# Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Lest we forget.

Click here for link to the article.


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

There was a New York Times piece the other week that cites correspondence and other material by the Japanese generals of the time and the cabinet that say they knew they were losing but wanted to continue the war to the last man — even after Hiroshima was vaporized.

Like Nazi Germany, all the civilians suddenly are Swiss.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*** double post ***


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Like Nazi Germany, all the civilians suddenly are Swiss.


And that justifies government sponsored mass murder?

The NY Times has not been a good source to quote of late.

The NY Times denied the existence of the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide and their reporter received a Pulitzer for such "reporting."


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

Macspectrum, the history leading to the bomb did not begin and end with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was a criminal, expansionist "empire" that did not acknowledge the term humanity. It was a nation of slavers under its god-emperor — and unspeakably cruel slavers — that bombed, raped and murdered their way through China and Korea, then overseas to the Philippines and beyond, with the jackpot being Australia. Japan would have killed millions upon millions more if it had had the chance.

To defend imperialist Japan is to defend an armed, attacking criminal psychopath. To not stop it at one fell swoop was to allow the murder to continue for months if not years.

According to the Times story citing the Japanese sources, the generals did not want to surrender even after Hiroshima. And contrary to the warm and fuzzy revisionism, the people DID support their government, as did Nazi Germany's.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

And how appropriate that the imperialists would decide, on the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to hold a meeting on future
weapons development that includes "mini nukes."

So much for "disarmament."

 
M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

You (Etaoin) type like an American apologist.

What about those Americans that conspired with Nazi Germany by lending monies to it.

Should they now be held accountable?

What about those that took part in the forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians?

Should I now blame all Russians?

Or is the "Swiss" analogy only applicable to the losers of the war?

[ August 20, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: macspectrum ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

War mongers, enthusiasts and suppliers are enemies only temporarily and are always united against peace. 
They need war to exist.
If Iraq and the West Bank go on for decades, so much the better.
It's just business for them. 
Simple as that ........


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> *
> What about those Americans that conspired with Nazi Germany by lending monies to it.
> 
> Should they now be held accountable?
> *


Unfortunately, they're pretty much all gone. The first one to string up would be George W.'s granddaddy, Prescott Bush.

 
M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Unfortunately, they're pretty much all gone. The first one to string up would be George W.'s granddaddy, Prescott Bush.


That is exactly what I was subtly referring to.


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

Macspectrum, I have heard many stories from people of my father's generation in the Canadian army who fought the Japanese, one of whom was made a slave by them when Japan took Hong Kong. He was beaten, starved and tortured and his comrades were murdered before his eyes. As an aside, the treatment afforded him and the others by Canada is a shameful disgrace, and should give pause to anyone should they be overcome by patriotism at the next wrapped-in-the-flag boys-will-be-home-by-Christmas bull****.

But his story, apart from the Canadian government's non-involvement (and in other episodes like it), is no different than millions of others. I suggest you crack a history book.

The Japan of 70 years ago is not the Japan of today. Neither is the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Germany or any other country you wish to name. So you are in error if you believe that my opinion of one war is a philosophy that extends to others of more recent memory. I do not fight my father's or his father's wars in any discussions of more recent ones. But neither will I be silent when some revisionist claptrap written to arouse sorrow for the perpetrators of such horror and which blames the victims of Japan's agression from Hong Kong to Manila to Pearl Harbor appears in front of me. It is akin to expressing sorrow for the loss of Auchwitz. 

I am lucky and glad that my generation in Canada did not have to fight any war, never mind the worst in the history of so-called civilization. But that does not change my opinion that those who condemn the U.S. for dropping the bombs and in two instants ending eight years of killing are woefully naive about what it means when the entire planet is in total war. Especially when it is written by an armchair quarterback safe in his ivory tower and 68 years after the world was waist deep in bullets and bombs and blood and disease and dying.

The writer should know, in writing about it (and probably does), that civilians ARE in the front lines, and always have been. The machinery of war is not made two feet behind the lines, and it's civilians who are making it. You or I can hate it as much as we wish, but wiping out civilians means wiping out those who make the weapons. Civilians are prime targets, all arguments and propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding.

But in only 40 years the bombings will be as far back in history as the Napoleonic Wars were to the soldiers who fought in the First World War, and will be as remembered as the horrors caused by Napoleon's empire building — which is one reason war will never end: Memories are short, and the revisionism that follows each war proves it.

As you shed a tear for the butchers of Nanking, shed another for the soldiers of the butcher's Grand Armie who starved or froze to death on their retreat from Moscow. I'm sure they'd appreciate it as much as I don't.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Comparing the horrors and atrocities of "good guys" to those of the "bad guys" insults the memories of those that perished; both civilian and military. The old defence of "we're not as bad as they were" just doesn't wash.

My late father was a slave labourer in Nazi Germay, taken at gunpoint from his village.

Years later, when he would tell me stories of the war, he showed his utter dismay at the Dresden bomings by Allied forces, even though he was liberated by those same Allied forces.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

My family lost two men, one in each war (see Albin Sumara), so the horror of it is not lost on me.

I guess the question some of us have, and yes, we are 50 years removed from the context, is: Why drop the first bomb on a city, rather than a non-populated target that would demonstrate its power? Why drop the second bomb at all?

M.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> I guess the question some of us have, and yes, we are 50 years removed from the context, is: Why drop the first bomb on a city, rather than a non-populated target that would demonstrate its power? Why drop the second bomb at all?


Why? It's called "pay back"...for Pearl Harbor. 

I'll probably get flamed, but dropping the A-bomb shortened the war and consequently saved many more lives on both sides.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Why drop two bombs? The Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped.

It's kind of funny that some of you have your knickers in a knot over the use of atomic weapons against Japan, yet none of you seem to care about the fact that Japan started the war in the first place (with a sneak attack, to boot) nor about the atrocities Japan committed before and during the war.

If you're going to complain about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fine, but you really should complain about events like Pearl Harbor too, then.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> If you're going to complain about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fine, but you really should complain about events like Pearl Harbor too, then.


Yes, Japan fired the first shot and started the hostilities.

No, they did not deserve to be the target of an atomic weapon whose effects were still felt years after the event.

As for "cracking open a[n] history book", please click here for some quotes of prominent Americans of the time on the use of atomic weapons upon Japan.


----------



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

The dropping of the A-bombs relegated the Allies (USA) to the same level as the "butchers" they were fighting. It is this tit for tat action and setting of precedents that maintains and propagates the insanity of war, the world over. Decisions get made in war that make perfect sense in the heat of the battle that would be simple murder during peace. That humankind can switch this mentality on and off like a light bulb is a pathetic fantasy because who is anyone to define who is "at war"? The terrorists think they are at war and justify their acts of terror. The victims of terrorism feel they are at war and justify withdrawal of human rights.

The two bombs did bring the hostilities of the WWII to an end and saved lives of the Allied Forces - but it hardly brought peace to the world. The Korean war was simmering, then Vietnam... 

What the bombs perhaps did achieve was to provide an all too real vision of what man is capable of doing to his fellow man - with first generation nukes. This scared enough people to allow some pause before pushing the button - and quite possibly saved the world from an even more devastating triggering of the subsequent generations of weapons that are thousands of fold more destructive. 

I am not suggesting that is a worthy reason for dropping the bombs - it was war and some people do horrible things during war - on both sides and for many reasons.

We should remember the horror or be condemned to relive it.


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

We are condemned to relive it. The short times of peace are intermissions rarely lasting more than 15 years, allowed to give everyone time to gather the remnants, grow new soldiers and rearm. You can't lose by betting on war.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

Now, my little opinion.. 

I much rather that the USA drop the bomb on Hiroshima to force a rapid end to a bloody ewar then someone like Adolf getting it first and dropping it on every major city in the USA. 

I believe that you get what you bargain for, the Japanese attacked first and I will always remember the quote to the effect that the Japanese awoke a sleeping tiger/dragon. (I forget the exact qote from one of the japanese admirals)

Sure, the effect are everlasting for dropping the bomb, but that's part of war... I would never support the use of any nuclear arsenal but I am not the one that has to make the decision; my gov't makes that decision for me.. 

Cheers,

RtC


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum,

Did the Japanese deserve to be the target of a massive invasion that would have lasted months (if not years) and that would have killed far more Japanese civilains than the two atomic bombs did?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I would never support the use of any nuclear arsenal but I am not the one that has to make the decision; my gov't makes that decision for me..


Somewhere Rene Levesque is rolling over in his grave.

Je me souviens.


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

Which René Lévesque? The traitor René Lévesque or great patriot René Lévesque?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Some very interesting and well researched info. on the issue can be found here 

The second page ends with an analysis of "Was the bombing necessary?"


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Hey macspectrum, You didn't answer jfpoole's question.

--PB


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I feel that jwoodget accurately expressed the reality of the two atomic bombings -- "What the bombs perhaps did achieve was to provide an all too real vision of what man is capable of doing to his fellow man." The Allied firebombing of Dresden killed more people than either of the two atomic bombs, but this came as a result of waves upon waves of Allied bombers over a two day period. Each atomic bomb was carried by a lone bomber, and the destruction took less than a few minutes. 

In either case, war is NOT the answer.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Since posterboy demanded my answer to a question with an obvious answer via his;



> * Hey macspectrum, You didn't answer jfpoole's question.* </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Did the Japanese deserve to be the target of a massive invasion that would have lasted months (if not years) and that would have killed far more Japanese civilains than the two atomic bombs did?


</font>[/QUOTE]If you read the link (which your question shows you had not) you would have noticed that the Japanese were 
1. making overtures for peace
2. were economically blockaded by Allied forces
3. were militarily crippled

Hence, a negotiated settlement would not have been far off. Also, the original proposal by the Allies to for unconditional surrender and to remove the emperor as leader was turned down by the Japanese and in the eventual surrender the emperor still remained.

Of course, 20-20 is hindsight, and the victors write the history, but I find it improbable that more harm would have come to the Japanese people if the "conventional" war had continued. Let us not forget the '"fallout" from the atomic weapon affected generations of Japanese children. The multi-generational "fallout effect" is rarely referenced in materials relating to the bombing.

