me's and yes-men who surround them. 

Sinc, as one who obviously has never been inside a media organisation, it's not possible for you to offer any insight into the CBC's workings or any other media outlet. Your comments about "liberals" and the "tainted" CBC have as much credibility as the mud slinging, gun-waving, chest beating, bible thrashing, diatribes that denote the Christian right wing fever that has overtaken much of North America right now.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I retired from the working press in 2001 after 42 years sir, and I know full well when an organization is tainted like the CBC. I have an intimate understanding of the inside of the working press at the very highest levels from 20 years in senior corporate management.
> 
> As for my view not belonging on a balanced Canadian forum, you can put that opinion where the sun doesn't shine.
> 
> I know exactly what an open and free press is capable of, and incapable of, like CBC-TV.


SINC, I work in marketing. My clients like private broadcasters/newspapers and hate the public system. Why? Because the private press is so easy to influence. 
A couple of press releases, sending some freebies to "journalists" and next thing you know, almost free publicity. Shoot a few videos, edit it and give it freely to the news organization as your free content makes it to the airwaves... Man I love Global... 

I'll take the CBC and Radio-Canada over anything produced by CTV, Global, TVA or TQS...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Fair enough I ask because I know what we are doing, and some of the others, but I am always curious what others are up to.


The United Church is often the leader when it comes to social issues like this. There are still some people in my style of church that are concerned about the 'social gospel movement', though I have seen a move away from that lately.

Still, it just raises the question of why Harper wouldn't attend to greet the delegates. While I doubt his lack of attendance will hurt him much, it might have won him a second look from some people. I can't figure out the politics in his move.

It is disheartening that we are just $60 million short of our share of funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS and it doesn't appear we will meet it. Any surplus is tainted by this failure.

I'm also concerned that Canada won't reach it's Millennium Development Goals by 2015, I don't even sense an urgency in government to take it seriously.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

*press release journalism*



ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, I work in marketing. My clients like private broadcasters/newspapers and hate the public system. Why? Because the private press is so easy to influence.
> A couple of press releases, sending some freebies to "journalists" and next thing you know, almost free publicity. Shoot a few videos, edit it and give it freely to the news organization as your free content makes it to the airwaves... Man I love Global...


Press release journalism is the basest kind. It happens mainly in small markets but often pops up in the larger media too in local sections of papers, local tv and local radio. Young journalists and inexperienced editors fall for it all the time. The big boys get hit less often but no organisation is infallible. Everyone has a message to broadcast and everyone thinks theirs is the right one. If you can write a good press release and you live in a small market you can get on air/in print.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> "AIDS kills something like 6,000 to 7,000 thousand people a day -- that really puts it way ahead of anything else we can imagine."
> 
> Wainberg said the disease easily kills more people than any military conflict or natural disaster. He said too many people don't take AIDS seriously, and the general public needs to get involved and engaged, as do government leaders.


CTV


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Deep Blue said:


> Press release journalism is the basest kind. It happens mainly in small markets but often pops up in the larger media too in local sections of papers, local tv and local radio. Young journalists and inexperienced editors fall for it all the time. The big boys get hit less often but no organisation is infallible. Everyone has a message to broadcast and everyone thinks theirs is the right one. If you can write a good press release and you live in a small market you can get on air/in print.


One of the fundamental failures of "cloud nine journalism" is the realization that everyday news items in smaller markets and to a degree in larger markets are a valid part of legitimate news gathering.

Give me a reporter with compassion for the small stuff in a community and not one who lives for that one big story, and I'll show you a quality journalist who understands society, the press and its real role in the honest reflection of the community that its media outlets serve.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

Vancouver, where I live, has some of the lowest quality small market journalism I have seen. BUT, on the positive side, we also get the free of charge Vancouver Courier, delivered to our doorstep thrice a week. It is one of the best local in-your-community papers that I have seen anywhere in the world, possibly THE best. A couple of the commentators are too left of centre for me (they'd all be unacceptable to you, by the sounds of it, Sinc) but their local, grassroots reporting is excellent. Good coverage, intelligent, sympathetic and very readable. A fine community paper and it costs not a cent. 

Each day they write a three page feature story on a current affairs issue that is truly local and unique and nine times out of ten I find it well written and worth taking the time to read. Head and shoulders above all of Vancouver's print and electronic media.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

*Big Stories*



SINC said:


> Give me a reporter with compassion for the small stuff in a community and not one who lives for that one big story, and I'll show you a quality journalist who understands society, the press and its real role in the honest reflection of the community that its media outlets serve.


The truth is, there are very few journalists out there with enough skill, endurance, and support from their employer to get that one BIG story. Mainly, that one big one just falls into your lap.

Mine happened in 1985 when the Pacific island of Fiji broke out into race riots and army rebels took over the islands. There were many theories how paradise could fall apart that way, including queries of CIA intervention. One of my colleagues was arrested and sent to jail as he was filing a story when soldiers with guns burst into his hotel room. I was a cadet reporter and after a lot of persistence, tracked down the coup leader and interviewed him. the first and only person to get him. It was a thrill and it was a big story...regionally at least.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

RevMatt
As I'm sure you're aware, Stephen Lewis in Africa is on the front page of today's Citizen. Also, in case you missed it, The Globe has an AIDS article on the front page today.
It looks like your wish for some attention to the matter has come true in a big way! :clap:


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Deep Blue said:


> (a BS, unthoughtful comprarison of Harper with Hitler. Also, much self-aggrandizement)


Sinc wins by default.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

SoyMac said:


> Also, in case you missed it, The Globe has an AIDS article on the front page today.


I think it's been the Globe story-o'-the-week, too. starting last Monday. Don't you worry, though, we'll yet find a cause-- still neglected, mind you-- to promote...


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

Tedj, the tools that deeply conservative regimes use to enforce power are often very similar. One of the main ones is abuse of religion, declaring that you know "god's" will and must enforce it. No one is comparing Stephen Harper to Hitler that would be silly. SH and his tories DO however espouse deep Christian beliefs, allow them to influence policy and have forgotten the separation of church and state, the same as the National Soclialists of the 1930's did. A number of the conservatives, including Stockwell day, believe in creationism, for goodness sake, one of the silliest most literal interpretations of the bible possible. 