All the bombing really accomplished was to stroke the U.S. ego vis-a-vis the retaliation the bomb provided for Pearl Harbor and start the nuclear arms race with the Soviets. I do acknowledge that that the lives of U.S. military personnel were spared due to the atomic bombings. If that is basis enough for the destruction that ensued, then that is your opinion.

Furthermore, the bombing made most of the world realise, except for some small circles in that 5-sided building that still think one can "win" a nuclear exchange, the horrors of nuclear weapons, yet they proliferated on this planet.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

In December 1946, Karl Compton wrote an article for The Atlantic entitled "If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used". A couple of quotes:

<blockquote>From this background I believe, with complete conviction, that the use of the atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands—perhaps several millions—of lives, both American and Japanese; that without its use the war would have continued for many months; that no one of good conscience knowing, as Secretary Stimson and the Chiefs of Staff did, what was probably ahead and what the atomic bomb might accomplish could have made any different decision.</blockquote>

...

<blockquote>The evidence points to a combination of factors. (1) Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realized that they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses. (2) The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those who sought peace and provided a face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war. (3) When the second atomic bomb was dropped, it became clear that this was not an isolated weapon, but that there were others to follow. With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and nopossibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of theatomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender.</blockquote>


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Just read Karl's resumé and you wil understand his viewpoint.

Can't bite the hand the feeds you.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

One has to wonder, then, what hand is feeding Doug Long.


----------



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

There are several pertinent questions, two of which are:

1. Was use of the bombs justified?
2. If the first bomb was justified, was dropping of the second a few days later justified?

Positive answers to (1) usually relate to avoidance of even more death by prolonging the war. But it isn't clear that invasion of Japan was imminent or necessary. The naval blockade was tight, the Allies had control of the skies and Japan was looking for a way out. There may well have been other pressing information (such as evidence of on-going holocaust-like atrocities) but there is no evidence that the US administration was pushed into action based on secret data.

The answer to (2) is a tough one since there was no third bomb and it may have taken months to build one. In other ones, it was a gambit. It certainly threw the Russians a bluff which might have been as important as the effect on Japan. Was there any response from the Japanese that might have prevented the second bomb being dropped other than unconditional surrender? What if the second bomb had been a dud (its design was quite different from the first)? Was the impact of the first bomb given enough time to settle into the minds of the Japanese leadership? They apparently didn't know that it was a nuclear device until the Nagasaki bomb.

Whatever your point of view, the fact that so many people were killed by these devices - dropped by a conscious decision - warrants careful examination of the events of the day.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

*What were/are we thinking!*








That was then .... now Iraqi kids are playing on depleted uranium laced ground.
When testing the first atomic bombs, US soldiers were advised not to look directly in to the light of the explosion.
As grade schoolers we were told to jump into the nearest roadside ditch.
Across the Detroit river on Belle Isle, we watched the NIKE missiles being raised and lowered every hour to show us that we were safe from communism. 
As a child I remember grownups saying that radium was harmless to digest. Moms and Dads for four decades worked in instrumentation factories licking radium salt brushes to apply the substance to clock faces etc.:
http://www.qsl.net/ve3bdb/radiumpic.html 
and died horribly painful deaths from facial and tracheal cancers.

As a child I also heard and saw the actor/president of the United States Ronald Reagan earn his fortune in print and radio ads saying:
*"Doctors recommend Lucky Strike Cigarettes AND they taste better because the tobacco's toasted! LSMFT!"*

Arnie Schwarzennegger is next up to bat 

[ August 24, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmm rehashing old history.









a) The Japanese did not fire the first shot - the Japanese navy was down to a few weeks of oil left due to the US embargo. 
If you read Toland's "The Rising Sun" you'll quicky realize as he did, that the war in the Pacific didn' need to happen nor should it have happened.
It was a lack of communication and accurate intelligence that caused the conflict in the first place.
US intransigence and using Japanese translators who came from the lowest class of Japanese society to translate diplomatic traffic that was effectively in a different language ( you can see the US translation and the correct translation on opposite pages) coupled with a distain for other powers that is and was so typical of US headspace.

Pearl Harbor was devised to buy enough time for Japan to secure it's oil supplies. The Japanese thinking at the time would be, cripple the US Fleet, open up the oil supplies ( Indonesia) and then negotiate a quick peace.
It was only the wild success of Pearl Harbor that led to the immense expansion of the initial plan.

The very culture that led to the war prevented "negotiated peace" - the people would defend the Emperor and the land with their lives - kamakazi was an honorable death. The Emperor was divine.
Only the unimaginable devastation of the atomic weapons were enough to shake down this cultural edifice and then only through the efforts of the Emperor himself.
This was not a European war where surrender and negotiation had a long history ( and even there WWII resulted from a poor understanding of a defeated enemy - the Versailles Treaty was a long fuse leading to a second conflict )- and the US had sworn to overturn the Emperor. It was only by allowing him to remain but not as a supreme power but as a titular head of state that surrender was obtained DESPITE the demonstrated power of the atomic weapons.

I firmly believe it was the only real choice the US had and that the upcoming invasion of the Japanese homeland would have cost hundreds of thouands of more lives on both sides of the conflict.
It's the stupidity that underlay the war in the first place that boggles the mind. 

Japan was a world superpower
The US embargoed oil because it didn't like the activity in China








Now put the shoe on the other foot and see if the US would not strike premptively if it's entire oil supply was dried up by an embargo. You know EXACTLY what would occur. You saw it in Cuba.

The Japanese military society or class got into power, had success and erred mightily in not knowing the immensity of US power once aroused.
Only the Japanese Pearl Harbor commander who had been educated in the US knew that if they woke the "sleeping giant" it would mean the end of Japan and he was right.
Japanese weapons and even their battleships like their famous swords were hand crafted   It took years to build them.
At the end the US was turning out a Liberty ship every 28 hours I think.
Truman had a difficult decision, the Manhattan project and the building of the bomb was the most immense industrial undertaking in the history of the world - it was a project on an unimaginable scale....and it worked as the test at Trinity showed.
By that time the US knew from bloody years of island hopping the nature of Japanese defensive mind set - and that it would be far worse when the "homeland" was attacked ( sounds familiar eh  ) Attacking Japan would have been akin to Hitler attacking Britain...."we shall fight on the beaches, we shall never surrender.....etc" in far more remote and rugged landscapes than across 20 miles of North Sea that Hitler faced and failed.
I've read many accounts and I've never seen anything that convinces me that Truman did not make the right decision. War is hell and it ended quickly - there was no other route that was in any way less costly given the nature of Japanese society.
If there is any proof of this it's this.
Look at the fanatical way Japan rebuilt itself into a world economic power - that gives you an idea of how united and engaged that quite homogenous population could be. THAT power and unity could have, would have, been engaged in defending the home islands.
Only the use of remote, faceless atomic weapons that shook their society to it's roots could divert their course of action. It was ultimately a loss of face for the entire nation - their pride rebuilt it differently and they STILL are trying to avoid any hint of being an active military power.
.
....and the beat goes on, guerrillas in Iraq, upheaval in Nigeria and Venezuela, attacks on Kuwait, the march on Stalingrad, the war in the Pacific...... all about ......OIL.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Adolf Schwarzennegger" - I don't think that's funny Macello and I think an edit is in order.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, an excellent historical in-depth analysis of the various historical/political/social/cultural events that lead up to WWII. Inside your MacMavenMind lies the intellectual prereq of a history teacher. Have you ever considered coming over to "our side" (i.e., the Life of an Educator)???


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

David,
Your logic re: Japan's rigorous defence of it's home soil needs some adjustment since, at the time of the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan was effectively quarantined by a naval blockade. Japan did not have any air support, to wit, the lack of any fighters planes going up to try to attack the Enola Gay.

Japan had effectively been defeated and was making peace overtures through back channels.

You may want to take 10 minutes and read the following analysis.

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, I recall when I was in high school speaking to a man who was twice my age and was born and raised in Japan. He vividly recalls being trained as a young teenager to defend the Emperor with rocks and sticks if need be, rather than let anyone enter the "sacred grounds where the Emperor lives". We were at an anti-war rally (against the war in Vietnam) and yet this man felt that he would have advanced upon a troop of US soldiers, with only a rock in his hand, rather than live in shame knowing that he stood by and did nothing. My uncle, a US Marine, survived the battle at Iwo Jima. If the Japanese fought that fiercely for a volcanic atoll in the Pacific, imagine how they would have fought to defend their homeland and Emperor. 

I am not in favor of war, nor do I support the use of atomic weapons, yet an invasion of Japan would have resulted in staggering losses of life.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well Dr. G if the Mac biz gets any more erratic like new models announced on the vapourware never never plan I might just take you up on that.  

Seriously tho' virtues of a teacher include patience, tolerance and organization.
I on the other hand have turned A.D.D. into a plus.







Just look at my website for clear proof









Had you said writing or perhaps preparing course material then I might agree but I do enjoy the hustle and bustle of a "traders" life. Likely in another age I would have done well opening trade routes as I do enjoy and respect cultures beyond my own and find humans "round the world when lifted out of their ideologies to be warm enjoyable companions even without the benefits of a shared language.
I'm an empath - can't keep my eyes dry at movies and even books on occasion as a result I'm driven to read and experience - "catharis" is very real for me and I seek it daily. It helps keep the inevitable cynicism at bay - cynicism is the bane of our society.

Passion is important to teaching but underlaying it must be a series of practical steps of guidance. My brain and writing are far too elliptical to be practical - my university profs usd to despair that I would write "knowing that they would know what I was getting at" but that the thesis might be almost unintelligible without the context of assumed knowledge. For instance YOU appreciated the Versailles reference - I assumed it.......discuss WWII and one should know about WWI.

But the teacher needs explain it.

Anyways, that's a very high compliment from you , gracefully accepted and appreciated.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G.,
please read the link provided and understand the effect the naval blockade would, and did, have on Japan's ability to wage war.

Add to that the fact that Japan was attemtping to negotiate peace.

As in my earier post, I acknowledge that the use of atomic weapons saved American lives.

Whether or not the use of such weapons could be classifed a "war crime" is still up for much debate.

The old adage of; "the victors write the history" rings all too true.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A blockade started the war - the stated Allied position was Unconditional Surrender....period. You think starvation a better fate ???? and they would have before they surrendered.

Without the Emperor NO "negotiations" bore any weight and do you really think knowing what you know of the US mentality when aroused that it would have worked. It barely succeeded even WITH the bomb. Look what the US did to its own Japanese citizens.

Remember the US felt the Japanese dealt in bad faith on the lead up to the war - "negotiating" while planning a surprise attack - right up to the hour of the attack.
The Japanese power elite would unlikely ever have agreed to a negotiated peace that would EVER be accepted by an Allied force looking for unconditional surrender.
The faceless almost "divine" power of the bomb was likely the only message that would create a "sea change" in Japanese pride at the time.
Hell Michael there were Japanese soldiers fighting on for decades in isolated areas - can you imagine the havoc several million Japanes citizens with the same feeling would wreak on invading forces  

Now Afghans have a different culturalal approach - happily following a winner and the money. The Swiss just don't engage.
Speculating without taking culture in mind - and the Japanese culture was very insolated - is very misleading and unproductive.
Humans can and do immense harm to themselves and others for a "cause". Japanese soldiers had amply demonstrated that cross the Pacific - why would that change.









As to "victors write the history" - indeed until lately the "cause: of the war in the Pacific was always the 'sneak attack" - not the events leading up to it.
Much the same applies to Iraq.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, re you statement that "Anyways, that's a very high compliment from you , gracefully accepted and appreciated.", consider it earned. You have that "special grace" (as JFK was fond of saying) to "mix" technical/historical/socio-political/economic knowledge with an almost eastern sense of balance. Might you consider teaching online??? I teach web courses every semester, but especially during the winter semester am I aware of the power of a web course, especially when there is meters of snow on the ground.

Macspectrum, the Emperor would never have allowed a surrender. If General Douglas MacArthur had not been aware of this delicate situation, he would never have been able to secure a peace treaty as he did a week after the atomic bombings. A blockade would have lasted years, until most of the population starved themselves to death rather than surrender.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, maybe this is a question better suited for the "Everything Mac" thread, but what did you mean by "Well Dr. G if the Mac biz gets any more erratic like new models announced on the vapourware never never plan...."? I know that you are not expecting the G5 to come to Canada anytime soon, but what is "the vapourware never never plan"???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Michael where in that do you find any thinking that the "doves" might have prevailed.








IF the Allied culture AND the Japanese culture were different PERHAPS and alternative approach MIGHT have worked.

One comment stands out
"this criticism may be the product of too much hindsight"
MacArthur didn't even think the bomb would suffice.

I'm just reading "Hirohito" and it's very clear from this in depth look that the Emperor was very concerend about his post war position and power and without him - no surrender was possible for the Japanese. It's a fascinating but very dense book.
In this case "it happened ...deal with it" is appropriate. It was a decision not taken lightly and given the opposing cultures - likely WAS life saving - in particular - those of the Allies.

The better question is...how culpable was the US in creating the conditions for war inthe Pacific and did Roosevelt ignore warnings of Pearl Harbor in order to draw the US into the war in Europe.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

G5s were announced on June 23rd - none has materialized.
The Powerbook line is overdue and no 15" around and no announcement
Apple reversed course and offered NEW dual boot towers but try and find any.
= Vapourware IMNSHO


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

MacDoc,

I will edit by way of explanation.
I see Schwarzenegger as a self-aggrandizing egomaniac who in his professional capacity promotes the use of overwhelming lethal force to solve problems. 
Even if fictional, many Americans cannot differentiate the known Hollywood Schwartzenegger from the unknown political animal.
The possibility that an adolescent mind with the voice of Heinz Kissinger can rise to political popularity on the basis of his screen image is revolting enough to me to use the name "Adolf" to express my utter revulsion.
I did not intend humour ...... rather horror with those teeth  from hell!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

macspectrum, 

What makes you think I didn't read the link?

Have a great day.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A well written and very well thought out commentary on the use of the atomic bomb, macdoc.

I agree wholeheartedly that this was "the only way" to end the conflict in short order. I also recall that we were still discovering lone Japanese soldiers on tiny islands, (proudly wearing tattered uniforms and waving rusty swords) in the Pacific, right into the seventies, who were STILL ready to fight and die for the Emperor and the homeland.

God only knows how many millions would have died...on BOTH sides... had we tried to invade the Japanese home islands in a conventional way.   

The clincher to all of this is that...even after we had totally destroyed a whole city with a previously unknown weapon of horrific proportions...they STILL didn't surrender! It took a second demonstration of this tremendously destructive weapon, AND a near palace coup at the highest levels of what passed for "government" in the warlord-run non-democracy that was old Japan before unconditional surrender was acheived.  

And what America did next with their conquered and humbled foe should be a lesson to all of the naysayers out there who insist upon bashing away at our friends to the south. Read your history. Or talk to a Japanese citizen who survived the whole mess and can give you a firsthand account.

There's LOT'S of them out here! Ask them and they'll clear you up on the details, trust me.

And...guess what? The terrible Yankee Imperialists come out looking pretty darned good, when all is said and done.   

Certainly better than any other "conquering power" that I can recall reading about from the past.

Makes you think, eh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure just ask the Hawaiians.







or the Mexicans or even native Americans.

Japanese society took a deep breath and rebuilt itself differently with help from the Allies and teh lessons of Versaille were in general understood

especially by a certain little Democrat from Missouri.

One man can influence history in a major way - Truman did - do you think Dewey would have done the same...not a hope.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Hawaiians have had a rough time of it, no doubt.

I wonder what would have happened if some _other_ country besides the US had invaded their little island paradise. Would they be able to vote? Own land? Would they even still be alive right now?

Hmmmm....

As for the Mexicans, considering how many flood into the US each year looking to improve their lives and "make their fortune" I have a tough time seeing the States as anything truly evil. Sorry.

And no one can predict what someone who was never elected might have done if they had been in office during any given period in time. (I suspect that Dewey would have been a bust, though).

Japan rebuilt itself with a huge amount of benign assistance from the US. The Americans could have stripped what was left of the place and crushed it under their collective bootheel. Kept it poor and destitute and unable to make war ever again.

Certainly that's what some other invading powers MIGHT have done.  

But they decided to set the place up for sucess, instead. They beat it down to submission and then inflicted peace, democracy and prosperity on the Japanese. 

"Most Favored Nation" trading status and a massive influx of orders for products from a rich North America gave the Japanese all they needed to bring themselves back from oblivion.

It could easily have gone the other way. The Americans could have collectively decided that any products produced by a former hated enemy were taboo. Especially in the beginning, when the Japanese were producing cheap crap in wrecked factories.

I wonder how far they'd have gotten...and if they'd be where they are today...if the US hadn't given them a real boost when they needed it?

It's kind of like predicting what would have happened if Dewey were elected instead of Truman.

We may never know. Thank God.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> *
> As for the Mexicans, considering how many flood into the US each year looking to improve their lives and "make their fortune" I have a tough time seeing the States as anything truly evil. Sorry.
> *


Sigh. Big Sigh. I suppose I <u>could</u> take the next hour to compose a long and revealing discussion of the vagaries of international trade imbalances, the onerous effects of international debt payments, the toxic impact of US manufacturing plants (_maquiladoras_) upon the Mexican environment, and a host of other reasons for Mexicans to emigrate every year to the U.S.A., but somehow I doubt any of it would sink in. That's the problem with dealing with people on "the Right," - their obstinancy and refusal to see the light frustrates "the Left" all to hell, and we become exhausted to the point of saying, "why bother?". The Right then always gets the last word...

FWIW, check out two films: (1) "El Norte" which follows an indigenous brother and sister from Guatemala who, following the slaughter of their village by the U.S.-supported regime, make their way (no small irony) to the U.S. in search of "streets paved with gold" and find instead poverty, horrible working conditions for unprotected labour, and discrimination. (2) "The Global Assembly Line" - a bit dated, but an incredibly sad and infuriating look at the Maquiladoras and the rich white bastards who run them.

 
M


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes Mark...I already know what all the leftist pamphlets and papers say about the horrible plight of the poor Mexicans.

But, having spent a considerable amount of time in and around Mexico since 1977, I just have to say that it is in far better shape these days than it has ever been. There is a LOT more money in the hands of the average person than there was twenty years ago, and prices are already starting to reflect that fact.

And there were a huge number of illegal immigrants from that country trying to get into the States long before the maquiladores became an economic force.

If anything, Mexico's newfound prosperity has actually slowed the flow slightly. I have even heard from friends who still live there that whole families are moving back to Mexico from California. they bring well-educated kids and a whole bunch of cash with them when they come.

Also, they've come to expect a fairer shake from their government and far less corruption while in the US...and they bring THAT home with them too.  

Mexico is still not at North American levels when it comes to pretty much everything...but it's heading in that direction fast.

(I wonder what evil empire inflicted that sort of prosperity upon them, eh?)


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

Wonder no more. It was Fox. But he'll be kicked out at the next election — big business and George W. hate him — and Mexico will revert.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Can I quote you on that? For future reference?

The last I heard, George W. was on pretty good terms with Presidente Fox. They had a visit at the President's Texas ranch, if memory serves, and George W. honored the Mexican President by conducting at least part of that meeting in Spanish (he's quite fluent BTW).

Wouldn't it be nice if our own highly esteemed Canadian King of Kings were to be invited to actually visit the President's southern White House for a friendly chat? Seems to me that he's the only major world leader who hasn't been there yet. ( I wonder why)









BTW...the reforms and prosperity in Mexico started way before Fox was elected. It was as a result of these changes and the new expectations among the Mexican public that _caused_ them to cast off their long-term ruling party and move toward a true democracy for the first time in many decades.

I only hope we can accomplish the same here in Canada. It's certainly long overdue.


----------



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

Ummm.... there hasn't exactly been a parade of dignitaries through the Texan white ranch. Mainly a collection of politicans who bent over when asked. I don't recall the premiers/prime ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Japan or China hob-nobbing in the dusty State.

George W. has several significant weaknesses as a politician. One of these is his inability to politic. In other words, you are unlikely to change minds if you are unwilling to meet people who publically disagree with you. Apparently, George W. believes that friends should always agree with you. As a consequence, he's surrounded by his own ilk and is constantly surprised when his actions aren't applauded by the international community.