65 years ago German soldiers wore belts with buckles containing the words "God With Us". An abuse of religion. The Crusaders did the same thing. The Tories and George Bush likewise. According to david frum, GB's former speechwriter, meetings at the White House are preceeded by moments of prayer. This is inappropriate in the halls of power. SH's team is run by a similar Christian zeal. Therefore, you will not find him anywhere near an AIDS forum, which is still seen as a gay disease by many on the right, or helping gays to marry. That can of worms is going to be re-opened by harper. He allows his ideology and christian zeal to guide his views.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> I retired from the working press in 2001 after 42 years sir, and I know full well when an organization is tainted like the CBC.


...sorry, that's just plain daft.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Deep Blue said:


> Tedj, the tools that deeply conservative regimes use to enforce power are often very similar. One of the main ones is abuse of religion, declaring that you know "god's" will and must enforce it. No one is comparing Stephen Harper to Hitler that would be silly. SH and his tories DO however espouse deep Christian beliefs, allow them to influence policy and have forgotten the separation of church and state, the same as the National Soclialists of the 1930's did. A number of the conservatives, including Stockwell day, believe in creationism, for goodness sake, one of the silliest most literal interpretations of the bible possible.
> 
> 65 years ago German soldiers wore belts with buckles containing the words "God With Us". An abuse of religion. The Crusaders did the same thing. The Tories and George Bush likewise. According to david frum, GB's former speechwriter, meetings at the White House are preceeded by moments of prayer. This is inappropriate in the halls of power. SH's team is run by a similar Christian zeal. Therefore, you will not find him anywhere near an AIDS forum, which is still seen as a gay disease by many on the right, or helping gays to marry. That can of worms is going to be re-opened by harper. He allows his ideology and christian zeal to guide his views.


What tedj may have been getting at is that you seem to be making a strong case for your biased evaluation, as with the above and previous descriptive post. I know this isn't your profressional writing, but it does leave the impression of someone with a deep bias. The sort of bias that could result in criticising someone's "Albertanism" because they didn't find Jon Stewart funny. 

In other words, you're arguing against your case by example.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A fun side-effect about the Liberal schism is that, without solidarity, various Liberals feel free to comment as they wish.

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/sourcefiles/natpost_081006.pdf

[Edit: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000645.html The video bit from the blogger Kinsella refers to in the first part of the article. Sinc probably isn't surprised, but I am. I still consider CBC's basic news coverage to be solid. I hope this is just an isolated incident.]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Deep Blue said:


> ...sorry, that's just plain daft.


In 1978 I lived in a community that suffered a strike at a large plant which turned violent when replacement workers were brought in by company officials.

CBC-TV news had only an amateur "correspondent" in the community who owned a photography business and he missed getting any footage of the clash between workers and the police.

CBC-TV then sent out a full crew and correspondent Ann Medina to cover the story the next day. I sat and watched, sitting in an unmarked police cruiser with a plain clothes detective, as Medina met with union officials near the company gate and plotted a repeat performance for that afternoons shift change.

The union brought out some goons and re-staged the event while Medina and her CBC-TV crew shot the footage they had missed the day before.

And you tell me that's daft and I do not recognize "tainted" when I witness it?

It was pure made-for-TV drama by a CBC-TV news crew and a less than honest reporter.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Odd how SINC would call that tainted yet fail to see taint when his homeboy diverts a plain to "rescue" fake-canadians.... but I digress....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> A fun side-effect about the Liberal schism is that, without solidarity, various Liberals feel free to comment as they wish.


Funny how you don't comment of government supplied "news clips". If anything those smell worse than 4 weeks old fish left in the back of a car in 30+ weather...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Funny how you don't comment of government supplied "news clips". If anything those smell worse than 4 weeks old fish left in the back of a car in 30+ weather...


It's not funny, but you're missing the point. Think harder.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Odd how SINC would call that tainted yet fail to see taint when his homeboy diverts a plain to "rescue" fake-canadians.... but I digress....


A personal account of the media manipulating (subject to Sinc's credibility on the matter) versus a politican attempting spin which is completely dependant upon the media to spin or unspin. You are really missing the point on this one, but your devotion to the CBC is noted. Worship what you will, AS.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, obviously you have not been in a news editing room. If that shocks you, you'd love Global - they'll give you some real scares. 
It's not devotion to the CBC, although they are "less bad" than most news organizations. 
It's prefer full context but in a world of soundbytes what do you expect? What does the public want? The truth and the nuances are often the first victims.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc, I believe what you are describing is the corruption of TV media, not simply the CBC. I have been a part of reenactements by other media firms, too. It is part of the TV reality. Radio and Newspapers can survive without the pictures, but TV cannot.

For my money, I have never seen one of the private media outlets acknowledge an error they made and apologise for it. I have seen the CBC do it many times. I linked to one of those stories on this board at one point, even. I'm sure they can and should do a better job, but that difference speaks volumes to me.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

*fake media*



SINC said:


> In 1978 I lived in a community that suffered a strike at a large plant which turned violent when replacement workers were brought in by company officials.
> 
> CBC-TV news had only an amateur "correspondent" in the community who owned a photography business and he missed getting any footage of the clash between workers and the police.
> 
> ...


I can not comment on the Ann Medina incident because I was not there. I can assure you that a journalist of her experience would not cook up fake footage with union reps.

What I can say however is that everyone is trying to trick, hoodwink, influence the media so that THEIR point of view gets on the air. Look at CBS and the small drama that ended Dan Rather's long career. They got stung. I have also been at "rallies" where we got a press release telling us where to be at the appointed time. I turned up early at one, watched the rent-a-crowd arrive, sat back from a distance and watched them go through their placard waving chanting, only to watch them all get on a rented bus afterwards and leave en masse. I recorded nothing, spoke to no one, broadcast nothing and basically wasted my afternoon...but was enlightened at the same time.

If you had some young kid with a microphone there, new to the job, they would lap up the union message and send it back to headquarters for broadcast without question. That might be right, it might be wrong. It just shows that the "media" is not a single mass with a premeditated bias. It's a bunch of Joes and Janes - some better than others - under a lot of time pressure trying to get enough material to feed the goat, as the news cycle is known. Look at Fox TV, for instance, with its strangely rabid pundits and "reporters". Just because something is said on air doesn't mean it's true. An intelligent media consumer has to pick and choose. And yes, of course, everyone screws up and everyone makes mistakes, reporters too. The key is to be contrite and do better next time.