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

The bloom fell off the Bush-Fox love fest before the Mexican election. So Chrétien and Fox have to make do with pot luck instead of being forced to fawn all over Georgy and praise his truck drahvin' to earn cutsie nicknames and a steak dinner. But times are tough all over.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Wouldn't it be nice if our own highly esteemed Canadian King of Kings were to be invited to actually visit the President's southern White House for a friendly chat? Seems to me that he's the only major world leader who hasn't been there yet. ( I wonder why) "

cuz he's got better sense.

Why do you always think economic migration factors covey some sort of blessed status on an area.








There are gold rushes all the time and the US does a pretty good job of exploiting cheap labour on both sides of the border.

Bush is a horror for the world and the US and the world will be better off without him.  

You want a prediction - here's one for you.
The middle east is going down in flames including Saudi Arabia.
10 years at the most before it's incredibly worse than now, my guess is 2-3 years. It'll take a decade, if ever, to undo the international damage Bush has done to America.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay macdoc, that sounds like a challenge!   

I'll take you up on it! Here are _my_ predictions:

2-3 years from now Iraq will be far more stable than it is today. The last of the old baathists will have been rooted out and Saddam himself will be either dead or in custody. Ditto for Usama bin Laden.

The Iraqis will be organised and generally intolerant of any outside sh*traisers who might want to drop by and screw up their fragile infrastructure by blowing up water lines and powerplants (as has been happening this past week). They will, once again, have a real police force and an army to help protect them from this sort of nonsense.

And the Americans, under George W., will have been the ones who have made this all happen.

Iran will have convulsed under the weight of continuous pro-democracy rioting and will finally cast off the mullahs. That country, too, will be well on the rocky road to peace and prosperity. Votes will be counted in both countries and people elected to higher office by the will of the citizens of those lands.

Saudi Arabia will also be in the throes of massive change. That's the one place that I see great danger. It could easily become a very ugly situation if things go badly. I can imagine US/coalition troops being deployed _from_ bases in Iraq _into_ Saudi Arabia to quell the instability. (quite a change from today,eh?)

Israel will most likely have settled down quite a bit by then. The Palestinian Authority...who used to silently advocate and finance all sorts of terrorist activities under Yassir Arafat...is today publicly, and loudly, condemning those very same acts and officially cutting themselves off from Hamas and other similar groups. (also quite a change from the past,eh?)

Ten to fifteen years from now the whole middle east will be a very different place. It will be "on the move" toward a better future and terrorist acts will be not tolerated by the vast majority of the people in that region. (They will be far too busy making money and having better lives to spend time blowing each other up.)  

I'll go a little farther and say that North and South Korea will be re-unified by that time (probably sooner). They will, after a period of rebuilding the ruined infrastructure of the formerly communist North, become the newest and most aggressive of the "Asian Tigers". China will be a major economic force on the planet by then and a free democracy. Japan will be busy trying to deal with a rapidly shrinking economy and will have become (like many European countries) a "twilight power" due to an aging population with far less workers and far more retirees. They will have trouble financing all of their social programs...and will be looking for elusive answers while borrowing heavily to pay for it all.

As will Canada. We are in the very same demographic boat.  

The USA will still be taking in thousands of the world's best and brightest and will STILL be the dominant power on the planet. Probably even more so than they are today. 

And the Americans of 2020-2025 will look fondly back on George W. Bush in the same way that they look back on Ronald Reagan today. As a man who had resolve and made a real difference...and who changed the world and made it better.

Reagan ended the tyranny of communism and freed hundreds of millions of people through his shrewd moves. George W. will be remembered as the one President who actually managed to finally resolve the terrible situation in the middle east and put an end to all of the violence through _his_ shrewd moves.

And the naysayers who predicted doom and gloom about _both_ will be forgotten voices of the distant past. Desperate people who were desperately trying to hang on to a bunch of old tired ideas...and trying to discredit anyone who threatened all that they held near and dear.

That's my take on this, for what it's worth.   

And I invite any and all who are interested to print this out and save it. Then come back and call me on it in ten or fifteen years.

I'll be here, waiting patiently.

Trust me on this.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

As an aside, I was out with some friends tonight and asked them what they thought of someone calling Arnold Schwarzenegger "Adolph Schwarzenegger". The consensus? It's incredibly racist. 

What's funny (or sad) is no one else on ehMac (save macdoc) seems to agree


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

jfpoole,

The possibility that an adolescent mind with the voice of Heinz Kissinger can rise to political popularity on the basis of his screen image is revolting enough to me to use the name "Adolf" to express my utter revulsion.
(ibid)


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macello,

That doesn't make it any less racist.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree totally Posterboy. It is a racist comment and should be regarded as such by any thinking individual.  

If the people of California can choose a Democrat to run their state...and if said Democrat makes a huge mess of it (as he has) then the people of California can choose a guy from the other side of the political fence to take over and correct the problems...

WITHOUT being called names.  

And, if he doesn't actually FIX the problems and return the State to it's former prominence, then I will be the very FIRST to point this out...and call for his head on a stick!!

Promise!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

perhaps this might serve you as a reminder about "meddling".

Timeline 










While I might like to HOPE you are correct I find it extremely unlikely.

It took a mere 400 years to get Ireland to a semblance of peace with immense common ground to work from.
A thousand years for western Europe to unite.

The edges between the Middle East and Europe have been fighting for 3 thousand years.

Scotland, England and Ireland..as YOU well know have not entirely settled their differences.

NOW you give me THAT prediction









There IS a clash of civiiizations and a semi-literate bumpkin from Texas IS NOT going to solve it.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Racist against whom? .... certainly not intended in my anti-nazi comment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macello .....Well then edit it as you are dealing with a number of people including myself who consider it in extremely poor taste and undeserved in the least. 
If you didn't intend it, then change it, cuz it can't be read any other way. People are CLEARLY telling you what they are PERCEIVING and that my friend is what you have to deal with.
••••••

Macnutt that was a good clear statement - just remember who Arnie's wife is before gloating over where in the political spectrum the Schwarznegger family falls  
A Kennedy and and Republican - sounds pretty centrist - just what California and the US needs - some "in harness" consensus to deal with the issues NOT the politics.

There's no way Arnie can "fix" California's ills but he just might get enough concensus to start dealing effectively with the issues. Those problems indeed are a microcosm of what the US and the world will face or in some cases are currently try to resolve.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, the picture of the Vietnam Memorial was quite fitting at this juncture of the discourse. You might find this essay of interest, in that I recall all too well the political courage shown by Wayne Morse of Oregon, and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. Lest we forget our own history.

http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/pica_essay_winner_2003.html


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

I have edited my offensive post with respect to the ehMac community.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G that's one underlying confidence if you like I have in the US that tho they may swing wildly from time to time they do indeed swing eventually from extremes like McCarthyism.

Individuals with courage and conviction, Nader, Sinclair Lewis, FDR, King, Chavez to name just a few have challenged and changed the status quo.

My real concern is that there appears so little effective opposition to Bush's policies WITHIN the US.

Do you think it's possible the "failed" electoral process in the last election really disenchanted and disheartened those that would seek a different role for the US in the world???
Macello seems to think they are being muzzled in a not so subtle form of shunning - could this be the case??


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, I remember saying at my trial, which was determine if I was to be given a Conscientious Objector draft status, in response to a question as to whether I beleived in the phrase "America, love it or leave it" and "My country, right or wrong", relying that I believed in a different phrase. I replied "America, change it or lose it" and "America, when it is right, to help keep it right, and when it was wrong, to help put it right". These might seem to be trite phrases now, but back in 1970, many of us were playing for keeps. I recall the last thing I said at the trial when asked what I would do if my CO status was denied. I replied that I didn't know. Then, one of the members of the draft board chimed in "Do you know that we have the power to send you to jail?" To this I replied, with knees trembling, "You have the power to send me to jail, but not the right. If being in jail is the only place where my body and beliefs can be together then so be it." I don't recall how I managed to stand up while saying this, because I was never so afraid in all my life (and I have experienced a 3AM "visit" by the KKK in Coy, Alabama).

Don't know why I went into all of that with you, my friend. Maybe because today is the 33rd anniversary of that trial. Such is Life.

And how is Life treating you, mon ami?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ringoleveo....a life played for keeps, indeed it was then......and sometimes now.

I'm much better - a rough patch in June/July which tested my resilience but aside from Apple's inability to provide hardware things are much improved.....not that anything has changed - just a lift of spirits in getting some issues on the road to being resolved.  

Thanks for asking and I AM interested in the online teaching scene - I read a very interesting article about MITs great open course project and I was quite engaged.
In Wired ths month.
Canadians were high on the list of those that access it.

Fill me in by email where you might see an opportunity for me if only ona couple hours a day basis to "get my feet wet".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, Rinoleveo..........now there is a "blast from the past". Social Darwinism at it's ultimate -- survive or die.....do NOT get caught and victory is for the swift AND intelligent. In that game, at least by New York City rules, it was "death before dishonor" (e.g., quitting to go home to eat or a piano lesson).

You might try one of the universities in the TO area. I know that I was approached by York to offer one of my web courses for them, which was in literacy education. They might see your expertise and want to "tap into it" via helping you develop and offer a web course in some area of technology, philosophy, etc. Give it a try.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I wonder, macdoc, just how much influence Arnie's noteable (democrat) wife will actually have on his time in the Governor's mansion?

And what sort of "centering" influence his infamous inlaws will be able to exert, should he become the leader of the seventh largest economy on the planet? (used to be the fifth largest, but you know what happens when you start pandering to Big Labour and all...) 









Arnie's a pretty solid Republican by nature. His socially liberal tendencies are pretty much in line with a whole whack of the rest of us "right-wing ********" in this particular generation.

We are not our fathers. 

Do not mistake fiscally conservative thought (many of us call it "reality") with some sort of radical deep-south type of right wing radicalism.

That crap has been dying for decades. As well it should.

And I think that Maria Shriver and her whole terribly flawed clan of scandal-ridden sleazeoids will just be along for the ride. Arnie will be steering the big boat. No doubt about it.

Who knows? The Kennedy's might...if they watch and learn (and curb their notorious tendencies toward excess and buffoonery) actually begin to emerge from the sidelines. They might actually show the sort of spark that was once their birthright. They might...after a few generations...actually become a _relevant_ force for all that is good. 

They could...with a bit of coaching...become _republicans_ !! 
















Hope springs eternal.


----------



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

macnutt notes: "Arnie's a pretty solid Republican by nature...."

Hmmm.... is this the new definition of a Republican Party?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim..certainly a whole bunch of the more hardline Republicans view Arnie's stance on abortion and same sex marriage as pure heresy. There has been a bunch of talk about how he is not a "true Republican" in the old sense of the term. There is even talk of not supporting him in this most important election bid.

(BTW...you DO know that all of us get together and discuss these things, right? It's that "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" that Hillary Clinton claimed was responsible for all of her hubby's sexual indescretions . We meet every second thursday. We plan what direction we are going to steer the whole world and how to crush the spirit of the working man over coffee and donuts. They show Ronald Regan westerns at break time.)
















Seriously....most Republican/right-wing conservatives that I know are busily cheering Arnie on. We are all hoping that he wins in October.

And pretty much nobody thinks that Congress will ever change the rules to allow him to run for President. Sorry.

Fiscal conservatism...running the State or the Nation...as a business that can't just borrow billions to finance a lavish lifestyle and pay for pie-in-the-sky social programs. That is what the vast majority of us "right-wing ********" want to see.

One-time or short-term deficits to finance something necessary...like new powerplants or a war against terrorism for example...is just fine. And is even easier if you aren't already borrowing huge sums to pay for day to day stuff that you can't actually afford.

Low taxes, less government, no unions, more personal responsibilty and more freedom. THAT'S what today's Republican/Right is looking for.

And Arnie seems ready to deliver on that promise. Let's hope he gets the chance.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It seems to me the Corporate welfare the right passes to its friends is much worse than the social welfare of the left.  

Clinton left the books in a better balance than Senior or the road of financial ruin of Jr.


----------



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

macnutt, did you click on the link to Arnie's past? It was meant to be a humorous pun on the "party"....

Arnie's best comment to date (actually in response to the digging into his past is that (lower voice three octaves) (paraphrased) "I didn't live my life to become a politician".

It's the most intelligent thing I've heard a Republican candidate say!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Big DL...

The vast majority of right-wing/Republican types hate "corporate welfare" as much as you do. It is an unnecessary drain on scarce tax dollars and distorts the marketplace. We are big on free markets, as you might imagine.

You can check out "Scarborough Country" on MSNBC to see what most of us think about this subject. Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman, points out excess and corporate greed every single night. He also deftly skewers some of the looniest of the lefties (while using their own inane words and statements against them) during his scathing interviews. But they just keep on coming back for more. Another thing he's pretty famous for is pointing out pork barrel programs on both sides of the political fence and holding them up for public ridicule.

We LIKE this guy!    

Try catching his nightly program. It might just clarify to some of you exactly what is...and what is NOT...a part of the mainstream Right, here in the twenty-first century.

But, be careful....after watching that show for a while, some of you might just want to "switch" and come into the light....er right.   

(Now...where have I heard that before? Hmmmmm)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Way to go. Being against Corporate welfare is easy for the right. Everyone on the right is against it in public anyway.  








What time is this cheerleader on MSNBC.Who knows I might be entertained. It scares my wife sometimes what I will watch for entertainment. I will watch red neck TV just for the Bubba value.









I don’t usually watch CNN or MSNBC. CNN on account of editorial tone. MSNBC just because of.. of... the darkside MS.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

StarChoice runs it at 7PM on channel 511 (that's the MSNBC channel) and it's repeated a couple of other times later in the evening. "Hardball" with Chris matthews is also worth a watch...as is "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann. All are a pretty good watch and a great take on where the majority of the people in North America (yes...I did say majority) are headed in their thinking.

And it's hardly "*******, Bubba television" 









Watch it and see for yourself. And...after you've watched "Scarborough Country" a few times, and seen just exactly how he deals with BOTH sides of an issue...then come back and tell me that our own beloved CBC or the Toronto Star is truly _unbiased_ .

It might just change your mind on a few things.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hilarious you do such a wonderful job of talking up the center. Fiscal AND social responsibility















Macnutt you are doing a wonder job off chopping your way into the middle, just where your intellgence, common sense and good heartedness is leading your red neck by it's scruff......kicking and wailing the whole way.  

You know very well the corporate bandits have been the worst aspect of the last decade...labour lost it's cred a while back..private has done a great job lately of blowing THEIR credibility.
Checks, balances and oversight needed and perhaps a few governmentleaders who don't need to toady to ANY speical interest groups.

He's got the money and discipline to do a good job and for all the sleaze of the Kennedy's the Shrivers ARE public servants and Maria WILL have an influence.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ahhh, macdoc...good to hear from you again.   

I see we're pushing the old "centering" thing once again, eh?
















I take that to mean that I have somehow changed the very principles that I believe in...modified my personal and political beliefs to reflect some "new reality" over the past few years? Moved from the far right to the "center"?

Nothing could be further from the truth, my friend  

Back in my early twenties, when I was a longhaired pot smoker/artist who was a part of a union workforce in a factory during my day job (surprised?) I had a great deal more tolerance for Government spending programs and public welfare, etc. I didn't care where the money was coming from...just so long as I got my piece of the pie.

Then I landed a job in the oilpatch during one of the many work stoppages that seemed to hit all of the unionised workforces during the early seventies.

That job took me to the far corners of the world for years at a time. I had to live in foriegn countries and deal with all sorts of governments on a day to day basis. Canada was a distant place for me in those days.

It was a real eye-opener, lemme tell ya. (boy howdy!)

By the time I settled back in Canada (four years ago, this coming January) I was solidly in the "right-wing" camp. In fact...I was a dues paying member of the Texas Republican party way back in 1981. (they didn't seem to mind that I was Canadian)

And you know what? I haven't changed my opinion on what I call "reality" (and you call "*******") politics for the last twenty or so years. Not one little bit.

But I sure have watched a large part of the world move toward my side of the fence over the last two decades or so.   

And if you choose to call this "centering" then have at it! I don't care WHAT you call it....

Just so long as it continues.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macnutt when you said "StarChoice runs it at 7PM on channel 511 (that's the MSNBC channel)". I will understand that as "Local" time Pacific Time Zone.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah Macnutt the French would admire you

"
If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is
not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head" 
-- Georges Clemenceau, Former French Prime Minister and one-time

Plastered up against the right wing it might indeed seem things are moving in your direction - course they could hardly move the other direction from where you are standing









Trouble is the world has moved on - lopping off the edges as irrelevant.
It's a multiplex rainbow world these days where dogma has little sway and those who wish to get into power or stay in power had better be not far off centre or they are quickly turfed.

So those skid marks on under your heels are just from you being dragged into the 21st century by your own common sense, and perhaps a big of youthful idealism still bubbling to the surface.

You see the NDP fading - yes the NDP that allied itself with Labour is indeed going, BUT it is renewing itself without labour.
Cities and infrastrcture need mending.
The Tories got a whack in NS and it wasn't the Liberals.
Jack Layton will bring a lot of Ontario voters by his championing of Toronto - half the economic activity in CANADA flows through Toronto and make no mistake the GTA is PISSED at Mel and Eves and the Feds.

Labour is not an issue here, infrastructure and socially responsible government at ALL levels is.
Ontario wants money to be spent, NOT tax cuts.
We HAVE the wealth here to have our infrastructure world class and that's the issue here. The Tories are seen as being a big party to the dismantling of that.
They went too far in correct budgets and overspending and damaged the superstructure of the province.
Eves is handing out pork like crazy, spending like a mad fool but it's very unlikely to ...sorry for the pun "save his bacon"

"Tories on $2.4B pre-vote spending spree
Cheque deliveries made almost daily
Election call likely just days away


CAROLINE MALLAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
In the five months leading up to Wednesday's expected election call, Ontario's Progressive Conservative politicians have fanned out across the province on a $2.4 billion spending spree.

Premier Ernie Eves, his cabinet ministers and backbenchers have been on cheque delivery missions virtually every day since the April 1 start of the fiscal year, according to a detailed analysis of the Tory government's spending promises conducted by the Star.

In the one-week period before the blackout struck Ontario on Thursday, Aug. 14, Eves and his cabinet had doled out $96.3 million. By Aug. 19, the spending had resumed and another $163.4 million in promises were made by the end of business yesterday, not including the $75 million committed for blackout-related bills and the $1 billion in low-interest loans promised to municipalities.

Yesterday alone, Conservative ministers and MPPs added another $57.5 million to the pile of promises.

The pace of announcements — and the financial commitments that come with them — hit a fever pitch over the spring and summer, with more than 300 news releases being issued by the Conservative government since April 1.

The endless stream of spending news coming out of the government recently — and where those announcements are being made — appears to prove the adage that all politics is local politics.

Before any party can form a government, its members need to get elected in their home communities. 

To that end, Tory incumbents have been front and centre for most of the coveted cheque presentations.

The money has also poured into ridings that the Tories consider to be "in play," where they believe they have a strong chance of winning the next vote." Tory Pork 

Is that good government Macnutt.?? No, it's desperation.  

There is wealth in Canada and voters have very little faith in ANY right wing organization to handle it in the manner the general populace wants.
Even the biz community is disgusted in Ontario. They too need infrastructure to be able to operate in a reliable environment.

New York Water Tunnel #3 

THIS is what I'm talking about.
Long term infrastructure handled without corruption and financed by Municipal Bonds.

Private may participate in the contruction, in the funding but NOT in the planning oversight and running it.

"Completion of Water Tunnel No. 3 will ensure the reliability of New York City's water delivery system well into the 21st century."

These are not the kind of mammoth long term projects the private sector is good at.but this is the kind of project that voters want undertaken ....responsibly.
FDR did it an put America back to work at the same time.

Who presided over the lead up to teh 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression

Warren G. Harding	Calvin Coolidge	1921-1923	Republican

Calvin Coolidge	Charles G. Dawes	1923-1929	Republican

Herbert C. Hoover	Charles Curtis	1929-1933	Republican"

why am I not surprised.
 

Macnutt you grew out of your adolescent idealism, perhaps it's time to take a mature look at the "Republican" phase - you might just "grow " out that too.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, you are a poet at heart (and I say this with the utmost compliment in mind). You sound like a modern-day Bob Dylan when you write "It's a multiplex rainbow world these days where dogma has little sway and those who wish to get into power or stay in power had better be not far off centre or they are quickly turfed."