The CBC is not tainted. That's downright silly. Without public broadcasters the world would not have a genuine source of real news.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

*Bias?*



Beej said:


> What tedj may have been getting at is that you seem to be making a strong case for your biased evaluation, as with the above and previous descriptive post.


If you are suggesting that my claim fundamental Christians should not be running world governments and waging religious wars, yes that is my bias. Church and state are separate. Just like the military and politicians. Blur the lines and you get trouble.




Beej said:


> I know this isn't your profressional writing, but it does leave the impression of someone with a deep bias.


You're right, these are personal comments. As for the bias, see above. I want a non theocratic government in charge with a minimum of political ideology.




Beej said:


> The sort of bias that could result in criticising someone's "Albertanism" because they didn't find Jon Stewart funny.
> 
> In other words, you're arguing against your case by example.


Aaaahhhhh, Jon Stewart. You have a long memory. Yes, I brought him up in an earlier post because many young americans get their "news" from him and a lot think he is a journalist rather than a satirist. I do remember flippantly teasing someone in an earlier forum about their Albertan unwillingness to find Stewart funny. I find his satire hits the button all the time. It was funny when Clinton was in the White House and just as funny now that Bush junior is there. Teasing Albertans about their rump conservatisim, cowboy chaps and Ralph Klein is just what we do here in BC. You should feel free to do likewise about our marijuana, bongo drums and love of lattes.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Deep Blue said:


> Aaaahhhhh, Jon Stewart. You have a long memory. Yes, I brought him up in an earlier post because many young americans get their "news" from him and a lot think he is a journalist rather than a satirist.


I don't know if it's sad or a sign of the times about the media when the youth trust Jon Stewart more than CNN....
Could be that "politicians" are just so ridiculous that some have adopted this incredulous behaviour...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bottom line is that I KNOW what I saw and it stunk. CBC-TV news is, was and continues to be tainted IMHO.

I will never trust another broadcast they make as long as I live. That one incident proved to me beyond doubt that news is routinely "manufactured" by CBC-TV.

Anyone who trusts them, under ANY government does so at the risk of knowing the real truth in news.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Clement was preceded by Governor-General Michaelle Jean, who officially opened the conference and told the crowd: "Your efforts will ensure that one day soon, we will put an end to one of the most insidious epidemics of our time."


Not sure if this thread is still about the HIV/AIDS conference, but the good news is that our Head of State (or at least her representative) showed up.  

CTV


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

zoziw said:


> Not sure if this thread is still about the HIV/AIDS conference, but the good news is that our Head of State (or at least her representative) showed up.
> 
> CTV


Head of State? Not likely. Puppet of the dysfunctional royal British family is more correct.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Head of State? Not likely. Puppet of the dysfunctional royal British family is more correct.


Maybe, but for this event she has proven herself more useful than Harper. His contempt for a disease that he believes to only affecting gays and blacks (not the people he cares about) is revolting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Maybe, but for this event she has proven herself more useful than Harper. His contempt for a disease that he believes to only affecting gays and blacks (not the people he cares about) is revolting.


That is an assumption on your part and no more. You cannot speak for anyones else in terms of their personal views.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is an assumption on your part and no more. You cannot speak for anyones else in terms of their personal views.


I ran back to my computer to rephrase, but not fast enough. So, let the errors of my past stand 

I don't know what he actually thinks. I do know how his actions are perceived. If he wanted to send a different message, he has failed miserably. His failure is of sufficient proportions that I find it hard to believe that it was an accident, but it may have been. 

His actions, however, are beneath contempt. I have given him the benefit of the doubt. I have even spoken well of him, and from the pulpit at that, on one or two occasions. But between his handling of the war, and his neglect of the AIDS conference, he has blown any goodwill he might have had. His actions are despicable, and I ashamed to have him as the "head" of my nation. I take only minor solace in not having voted for him.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> His actions, however, are beneath contempt. I have given him the benefit of the doubt. I have even spoken well of him, and from the pulpit at that, on one or two occasions. But between his handling of the war, and his neglect of the AIDS conference, he has blown any goodwill he might have had. His actions are despicable, and I ashamed to have him as the "head" of my nation. I take only minor solace in not having voted for him.


Odd that. Exactly how I felt about Paul Martin and his merry band of Liberal thieves.

He too did nothing about AIDS either, except to exploit Bono at his "crowning", but thankfully the king is dead.

I guess old habits die hard, but it is hard for me to understand there are still those of you out there who prefer dishonesty and corruption to standing up for what you believe.

That after all, takes guts, something sorely lacking in Mr. Dithers.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> I don't know what he actually thinks. I do know how his actions are perceived.


Neither do I but he attends a CMA church like I do and this denomination and most other evangelical denominations support and are active in raising funds for HIV/AIDS research.

He was up in Nunavut today discussing arctic sovereignty.

It is disappointing that he didn't show.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> Head of State? Not likely. Puppet of the dysfunctional royal British family is more correct.


And a former member of the evil, tainted CBC,,,as was the previous GG.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I guess old habits die hard, but it is hard for me to understand there are still those of you out there who prefer dishonesty and corruption to standing up for what you believe.


Maybe we don't like homophobic bigots in charge.....
Let's see so far you have someone changing the "facts" because he does not like them (global warming)
Appointing patronage like never before, asking Canadians to ignore the law, Fortier is a joke, removing checks and balances so that O'Connor can order his little toys...

But SINC, don't worry there will be a vote on SSM just to please your lot...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I guess old habits die hard, but it is hard for me to understand there are still those of you out there who prefer dishonesty and corruption to standing up for what you believe.
> 
> That after all, takes guts, something sorely lacking in Mr. Dithers.


SINC, you persist in the myth that there are only two options. You should know me well enough by now to know that I didn't like Paul Martin, either. Although he, at least, either didn't share in the dislike of minorities and homosexuals, or kept it well hidden and didn't let it influence the laws he made. He was useless on AIDS, though, along with many other things.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So RM, tell me about that third option. Surely you can't be serious that Canadians would ever elect Jack and the NDP? And the Block cannot form a national government. Where is this magical "third" option?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

There are a bunch. And if Canadians can't pull their heads out of their backsides long enough to look beyond the two old cronies, we don't deserve to survive as a nation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> There are a bunch. And if Canadians can't pull their heads out of their backsides long enough to look beyond the two old cronies, we don't deserve to survive as a nation.