Yes, as the song says, "For the times they are a changing." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You never can supress an English major eh -  actually Eric Anderson was a better folk singer and writer than Dylan.
He just wasn't interested in being a big star.
Wrote, performed then got married and had kids all withoout the braggadocio that kept Dylan in the spotlight. Never could see what people saw in Dylan.







Eric wrote and produced 21 Albums of orginal work and is still going strong.

Eric could entertain and inform mightly with his voice, a harmonica and a guitar. There was a terrific underlying world view that struck chords with me. His Bio will likely bring back many memories for you.
The album 'Today is the Highway" is probably my favorite.
I think you'll love the poetry in the lyrics
Lyrics 

Today is the Highway         (Eric Andersen)   [Albums: Today is the Highway] 

Is the grass still growin' green upon the meadow, 
Is the sand still soft where the tidal rivers flow-- 
   Do the redwoods ever ask you where I've been 
   Do they ask you where went their lonely friend? 
Please tell them for me I still remember them. 
Please tell them they taught me what I know. 

I remember that night I walked the floor, 
From nowhere your face was at my door-- 
   You brought to me a joy words can't explain, 
   As if your presence was a feeling without a name. 
My love, it is a night I still remember, 
When your breathin' stole the sound from the ocean's roar. 

(instrumental) 

Do you see my face in the rain that's fallin' freely, 
Do you hear my voice in the whisperin' of the trees-- 
   Do you taste my love in a glass of wine, 
   Do you touch your heart and feel the beat of mine? 
Upon this darkened roadway your love will always shine, 
For today is the highway and tomorrow is the time. "

I had hitchiked all across Canada when "Today is the Highway" came out and the lonesome feeling of the wide space came through in his voice and words. He very much embodies for me the spirit of the 60s, the BEST of the 60s.









Lots more here on Eric, his bio and music


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, I recall hearing Eric Anderson's "Ghosts Upon The Road", when I was home to visit my mom in NYC back in 1990. It brought back memories of going "mano y mano" with my Draft Board back in 1970. Yes, it is true that time is "...glimpsed in a rear view mirror" for many of us at certain times in our lives. C'est la vie.

Just before my trial, a friend and I travelled from the Quebec/NY State border to Winnipeg, and then back again. I guess we both had thoughts of staying in Canada, but neither of us spoke of these possible thoughts until two years ago. He and I also hitch hiked across the US and back the following year. I then hitch hiked around Europe the year after that journey. I guess this is why it seems strange being in one place this long...............as I start my 27th year as a professor at Memorial on Sept.3rd.


----------



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

Hey macdoc, we do have the deep lake cooling pipe project (not that the Tories had anything to do with it). It always beats me why Toronto canned the subway extensions with the city growing so much (yet finished the 4 km line to Fairview Mall!). I guess it was Mel's land owners that pushed it through.

We've a choice. Lower taxes and buy all of the services yourself (and screw the unfortunates who can't afford them), or pay into the community at a level commensurate to your affordability and benefit from planning.

Of course, the reduced government income from the first scenario is typically eroded by the need to bolster anti-crime and military spending, further reducing the provision of basic infrastructure.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually Jim, the two choices are;

1-"Do we live within our budget, and only go into deficit spending for brief periods in order to fund things we really need?"

2-"Do we live beyond our means and fund that by increasing taxes and constant borrowing to make up the shortfall?"

Choice number one means that most of the time the whole budget can be used to fund whatever sorts of programs the government of the day chooses to support.

Choice number two means that the higher taxes will be chasing some of the best and brightest away (that's been happening for years) and it also means that a signifigant portion of the budget will have to be spent on interest payments on the accumulated debt. It will not be available for schools, roads, hospitals, mega powerprojects, etc.

(I believe that we are currently spending about thirty-five cents of each Federal tax dollar for interest payments on the National Debt. If we weren't doing that...just think what we could do with all that money.)

On top of all that, one has to look at what's facing us in the very near future;

The largest and richest single group of taxpayers are just about to begin retiring. The will likely be paying a lot less taxes after they do. They will also likely begin to use a LOT more health care dollars at the very same time.

The Federal Government has managed to show a "surplus" for a few years now...but we still have a huge overlying accumulated debt that requires large interest payments.

The provinces are also saddled with large debt loads (except Alberta) and all have seen large portions of their budgets eaten up by the downloading of health care costs from Ottawa. (that was Chretien's way of "balancing the budget")

Add to that the fact that pretty much all of the Provinces (with a very few exceptions) are currently buying electricity to meet demand at peak periods...without planning any new power generating facilities for the future. (even here in Hydro-powered BC, we are buying at peak demand periods).

So...debt loads and servicing costs are high...taxes are already very high (some of the highest in the western world) and we have a looming crisis in health care funding and electrical shortfall staring us in the face.

And nobody seems to want to deal with the big question. Where the heck is the money going to come from to pay for all of this?   

Borrow more? LOTS more?(and watch even larger parts of the budget eaten up in interest payments)

Tax more? (and chase more businesses...and some of our brightest citizens away?)


Oh...and then there is the Kyoto Accord to deal with.

That little gem ought to add...rather signifigantly...to the cost of pretty much EVERYTHING. And I mean *EVERYTHING*   

So, the question here isn't if we can afford to have all of the things we'd really like to have....it's whether we can really afford to have all of the things we have right now.

And, more importantly...how do we pay for it all?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes that cooling project is excellent. Isn't that a consortium with the government guaranteeing a certain amount of use to kick it off?? That's a good methodology.
Toronto the cool 

What's the story behind the CNE Windmill??


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes that cooling project is excellent. Isn't that a consortium with the government guaranteeing a certain amount of use to kick it off?? That's a good methodology.
Toronto the cool 

What's the story behind the CNE Windmill??


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"So, the question here isn't if we can afford to have all of the things we'd really like to have....it's whether we can really afford to have all of the things we have right now.
And, more importantly...how do we pay for it all? "

That's actually a good summary of the problem Macnutt tho' the editorials are of course predictable.  

Regardless of political persuasion is will require leadership, vision and careful management of resources.

Despite your griping we've got the best economy in the G8 and a better manager coming on board.

Leadership, reasonable expectations and oversight will all be factors.

Where the private sector comes into play is in providing a judgemental eye on government performance through bond ratings.
Where it does not is in adding profit factors into essential services - the nightmare that exists in the US.
Voluntary taxes like those on booze, cigs and gambling all help pay for services.
Taxing gasoline and fuel to pay for infrastructure.
Reducing government layers and waste ( the GTA really needs a Hazel right now in this area ).
Reducing our individual load on the healthcare, energy, water sectors.

BTW I think the hwole concept of retirement is about to take a huge fundamental shift - it's just not a sustainable idea with current demographics.

My dad is going to be collection retirement funds from Inco for longer than the 33 years he worked there  

Idiotic benefits like pensions after 6 years as an MLA or MP will have to be trimmed by a government with some leadership in mind.

The huge gap between executive and line worker incomes, public service salaries like the obscenity that was Clitheroe need oversight and correction.

We HAVE the wealth already in Canada, managing it well requires efforts at all levels.
There is no quick or easy answer.

Quebec has some very interesting lessons for the rest of Canada and Charest is the right guy.
Good cooperation between Quebec and Ontario can power the rest of Canada through almost any conceivable scenario and Alberta BC have immense resources yet to be fully realized.

A unified country without the interprovincial scrapping is really needed.

You may not like Kyoto but it's going ahead and we do have the resources for it. You worry far too much about losing jobs.
Europe has been getting by for years in a very different energy situation than we have here. We'll live.
Yes there will be dislocations but those are inevitable and need to be managed.

I worry far more about the US - they need huge infrastructure - the schools alone need 60 billion in improvements and Bush spend 100 billion on a just plain stupid war.

Canada's opportunity over the next half century will be in supplying resources to the US - without getting ripped off in the process.

We have the wealth, we have a unified country for once, hopefully leadership is up to the task.

Ontario's election will be an interesting bellweather for the next decade.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree that management...really good management..is crucial in the coming years if we want to maintain what we've already got.

I disagree with your assertion that "we have the wealth".

Sorry. The numbers, and our lifestyles, are based upon infirm ground. Much of what we have...and many of the wonderfuil social services that we have enjoyed...were paid for by a massive debt that is still draining away more than a third of all money that the government takes in every day.

That's not going to go away, either.

And it will get a lot worse when the baby boomers stop paying into the tax system and start draining our already scarce health resources. (unless they decide to start paying for at least a part of it out of their own pockets. But that wasn't the "promise" now was it)

As for the statement that Canada has the best economy in the G8....hogwash. All of the recent figures I've seen point to a big drop in our economic outlook and I think that most of this so-called "prosperity" is based on fancy bookkeeping by the corrupt Federal liberals anyway.

What's the bet that our "king-in-waiting" will have some cruel news for all of us once he assumes the throne?

Even if he doesn't...and even if it's anywhere near as good as you claim...that is a snapshot of the last year or two. You know...when all the baby boomers are still gainfully employed and are mostly not sick with the infirmities of old age.

It certainly is NOT a picture of what the Canadian economy will look like in 2010-2025. Sorry.

As for the economic effects of Kyoto (there will be no measureable effects on anything else BTW...just on the economy)...you have no idea what adding yet another layer of costs will do to everyone and everything.

I can't understand why any manufacturer who is presently in Canada would NOT want to move operations a few miles south to avoid this sort of extra tariff on business. And it means that the reduced tax base that we will be grappling with in the future will have yet another huge drain put on it...just when it's already stretched past the breaking point.

So...yet again I ask.

Where's the money coming from?

We know we won't have as much to work with. It's a demographic certainty. And we will have radically higher costs at that point...even without the Kyoto Accord.

Do we do what Canadian governments did for decades? Do we borrow masses of money just to pay the daily bills? Do we increase taxes to unprecedented levels to pay for it all?

How about both...at the same time?

Care to speculate how vibrant our economy would be at that point?

Sorry macdoc...but simply making soothing sounds and saying that "we will work it all out" is just not good enough. These are very hard choices that will have to be made...and very soon...if we want to retain any of what we have right now.