That sounds more like sour grapes over things not being as you would like them. Join the club! However, this is an amazing country and, federally, those two options seem to have served us well. It's good to have a viable third option to generate some ideas, but to never be given power for their looney total-package.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> It's good to have a viable third option to generate some ideas, but to never be given power for their looney total-package.


You _were_ referring to their monetary (looney) policy, weren't you?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

They've sold themselves, and us, up the river. Nations that will survive in any real sense are those that are able to show leadership in new ways in the face of a global economy based on individual greed. Neither of the main parties has shown any real ability to be that of late. Perhaps they will surprise me. But based on current leadership (and leadership hopefuls) that ain't likely.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> Nations that will survive in any real sense are those that are able to show leadership in new ways in the face of a global economy based on individual greed. ...


I'm surprised I agree with you. Only by harnessing the innate power of greed can we survive as a nation.


----------



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

RevMatt,

Did you read the commentry by Thomas Rosica in the Globe and Mail on Saturday? It's here if not (short term link). It's rather sanctimonious and while there is no denying the good the Catholic church does in caring for people with HIV, it's about time that it changed its attitudes towards prevention and mysogeny in order to prevent the disease infecting people. 

BTW, I just addressed it to you for your intelligent views, nothing else (I don't even know your faith). I personally find it hard to take the willingness of the Catholic church to proselitize and to offer comfort to people when the organization is wantonly ignoring means to suppress transmission because it conflicts with some bizarre interpretation of not interfering with procreative potential. In fact, I find it utterly repulsive.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I had not seen that, thanks for the link. I am not RC, nor do I agree with them on many things. Perhaps most vehement of our disagreements is around all matters sexual. I feel the same way about my Protestant bretheren who have similar approaches. They are gravely mistaken, and they are causing immeasurable harm by spreading their views.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm surprised I agree with you. Only by harnessing the innate power of greed can we survive as a nation.


Oh look everyone! It's a troll! Careful now, trolls aren't very bright. But if you don't feed them, sometimes they go away on their own.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Oh look everyone! It's a troll! Careful now, trolls aren't very bright. But if you don't feed them, sometimes they go away on their own.


Meow! He does have the right of it though. 

"Nations that will survive in any real sense are those that are able to show leadership in new ways in the face of a global economy based on individual greed."

The leadership will have to dump the failed ideologies that used starting assumptions of "The system makes people this way" or "If only people behaved in such and such a manner". The leadership will need to be for the people, not to try and make people feel guilty for what they are. It will need to work with what they are and show them how they can build a better nation. Guilting people into yet another set of doomed utopian visions will not help a nation. It is just the new objective morality that is as relevant as the old objective moralities because it treats people like sinners (see sexual morality) for being what they are. 

There are strong indications of where this will go. MD has, on numerous occasions, mentioned people's inherent sense of 'fairness'. There is also and inherent sense of self-determination. These are the notions that are being balanced in every developed democracy today and the range is unsurprisingly narrow, when viewed in historical terms. 

So Macfury's one-liner actually got to that point rather quickly in response to your post. Harness what people are (self-serving) to create a balance with the other (very subjective) notion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks for explaining that Beej. Some people apparently didn't get it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Though RevMatt, I do take issue to being labelled a "troll" and to being called "not very bright." This is hardly the stuff of civilized discourse. I had expected better of you.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej - the system did not make people greedy, but it may or may not enable that greed to be exercised at the expense of others. You have frequently recognised the need to for government intervention to shape the economic forces, whether through restrictions or your preferred method of incentives, so I think we are still on the same page here. Where we continue to disagree, I think, is whether we are moving towards or away from the balanced society that you and I both agree on. We were moving towards it. We still make steps in that direction. But global corporations don't have to play by national rules, and regularly don't. The only place that has any real hold over them is the nation that holds their head office, and when that nation is unwilling to act, nothing happens. So we have, for example, Canadian companies committing ethical atrocities all over Africa. We know it, but successive governments continue to excuse themselves by saying that it is up to the African nations to enforce laws. Nations in the middle of civil war, usually.
The companies are doing what the law allows them, in order to maximise their profit. For which, the individuals involved, particularly back here at home, make scads of money, and the stock market rewards them with higher stock value (more executive bonuses again). In other words, greed run wild, at the expense of others. Until we have government forces willing to build an international consensus on reigning in that kind of behaviour, it will always plague us, and damage the environment and human relations of this planet faster than we can repair them. Do the people of those nations excuse us from blame when the company raping their land flies our flag? Of course not.
National governments aren't going to cease to exist, of course. The political class won't allow that. But they will cease to be relevant in any meaningful way. If they haven't already. That's what I mean by showing leadership in the face of overwhelming greed.
To be clear one more time - I am not saying, and never have said, that the system is to blame. We are greedy by nature. What I am saying is that there are no currently effective means to prevent that greed from being destructive.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> So Macfury's one-liner actually got to that point rather quickly in response to your post. Harness what people are (self-serving) to create a balance with the other (very subjective) notion.


It smelt more like a bile of doodoo.....

I'm glad you tried to clear it up - not everyone is self-serving. It's a big part of human nature but only part of the equation....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Though RevMatt, I do take issue to being labelled a "troll" and to being called "not very bright." This is hardly the stuff of civilized discourse. I had expected better of you.


Would "agitator" be more to your liking?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Beej - the system did not make people greedy, but it may or may not enable that greed to be exercised at the expense of others. You have frequently recognised the need to for government intervention to shape the economic forces, whether through restrictions or your preferred method of incentives, so I think we are still on the same page here. Where we continue to disagree, I think, is whether we are moving towards or away from the balanced society that you and I both agree on. We were moving towards it. We still make steps in that direction. But global corporations don't have to play by national rules, and regularly don't. The only place that has any real hold over them is the nation that holds their head office, and when that nation is unwilling to act, nothing happens. So we have, for example, Canadian companies committing ethical atrocities all over Africa. We know it, but successive governments continue to excuse themselves by saying that it is up to the African nations to enforce laws. Nations in the middle of civil war, usually.
> The companies are doing what the law allows them, in order to maximise their profit. For which, the individuals involved, particularly back here at home, make scads of money, and the stock market rewards them with higher stock value (more executive bonuses again). In other words, greed run wild, at the expense of others. Until we have government forces willing to build an international consensus on reigning in that kind of behaviour, it will always plague us, and damage the environment and human relations of this planet faster than we can repair them. Do the people of those nations excuse us from blame when the company raping their land flies our flag? Of course not.
> National governments aren't going to cease to exist, of course. The political class won't allow that. But they will cease to be relevant in any meaningful way. If they haven't already. That's what I mean by showing leadership in the face of overwhelming greed.
> To be clear one more time - I am not saying, and never have said, that the system is to blame. We are greedy by nature. What I am saying is that there are no currently effective means to prevent that greed from being destructive.


While we do agree on many things, I think you've vastly overstated a problem (that we agree should be dealt with) and left completely ignored any benefits and, as result, come to an overstated conclusion. 

I think the world is slowly moving towards a better future, but certainly not everywhere and the environment definitely takes a beating in the process, but even that is a little more complex than it seems when looking at other countries striving for our level of prosperity. I would also put fixing world agricultural trade well ahead of many other high-popularity items. In other words, while we may agree on a list of 'destructive' things, their magnitude is different. Thus, runaway protectionism and regional politics causes much more damage than corporate resource development. Way, way more. In my opinion. And that is the runaway greed of a culprit many do not want to blame; it's easier to blame the big boys.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It smelt more like a bile of doodoo.....


But now you see what you missed when first reading it and, therefore, how it was actually on-topic (with posts in the immediate vicinity) and, in a concise manner, identified an important philosophical point. 

By the way, thanks for imitating my work, it's flattering. :love2: Now, go inspect your pet's "gifts" and see if you can find deeper meaning in them.  

Regarding self-serving, that's quite an interesting discussion that can get acrimonious. If you give money to charity because it makes you feel better (to help someone else) then that is a form of self-serving behaviour. That's the kind of broad use of the term that I'm referring to.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Virtually all behaviour attempts to be self-serving (though we may sometimes fail to serve ourselves by engaging in it). Even that person who sacrifices his life to save another person may recognize that he or she couldn't live with themselves, allowing the person to die. Would people give a coin to a beggar if it made them feel BAD to do it? All behaviour is essentially self-serving--it's just that some self-serving behaviour results in a wider distribution of benefits.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> it's just that some self-serving behaviour results in a wider distribution of benefits.


Good point. Things like tax credits for charitable donations can encourage self-serving behaviour that is intended for a wider distribution of benefits (depends on the charity  ). 

Same as moral suasion by societal 'consensus'. Of course that one cuts both ways. Quite viciously sometimes.


----------



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

Is every decision/action calculated? What about acting by instinct? Is that instinct the same in everyone? I think not. Perhaps we choose to be benevolent or greedy for reasons other than personal gain. Is there such a thing as altruism? Some people go out of their way to help, others to hinder. Society does not necessarily reward one or the other but we are each honest to ourselves.

Greed is not good. It is just part of life. The selfish driver who overtakes people by pulling into the on-ramp lane will save a few minutes of his journey perhaps, but likely exhibits similar behaviours in other contexts and (perhaps unknowingly) suffers for it. Human nature may have a dark underbelly that we all share to some extent, but that does not mean it has to be exploited at every opportunity. Surely, justifying greed is simply a way for the greedy to rationalize their own behaviour?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Is every decision/action calculated? What about acting by instinct? Is that instinct the same in everyone? I think not.


Of course not - that's where economists always falter in their reasoning. 
Some people are quite selfless. Always like the novel "La Peste" for the way in portrayed human nature and destiny...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Surely, justifying greed is simply a way for the greedy to rationalize their own behaviour?


Well said, indeed. So our nation justifies it's greed, and others suffer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Altruism is just another form of people deciding what sort of life best suits them. Even if they choose a life of self-deprivation, it's still a choice they make so that they can live with their own vision of who they are. (The worst sort is the person who follows an altruistic path, then complains he/she are always short of money.)

Greed is a motivator for most people--though I imagine it only gets called "greed" when others think it's out of line. Very subjective. A desire to accumulate and to build, then? I'm just thankful that a bunch of altruists weren't put in charge of creating the magnificnt economic engine that is North America.
__________________
"If you lose the rat race, you're still a rat--but a poor one."

-Macfury


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Love that self-serving BS.... you do leave a bigger pile than MS...

Greed the great universal motivator --- lol....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's a stinging rebuttal, AS.

----------------------------------------------
"If you lose the rat race, you're still a rat--but a poor one."

-Macfury


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Love that self-serving BS.... you do leave a bigger pile than MS...
> 
> Greed the great universal motivator --- lol....


So, you disagree but can't handle the discussion. Ok. Go play with your pet, he's good at that sort of thing.

The term greed is generally used derisively, but people often haven't grappled with the broader concept of motivations for human actions, as MF points out. They are more likely to identify greed somewhat narrowly and be satisfied that they have much non-greedy behaviour. This is why the discussion can get acrimonious. It is not an easy one to have in an honest manner.

Whether it is by calculated decision or instinct, it doesn't need to be the same for everyone (AS: you're mistaken in your, "where economists always falter in their reasoning" point; you need to distinguish between a couple concepts first).

I'm not saying the concept is iron-clad, but it is too easy to call it bad (selfish, dark under-belly) and thus feel better about one's supposedly non-greedy actions. Greed for self-respect?  

RM, this: "Well said, indeed. So our nation justifies it's greed, and others suffer." seems to be along the same lines of overstating what you don't like and missing all of what is going on. 

It is also true that our nation's people pursue their interests, and many people of the world benefit. Remember that quick note somebody posted about 'sweat shops'? There are many other examples to consider, but the tone of the posts here is clearly one of identifying sin (not just your post). 

In our supposedly altruistic desire to help, we can actually harm others' when we don't ask the important questions about our own motivations and simply act off what we presume to be altruism and, therefore, in someone else's interests. White man's burden? This generally seems to happen at a broader policy level when people try to extend their personal misconceptions of altruism onto the world stage. 