And there is no spare money for nonsense programs that have no real effect on anything except to waste huge amounts of money. Not now, and certainly not in the future.(I will post a list of these if anyone's interested).

Oh...and one last thing. I wonder which side of the political fence will produce the solutions to these looming problems. Which side will be able to pull out some of their long-standing policies and ideals and deploy them to fix all of this? And which side will have to grudgingly admit, yet again, that their policies have to be "modified to fit the new reality".  

More "centering" to the right,eh? 

(careful you don't trip over those skidmarks old buddy)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt wealth is not money and you say draining away - draining away to where?- back into the pension funds and bonds.
Canada's balance of payments is healthy, boomers are NOT going to retire, the economy is NOT going to shrink - you seem to forsee this huge army of retirees rocking away in there chairs as the younger crowd slave away.
Hogwash...ain't gonna happen.

What needs restructuring is the ridiculous wealth sink that housing and land represents - it funnels enormous resources away from the circulating economy into static forms of wealth. It's Japan's biggest problem right now.

You dodged entirely the republican presiding over the 1929 crash and Depression.

Money in a bank is not wealth, Sir Adam Becks power station IS, the Hoover Dam IS, the Trans Canadian Highway IS, the water and sewer systems are Wealth...the public weal..remember.
A pile of gold in the middle of a desert is not wealth.....it's useless metal.
Parks, trees, hospitals, universities, and educated peaceful populace, clean drinking water are WEALTH.

We have these and we have the resources to maintain them.
Unlike the US who is squandering it's massive resources in a war, we can and are spending turning resources into wealth HERE.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"The boomers are not going to retire"...

Oh, really? That's probably news to a lot of them, I'd bet!
















Guys like you and me probably aren't planning on retiring any time soon....people who run their own businesses often work well into their twilight years...but the vast majority of our generation are actually planning on hanging it up at some point. And it's going to start happening in the next ten years or so.

They want to be able to sit back, take it easy, and collect some of that loot that they've been paying into their various pension plans for all these decades.  

Trouble is...

As anyone with even a passing grade in math knows, all of our pension plans are based on "pay as you go". That means that the people who are working are actually financing, with their monthly contributions, the checks that are sent out to those who have retired.

That works fine right now, when there are something like fourteen people working for every one person who is retired, but it does not look very good for the future....when there will be about four people working for every retiree.


As for my statement about "draining away scarce health dollars" ...it stands. 

Example: your provincial budget is X amount of dollars. A signifigant chunk is spent on paying interest on the provincial debt. About forty or fifty per cent of what is left goes to pay for state-funded health care. The rest goes to pay government workers wages, build schools, roads, etc.

In a country with an aging population (like Canada) this budget will shrink somewhat as people retire or die off. There are less taxpayers paying less taxes at some point. That is fact...not speculation.

So...your useable budget shrinks. Simple math.

And, at the very same time, this aging population begins using more and more state-funded health care and quite a lot of them begin recieving checks each month from the state (Canada Pension plan). More, in fact, than have EVER collected those benefits in the history of the country.

So, from this smaller budget, you suddenly have to devote a lot more money to health care. We are talking real dollars here...not any fuzzy perception of "wealth".

If, in any given month, roughly fifty people require a certain medical procedure that costs..say...six grand..and your budget is a bit strained trying to provide that service for "free"....then try and imagine how it will look when there are not fifty, but five hundred of those procedures required each month.

How about fifteen hundred?  

Oh...and your budget actually just shrunk while that increase was happening. Whoops...it shrunk again! A few more of the biggest generation just retired or died...and stopped paying into the tax system.

Scary huh?

And, while I tend to agree with you that we have a great deal of wealth in our parks and roadways and whatever...I would really like to see you explain to a Doctor or Nurse how we can't actually pay them any extra money this month, despite the extra work that they have to do...and I would love to see you point out the window at a roadway or a park and say "there is your payment. The wealth of the great land called Canada"

I would also like to see you explain to the average property owner how you are "restructuring the whole land ownership" thing so that it is less of a "money sink".

Remember, the single most valuable item any of us has is our home. It is the biggest investment that most of us will ever make...and takes more of our monthly income to maintain than anything else does.

If you were to tell the average Canadian home-owner that you are planning on somehow changing this equation...well...I'd just like to be there to listen to what they had to say about that.









It could happen that some properties will actually be worth _less_ in the future than they are today. Especially in some of the less-desireable areas. But market forces will take care of that, and people will accept it...just as they have always done. 

But any sort of Government mandated revaluation of real estate will be doomed to utter failure. Unless, of course, we have some sort of Cuban syle revoloution.









Yeah... _that's_ really gonna happen.

Meanwhile...back on this planet...we are still stuck with the quandary of how to pay for a whole LOT more "free" government social programs with a shrinking tax base.

Any real ideas? Anyone?

What would YOU do to solve this?

More importantly...what _will_ you do? Because it is not a hypothetical question. It's real. Too real.

Deal with it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

(note: accidental duplicate post deleted)

[ August 31, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, as a boomer who is 11 from retirement, I find it interesting that my university (Memorial) is considering extending the retirement age until 68. Policy here is 65 and you are out. Now, since it is difficult to get replacements for certain profs teaching in certain areas, it makes more sense to keep these profs teaching.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Certainly the mandatory retirement ages are being extended these days. In some cases, they are being eliminated altogether. This is a good thing.

But, having said that, I should also point out that a very great number of people are planning on retireing when they get to a certain age. Some will also die. It's a generational thing.

And we are the biggest single generation this nation has ever known. We are mortal. We will stop working and stop paying the big taxes and start using the social programs in staggering numbers. Quite soon, by the way.

It will be the biggest single demographic shift in Canadian history. This is fact...not speculation.

And I still haven't heard anyone explain how the heck we are planning on paying for it all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They won't retire because they can't retire -they economy won't support it and many don't want to anyway.
Money circulates - economies grow - it's only when it locks up in a static land structure.
Your cars go out of the economy but it's only when a house gets rebuilt that funds recirculate - $4,000 a linear foot of serviced land in Mississauga is ludicrous and prevents young people from having affordable housing amongst other ills it causes - it's a locked in value due to real estate and bank policies. It's bad for economies.
Money is not wealth...money is simply a medium of value transfer it's not wealth.
Some economies and industries just move money around, others create wealth.
A property developer is a wealth creator an agent simply moves money around , no wealth creation.
Societies where wealth circulates freely and is not concentrated in the hands of a few or sunk into artifical land values is generally a vibrant economy - Hong Kong a few years back.
Poor government policies can greatly hamper economic circulation but equally government stimulus can kick start a stagnant circulation.

Just review for instance on your own Salt Spring Island how low cost living would be if your average property values were 1/10th of what they are.
Think of what the actual dwellings could be transformed into, think of how much would be freed up if all of a sudden 90% of the money sunk into property ( not buildings just land ) values were freed into your local economy. Stores, restaurants, conservation efforts, funds for health, leisure time, public facilities like ppols or tennis courts etc would all be easily attainable if that money came unstuck. ( If for instance the money paid over the last ten years in mortgages had 90% put into a savings fund then used now )

Think about who benefits with the high values.

Many farmers face the exact situation - high land values just handcuffs them.

It's a societal ill with no easy answer and it breeds all manners of problems. When the house or factory or farm represents a small fraction of the underlying land value then taxes get distorted, all sorts of distortions are introduced including municipalites over spending, low income familes being bereft of housing, banks and financing and agents earning unbalanced returns - all locked in.

Take your doctor - he or she wants a large lot in a nice part of town - they work hard they deserve some goodies.
But if just the land represents a million dollars - they want higher wages to afford it..........and the small store owner needs higher prices to cover his rent and around it goes.
Locked value.  Stagnation and societal disruption

Sleepy little NewMarket spent millions on a town hall..........why - land values jumped so they figured they could afford it as a municipality - did they have any real tax base increase in the way of businesses - nope -so they'll pay and pay.

Mayor Hazel on the other hand spent millions on a city hall, arts centre and had the Queen open it.
The difference - she had the business tax base, no debt and the complex is long lived wealth for the community all paid for by the developers and businesses she attracted.
Mississauaga has no debt and excellent facilities, all paid for by smart management of the community getting developers and incoming businesses to pay a fair share of their home base, so we all benefit.

The Calgary Olympics were handled that way, Calgary has wealth in the form of long term facilities and all paid for....Montreal on the other hand









Your wealth in Salt Spring is a great view, clean air, a vibrant community - that's wealth Macnutt - you worked the world and brought money home to buy that wealth.  

The Japanese did the same thing pulling themselves out of the war to the richest society on the planet and then after letting a 6" square of real estate get to $40,000 US and having to deal with two generation mortgages - they have stagnated. Locked up and with their culture little ways of fixing it.
Lots of California's ills can be traced back the same way.

Because of market forces it's a hard trap to avoid - France has some interesting approaches preventing speculation and rapid turn over which tends to force prices up.

London has been subject this and the results are and will be this scenario <a href="http://money.guardian.co.uk/houseprices/story/0,1456,898123,00.html" target="_blank">
Negative equity</a> 

It will be an absolute nightmare.

it's been a problem forever when "landed" income comes into conflict with those that actually produce wealth 

Different age, very similar problem - just sub in Pension funds, banks, real estate companies - anyone who profits from high land values....- my bolding

"The principal contradition in the Chinese feudal society was between the 
peasantry and the landlord class.

* The peasants and the handicraft workers were the basic classes which 
created the wealth and culture of this society.*

The ruthless economic exploitation and political oppression of the 
Chinese peasants forced them into numerous uprisings against landlord 
rule. There were hundreds of uprisings, great and small, all of them 
peasant revolts - 

from the uprisings of Chen Sheng, Wu Guang, Xiang Yu, Liu Bang (F) in the 
Qin Dynasty, 

those of Xin Shi, Ping Lin, Red Eyebrows, the Bronze Horses (G) and the 
Yellow Turbans (H) in the Han Dynasty, 

those of Li Mi and Dou Jian-de (I) in the Sui Dynasty (581AD to 618AD),

those of Wang Xian-zhi and Huang Chao (J) in the Tang Dynasty 
(618AD to 907AD),

those Song Jiang and Fang La (K) in the Sung Dynasty (960AD to 1279AD),

that of Zhu Yuan-chang (L) in the Yuan Dynasty (1206AD to 1368AD),

and that of Li Zi-cheng (M) in the Ming Dynasty (1368AD to 1644AD), 

down to the uprising known as the War of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in 
the Qing Dynasty (1644AD to 1912AD)." 







can we say forever

We tend to admire the guy who builds a factory hires people and creates his wealth in that manner.