Simply because we're withholding a very narrow concept of 'greed', does not mean we aren't acting in a self-serving and greedy manner. Some of the left's failures are due to not realising this. Worshipping the almighty empty gesture (sometimes worse than empty), so to speak and not understanding mutually beneficial actions because some people just feel perpetually bad about feeling like a so-called 'dominant' party. 

This is the "Father knows best" approach and is much worse than just working with others. Things get more complex when looking at the corruption aspect with many regimes, but that's a deep discussion of where 'the line' is. Before or after Castro? 

"Greed" or self-serving behaviour is not just about finances. That's a reason why, as much as you may hate it, that line from Wall Street is actually useful to think about instead of retreating in fear from.

.........
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. 
.........

I don't think greed is "good", it just is. There's no need, however, to discuss it as some sinful thing people need to be ashamed of. We have laws to 'normalise' behaviour, but they don't define greedy/not greedy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Love that self-serving BS.... you do leave a bigger pile than MS...
> 
> Greed the great universal motivator --- lol....


i think i just got dissed


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i think i just got dissed


Hard to see that post any other way but a slag, Spec. 

>> "So our nation justifies it's greed, and others suffer."

I believe that the "greed-bashers" tend to see economics as a zero-sum game--"If I gain, someone else loses." Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course. Economics provides a phenomenal number of interactions where both parties receive benefits.

We get many statements about how Canada needs to help the poor of foreign lands--we are just too greedy about wanting to keep our own wealth here. When we buy consumer goods that are produced less expensively overseas we are doing just that, helping to raise economies elsewhere. This isn't altruism, but a happy by-product of economic interaction. But just as this is happening we get another stern warning--multinational businesses are SO greedy, they are exporting our jobs overseas. So we're greedy when we buy a flat screen TV, and greedy when we export our jobs to those we're supposed to be helping, and greedy when we want to keep our resources here. The greed card isn't a double-edged sword, it's a Schick Quattro.

But, like Stephen Leacock, amateur economists tend to see the intricate world economy as something they should get their hands on. They see it as a money machine that continues to produce wealth without the motivation of the participants. 

My analogy: two men are having a long-distance race on a horse drawn cart. One of them routinely stops to feed his horse an apple, ply him with extra water, and tantalize him with tasty oats. The other pulls his horse over and feeds him the bare minimum he needs, then lectures him sternly about the plight of poorer horses elsewhere, explains that the horse now winning the race is a bad horse, not only for running faster than the others, but for consuming choice food along the way. Sure this horse loses, but it's his fault for failing to see the big picture.

I see share-everything socialism/communism as the ultimate in misplaced greed. This philosophy doesn't merely want some things. It wants EVERYTHING, and doesn't mind taking it by violence if necessary--but take heart, it gives back a tiny fraction of what it confiscates. Who does it serve? The consciences of greedy people who want too reorganize society along the lines of their tyrannical vision.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i think i just got dissed


Unlike the disappointing duo of The Beej and MF, we don't share a brain. We don't always agree but the blinkered dull duo only see what they want to see....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> When we buy consumer goods that are produced less expensively overseas we are doing just that, helping to raise economies elsewhere. This isn't altruism, but a happy by-product of economic interaction.


Does that mean you approve of slave like conditions for workers? A happy by-product? LOL....
So economies have to be raised (sounds like little children).....

Beej argued that certain goods should be at "market prices". He's said that Quebec energy (such as electricity) should be priced higher - now does that not go against what you are saying? His view that prices should be higher even if it cost less to produce....

Sounds more like your theory is a game of deceit.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Unlike the disappointing duo of The Beej and MF, we don't share a brain. We don't always agree but the blinkered dull duo only see what they want to see....


AS attempts to regain some composure by talking to his pet -- proven to be therapeutic. 

By the way, you two appear to be sharing only half a brain.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I believe that the "greed-bashers" tend to see economics as a zero-sum game--"If I gain, someone else loses." Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course. Economics provides a phenomenal number of interactions where both parties receive benefits.


WallStreet is happy at greed - workers don't get much from it. Higher company profits don't mean higher living standards...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I see share-everything socialism/communism as the ultimate in misplaced greed. This philosophy doesn't merely want some things. It wants EVERYTHING, and doesn't mind taking it by violence if necessary--but take heart, it gives back a tiny fraction of what it confiscates. Who does it serve? The consciences of greedy people who want too reorganize society along the lines of their tyrannical vision.


I'm glad you prefaced with "socialism/communism" (different by the MF) for a moment it seemed like I was reading about capitalism...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I don't think greed is "good", it just is. There's no need, however, to discuss it as some sinful thing people need to be ashamed of. We have laws to 'normalise' behaviour, but they don't define greedy/not greedy.


This is from Francis Wheen, rather a blunt observation:


> Logic has seldom been applicable to the mysteries of desire, and five minutes in the company of a typical tycoon should be enough to deflate this particular syllogism. The sheen of narcissism, the indiscriminate smile, the fawning gaggle of sycophants - what could be less alluring? One of the most resonantly repulsive images from the 1980s is of Michael Douglas, in shirtsleeves and suspenders, playing the snake-eyed corporate raider Gordon Gekko's in _Wall Street_. Yet the fact that Oliver Stone's film was a moral fable with a message as old as the Bible (love of money is the root of all evil) eluded many moviegoers, mesmerized as they were by the seductive energy of sheer wickedness, and Gekk's "greed is good" mantra soon became the catchphrase of every Big Swinging Dick in New York and London - Masters of the Universe, as Tom Wolfe called them in _The Bonfire of the Vanities_. For ambitious young things who had yet to join the club, there was one urgent question: I've got the red suspenders, I've got the attitude, I've got greed in abundance, so how can I grab some of the loot?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I see share-everything socialism/communism as the ultimate in misplaced greed. This philosophy doesn't merely want some things. It wants EVERYTHING, and doesn't mind taking it by violence if necessary--but take heart, it gives back a tiny fraction of what it confiscates. Who does it serve? The consciences of greedy people who want too reorganize society along the lines of their tyrannical vision.


The problem with your viewpoint is that it is an extreme interpretation of socialism. Some socialism is a very good thing and required by an egalitarian civilized society. The notion of providing everyone with basic access to things like education and health services is a good thing and it shows in those countries that practice it.

That being said... taken to the extreme, enforced communism has proved to be failure.

On the flip side however, an unrestrained market capitalistic approach doesn't work either. Without regulations business is too easily persuaded by the bottom line at any cost be it human, environmental or social.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

In other "unrestricted greed is bad" news... obese of the world now out number the starving

And no, the number of starving is not falling with any significant speed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Does that mean you approve of slave like conditions for workers? A happy by-product? LOL....
> So economies have to be raised (sounds like little children).....
> 
> Beej argued that certain goods should be at "market prices". He's said that Quebec energy (such as electricity) should be priced higher - now does that not go against what you are saying? His view that prices should be higher even if it cost less to produce....
> ...


And now the disingenuous creation of and attack of straw men.

Disagreement with AS-Spec means provactive questions like, "Does that mean you approve of slave like conditions for workers?" Gee AS, I was only kidding on the 'half brain' thing, you don't need to act it out for us. :lmao: It's good to see the local Liberaltarian demonstrating his commitment though.  

Note on electricity: the connection of market prices, "cost" and opportunity cost: Once those dots are connected it's clearer. QC is selling the commodity at an artificially low rate because it is controlling the market. The owners get short-changed and those with really big TVs win. Yay!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> That being said... taken to the extreme, enforced communism has proved to be failure. On the flip side however, an unrestrained market capitalistic approach doesn't work either.


But the topic here was greed as motivator. Under a largely capitalist system you still have the motivator, but you can try to maximize benefits for everyone through government policy. Socialism takes the greed motivator out of the hands of the players, and invests it in the organizers, while trying to recreate an economy out of government policy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> And no, the number of starving is not falling with any significant speed.


The article said the number was slowly declining and that the obese were partially those who had previously been hungry. The slow change is the result of economic reforms and improved distribution systems. However tempting it might be to extrapolate, the article makes no correlation between obesity in one place and starvation in another--and it shouldn't. This line of thinking is comparable to the parent who coerces Jimmy to eat because there's another little boy in Africa who would like to have those potatoes and carrots.

The article makes a good point however--agricultural subsidies should be eliminated.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Socialism takes the greed motivator out of the hands of the players, and invests it in the organizers, while trying to recreate an economy out of government policy.


It tries to, but can never succeed. Vibrant black markets form and much wealth is wasted in trying to wrest greed from the people like it's something to be taken away (again, much like sexual repression through moral arguments) while clamping down on black markets that will always form. But, as DJ mentioned these are the extremes.

All modern developed systems balance the 'social' with the 'freedom'; taxing and regulating a certain amount to provide for other public policy goals. It works quite well.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> It's good to see the local Liberaltarian demonstrating his commitment though.  !


I see who wears the red suspenders here.....






Beej said:


> Note on electricity: the connection of market prices, "cost" and opportunity cost: Once those dots are connected it's clearer. QC is selling the commodity at an artificially low rate because it is controlling the market. The owners get short-changed and those with really big TVs win. Yay!


Ohh look the BJ is making up rules, bending others to fit into his little economist theories and pet likes.... Picking what rules he think should work to enforce his deluded thinking....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> But the topic here was greed as motivator. Under a largely capitalist system you still have the motivator, but you can try to maximize benefits for everyone through government policy.


Greed maybe a motivator but I don't think it's the sole motivator. In the companies that I have been involved in, when greed took over, the firms quickly folded.... 
Money is often the by-product of a job well done, passion....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ohh look the BJ is making up rules, bending others to fit into his little economist theories and pet likes.... Picking what rules he think should work to enforce his deluded thinking....


I think even the half-brain is wearing out now. 

We've actually been over this topic before and you seemed to agree at the time but were understandably untrustworthy of government handing back the extra-revenue to the people (or being responsible with it in general).

Now you just seem very angry (maybe your pet bit you) and wanted to throw some quick kitten-jabs. Ok. 

Have you vented enough yet?

[Edit: Hrmph. If you are not going to dance for me anymore, then I'll just have to have a little cry and continue with the discussion.]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Greed maybe a motivator but I don't think it's the sole motivator. In the companies that I have been involved in, when greed took over, the firms quickly folded....
> Money is often the by-product of a job well done, passion....


Greed is the motivator, but it isn't good management. The engine, not the driver.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In the companies that I have been involved in, when greed took over, the firms quickly folded....
> Money is often the by-product of a job well done, passion....


That seems to also include long-term and short-term; a lot of this problem can involve how incentive pay is structured, or just the type of people hired.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> That seems to also include long-term and short-term; a lot of this problem can involve how incentive pay is structured, or just the type of people hired.


Beej, greed is not the only factor in employee satisfaction. And yes people vary - for some the salary is only part of the equation (benefits and working conditions seem to be the other). Some employees are dedicated to their jobs, other look upon it as a stepping stone whilst others do the bare minimum not to get fired....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, greed is not the only factor in employee satisfaction. And yes people vary - for some the salary is only part of the equation (benefits and working conditions seem to be the other). Some employees are dedicated to their jobs, other look upon it as a stepping stone whilst others do the bare minimum not to get fired....


Part of the discussion was identifying greed as more than just monetary. As identified by the handy Wall Street quote, the term 'greed' shocks people into a reaction against it (share and share alike?). In the pursuit of self-interest is a better term that is less likely to create confusion.

People pursue their self-interest very differently and these methods have pretty significant long-term consequences. Pursuing self-interest doesn't actually mean doing it well, nor does it fix self-interest as an unchanging bag of pre-determined results. This is where a difference between short and long-term thinking and short and long-term thinkers matters a great deal. Some businesses may lend themselves to shorter term thinking simply because there is so much fast and fundamental change, that the best laid plans of mice and men etc.

Most businesses seem to value long-term thinking but there are distinctions in how much can be done in each job. Things do need to get done today; Philosophers are only useful to a point.  It can really hurt when the wrong people, with the wrong time-balance from their bosses are in the wrong positions. Then their natural approach to self-interest, combined with whatever incentives they see the company giving them can result in completely inadequate planning. It can also piss off people working for them who see the oncoming train.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I worked for a publishing company that desperately needed new computers. The computers weren't terribly expensive, but nothing was done. The reason: the general manager knew he would be resigning just after bonus time in December. Keeping the expenses to a bare minimum would boost his bonus before he left, while causing loner-term grief. The company structured the bonuses in such a way that the manager's self-interest diverted from the company long-term good.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej, if you want to quibble over the definition of the word, then I think you need to go back to the dictionary. From Google, first couple of definitions:

excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

avarice: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) 

Greed is a desire to obtain more money or material possessions or bodily satisfaction than one is considered to need.

This is NOT the same as wanting to satisfy personal needs. That desire is necessary. Greed is what happens when that desire gets out of control. As with any obsession, it is usually exercised at the expense of others. Greed is never good.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Beej, if you want to quibble over the definition of the word, then I think you need to go back to the dictionary. From Google, first couple of definitions:
> 
> excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
> 
> ...


And that's the problem with looking at it in the framework of subjective definition. Somebody is judging the person morally and determining 'necessary' and 'need' and 'deserves'. These are all very subjective terms: most of what we have around us is not "needed" or "necessary". Just look around at one's material possessions and things they describe as "needing". In our society, greed begins early and we're all guilty. So we try to identify the more guilty to feel better about our guilt? That sounds familiar. 

Furthermore, is greed for more money worse than for more food or more Star Wars figurines? Again, someone judging you saying, for example, that being grossly overweight or wanting more and more figuirines is less "greedy" than being a multi-billionaire. Maybe both is twice the trouble!  Maybe your normal daily actions (some people really enjoy work) just result in money. Is that still greedy?

This is very close to sexual repression through moral condemnation. "That is too much sex to want, or the wrong kind, therefore it is morally wrong." Aside from psychological disorders, in which the person is considered a victim (not someone to be derided), the notions of such moral judgement are being rightly tossed aside as our society develops. You have your own lines, but don't expect people to nod agreeably when the finger-pointing starts. 

Some people I've talked to seem to instinctively draw their own line in a way that allows them point to those who are more greedy and feel better about themselves (unnecessary need for feeling superior). Their an odd lot.

So, using a morality-based term versus a generic one, what is the difference between pursuing self-interest versus greed? Somebody imposes that value judgement upon you because they find that your 'greed' is never good, but that theirs is ok or, at least, less bad and therefore warrants some pointing. However, as I've said, I don't think greed is good (so I guess we agree on one point  ). Nor do I think it's bad. It just is, in the moral sense (allowing for how 'good' and 'bad' are not always used that way). 

There's also some form of societal view on where greed begins, but that doesn't make it right. It is a changing sense of "need" based on many things, including national wealth and technological level, as well as culture. It helps to guide public policy in balancing the notions of fairness with individual liberty, but when used to chide is a transparent attempt at the state telling you what your own morality needs to be. Beware the tyranny of the majority as they tell you your morality. They can only tell you acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RevMatt: In another set of posts you've decribed building a children's play structure and takng a television set to the shop for repairs. Although not easy to find, I can produce people who would wonder whether you couldn't use the money for a better purpose. Can't the kids go to the park? Who needs to watch television when there are so many problems in society that require our attention?



Now the moment I even mention something like that, I'm sure the first thing that enters your mind is: "Idiots! I work hard already, so..." or "I use television to help me do X, Y and Z..." or "Why should my kids have to go to the park, when..." All legitimate responses, but exactly those responses that would occur if a billionaire were justifying his or her acquisitions.

It really is THAT subjective.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, when you have to do such a convoluted exercise just to define a word maybe it's time to rethink that little pet theory of yours.....
Economist (sigh)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I don't see Beej's post as a definition. Just an explanation of why he feels his definition is apt.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, when you have to do such a convoluted exercise just to define a word maybe it's time to rethink that little pet theory of yours.....
> Economist (sigh)


Is 'Spec wagging the AS or the other way around?

It's not just about a definition but also explanation. Of course, being a fake libertarian, the ideas discussed may be difficult for you. First you have to resolve your internal inconsistency.

"Greed" is a subset of behaving in one's self interest. That subset is a purely subjective moral drawing of lines within the broader concept. An often self-serving drawing of lines.  

But thanks for adding what "thoughts" you could come up and not just taking yet another opportunity to imitate your favourite pet. I found your response deeply thoughtful and nuanced and to have contributed a great deal more than I expected from you. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Economics? That's voodoo I tells ya!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Economics? That's voodoo I tells ya!


Certainly is not a science.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> "Greed" is a subset of behaving in one's self interest. That subset is a purely subjective moral drawing of lines within the broader concept. An often self-serving drawing of lines.


I need "x" calories to live per day, so I guess it's greed that makes me eat?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's instinct that makes you want to eat--it's greed that makes you want to eat something tasty.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, instinct/evolution dictate what "flavours" we like to eat - greed makes us fat (coupled with genetics, lack of exercise and Doritoes).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I need "x" calories to live per day, so I guess it's greed that makes me eat?


Good point AS, thanks. Beyond the Simple Bear (intentional sp) Necessities, it can be called greed based on the definition of the word. But you're right, there is that piece where they don't overlap, seen in basic survival. Thanks for the correction. An important philosophical point, but the vast majority fo those in the Western World, and huge numbers outside the West can still be called greedy. 

So, do you get to point if, by personal measures, you're less greedy? And does that exonerate you from 'fixing' your easily identified greed problem (everything beyond the true necessities) simply because others' are "worse"? This is where the guilt game comes in to play, and the notion of protecting one's self-respect.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Honestly, I think instinct suggests we eat more than we need. It's just that the abundant availability of food hasn't caught up with our programming.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Honestly, I think instinct suggests we eat more than we need. It's just that the abundant availability of food hasn't caught up with our programming.


Definitely. Otherwise we would stop eating at a certain level and always be at or below our "needed" energy. Thus we are also designed to store energy (fat) for lean times. When no lean times occur, that storage mechanism ends up doing something it was not intended to do: permanently accumulate energy for no purpose.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Honestly, I think instinct suggests we eat more than we need. It's just that the abundant availability of food hasn't caught up with our programming.


Likely the biggest factor but I think that there are some social aspects there also (look at the proportions in some restaurants - a selling point over quality of the foods).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Likely the biggest factor but I think that there are some social aspects there also (look at the proportions in some restaurants - a selling point over quality of the foods).


Taco Bell's point-of-purchase promotion; "I'm Full!"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Taco Bell's point-of-purchase promotion; "I'm Full!"


Sounds better than "Eat until you burst!"


----------