Do we equally admire the guy that buys a working farm, sits on it for 20 years then sells it. I think not.

It's not an eay issue for societies and governments to deal with. Japan hasn't yet, neither has London.

Tell me Macnutt for all your admiration of the US do you enjoy walking the South Side of Chicago.

[ August 31, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Sound familiar ........ ?

_'The federal budget deficit will approach half a trillion dollars next year. And that will be followed by huge additional deficits, year after irresponsible year, extending far off into the horizon. And, of course, the baby boomers, the least responsible generation in memory, will soon begin retiring and collecting their Social Security and federal health benefits, leaving the mountains of unpaid bills for the hapless generations behind them.
Imagine if we had done some things differently. If, for example, instead of squandering such staggering amounts of federal money on tax cuts and an ill-advised war, we had invested wisely in some of the nation's pressing needs. What if we had begun to refurbish our antiquated electrical grid, or developed creative new ways to replenish the stock of affordable housing, or really tackled the job of rebuilding and rejuvenating the public schools?"_
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/01/opinion/01HERB.html?hp

Add in ($9 billion/mo op costs, replacement of ordnance wasted on Iraqi civilians, a $90 billion Marshall Plan and a $500 billion tax cut.
Ya wonder how the heck they're planning on paying for it all!









" Operation Tin Cup " is underway with a "donors conference" in Madrid in late October to bring commitments of billions of dollars from reluctant countries, all of which opposed the Iraq war.
"We are really puzzled on how to get more aid from these countries, when they have been refusing now for such a long time," a US official said.









Thank goodness that in Canada we have globally enviable track record of caring for each other regardless of persuasion.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well, macdoc...we _are_ treading the rareified ground of nebulous fantasies..aren't we?

"What if" speculation is all well and good...but I'm still asking the big question:

Where are we going to get the _real_ dollars to pay all of the _real_ bills in the _real_ world that we will have to live in just a few years from now?

Our social programs are about to run into a double whammy...lower revenues and MUCH higher expenditures due to the aging of the Canadian population.

People get old, they get sick. That's not arguable.

Neither is the simple fact that the single largest group of Canadians is rapidly approaching the age when they (we) will all start to suffer from the standard maladies of old age. Each time our huge demographic group has arrived at one of life's little milestones we have rocked the boat by the weight of our sheer numbers.

What makes you think it will be any different when we hit our sixties and seventies? (that's the age when most people seem to need several different medications each day and many also need expensive medical procedures. Some need a LOT of this stuff)

And what sort of data do you have that makes you think that a vast majority of this landmark group will NOT want to retire after a long life of hard work? Especially when they honestly believe that they have been "paying in" to a pension fund all of their lives. Most of my friends have it all planned out...a bit from their company plan, and a bit from Canada Pension Plan, and some RRSP money. It's all you need if you're house is all paid for and the kids are off on their own, right?

Want to explain to all of them that they will "not be retiring. The economy won't allow it"

Good luck on THAT.









The problems of an aging demographic are not simple..not at all. And it is cold comfort to know that we are in this same boat with most of Europe. They, too, have generous social programs and a rapidly aging population...and no way to pay for all of the largesse when their own version of the baby boomers start retiring or dying off in large numbers while running up huge bills at the public hospitals.

But, then again, most of those countries can see the problem coming and are allowing some type of privatisation into their public health systems. Even in Sweden.

We Canadians...at least some of us....still haven't figured out that there actually IS a problem. Let alone thought about how we are going to deal with it.

We still smugly point at our socialised system of health care and say..."it's the very best in the world".























Time to start looking reality in the eye. It's certainly been staring back at US for some time now.  


(BTW..macdoc...I bought my land on Salt Spring when it was cheap. It's a good sized chunk and I'm not sure I could afford to buy it today. Even with heaps of petro dollars. Market forces have made it so very valuable. Not government decree. As long as there are more people moving here (to RETIRE) than there is land available, then the price will stay high. This place is just crawling with early-retiring baby boomers, from all across Canada these days. People who are sick of dealing with winter. Just thought you'd like to know.)


----------



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

So, about this doomsday scenario in which the baby boomers will bankrupt the working population by sucking dry the health system... Where would you want to be when the crisis hits? In the US where market forces will simply escalate the price of procedures until demand is reduced to fit capacity (and screw the rest)? Or Canada, where the system will adjust by expanding to cope, albeit with compromises to our military and other expenditures?

We pay about 25 cents on the tax dollar to service our debt, down from almost 33c a few years ago. When the Feds pulled down their worse budget overspend (in 1993) it was the equivalent of just under $1500 per Canadian. Dubya's budget has a deficit equivalent to $3000 per US citizen. Hello? So, with the projected US tax cuts, just what proportion of the tax base will go to servicing US debt I wonder?

Our economy is in poorer shape than it has been over the past 5 years, but its due to factors largely outside our control (e.g SARS, a SINGLE FREAKING CASE OF BSE, etc). Not to mention the various trade tariffs our friendly trading partner keeps dumpig on us because we seem to be able to produce cheaper resources (to which I say we should simply increase our export charges to the US - I'd rather Canadians collected the extra revenue than the US Feds).

The US has an administration that has created large debts with no intrastructure expenditures (excluding explosive hardware). It's a huge mess.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not concerning myself with how the US handles their deficit. I don't live there, so I won't have to worry about how it's paid back.

But I do live here...and I am not the only one who sees this looming problem that's facing us. It's huge...and can't be solved by simply "cutting the military" or re-shuffling the deck a bit. The actual tax intake of the country will shrink by a considerable amount during the period of the baby boomer's retirement/die off. We would have to cut pretty much everything just to maintain the status quo.

That's IF we didn't also have to deal with a huge increase in CPP payments and an exponential growth in government-supplied medical benefits at the very same time.  

Simply "expanding the amount we spend on health care to meet requirements" won't cut it.

Borrowing huge amounts to pay for it all will cause our debt payments to ballon...requiring even more borrowing. A never ending cycle that will leave our children's children paying off the huge bills that we left for them.

So...what? Raise taxes by an astronomical amount on the new smaller workforce? Would that even be enough?

Any suggestions?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...Jwoodget...the numbers that I have seen show our interest payments on the accumulated debt to be upwards of 35 cents on the tax dollar. 

Where you factoring in what the Provinces owe? We citizens also pay those bills too. And, ever since Chretien offloaded the health care costs to the Provinces, the debt levels in practically all of them have been climbing at an alarming rate.

Again...any suggestions? Real ones?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, I fear that by the time I retire any pension benefits I receive from the federal government will be "clawed back". This will put me in a difficult position, in that my MUN pension is tied to the federal pension, in that it is reduced by the amount I receive (prior to claw back) from the federal government. Thus, a partial MUN pension, that I also fear will be reduced in that they have been giving out generous early retirements from this fund. Thus, my RRSP will have to sustain me and my wife for out future.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Tonight's BCTV news ran a story about a lady in her sixties (the mother of several grown children) who died while waiting for a much-needed heart bypass. She apparently died right in hospital. She had been scheduled for the procedure last week, but it had to be cancelled due to lack of funds. (this, after the Campbell liberals have already devoted a larger percentage of the budget to government-funded health care than any previous government ever has....including the NDP).

The kicker is this.

Her son is a US citizen, and wanted to take her down to the US where she could have gotten instant care. She said no, and told him that Canada has the very best health care system in the world and she wanted to stay here. Her son, like 85% of Americans, has private health care insurance and it would have covered most (or even all) of the procedure.

So this poor lady died while waiting for a much-needed procedure. one that the doctors told her had a 95% expectation of success.

And this is NOT an isolated incident.

The news is full of this stuff...and has been for many years now. Our system is failing as we speak...and nobody seems to give a rat's a** about it. So many of us are in total denial....it's really too sad.

A what is REALLY scary is that this whole situation is about to be magnified one hundredfold as the boomer generation moves into old age.   

Time to wake up. This isn't going away...and it can't be denied.

We need solutions. And we need them now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ah Macnutt I'm glad the world is not so simple as you would make it out to be. Guys in white hats riding in a fxing things all in the two hour movie







It's a complex place and we have reources and wealth, just needs careful management and no unrealistic expectations. Strange we seem to be doing just fine by both despite the nay sayers.

Economies may shift their growth areas but money still circulates and goods and services are provided.

You and your buddies may have it all plotted out but as ever you don't represent in the least what the REST of Canada is looking at.

"January 21, 2003 

According to a recent national survey sponsored by Investors Group and conducted by Decima Research, 72 per cent of non-retired Canadians are strongly considering working in some capacity after they retire. That is a stark contrast to what retired Canadians are doing today, as only 23 per cent indicated they are currently working. 

The survey also found that 74 per cent of non-retired Canadians are planning to use 'earned income' as their primary or secondary source of retirement income."

There WILL be lots of jobs available as there is a possible labour shortage in Canada unless it is addressed by a combination of immigration levels and longer working lives.....which it will be.

The US has already raised the retirement age to 67 and Canada's was original designed around 70 and will likely get there again.
Policies will be designed ( and are being discussed ) to offer a range of retirement ages.
Canada is just coming into it's own with Made in Canada solutions and policies......our economy has been better than the rest of the G8 and there is no reason to see it change significantly.
The kind of negative labour growth you are hand wringing about will not even begin until 2021 even if no policy changes were set to counteract it.

The men went to War in the 40s, the women went to work....and stayed there. The only certainty is that things change.

I'm far more concerned with global population levels and global warming than the minor issue of an aging population in Canada. The boomers are a group that has transformed society more than once.....and is likely to do so again.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay....let's just pretend, for a moment, that the lion's share of our generation will just keep on working forever. Or until they drop.   

They (we) will STILL be suffering from the same sort of medical problems that all people do in the latter stages of life (rather more, I'd expect, if we are all still laboring away well into our seventies) and...as I have noted before...our vast numbers have rocked the boat every time we arrived at some new milestone on our journey in this life.

Things change when we show up, en masse. Think back a bit. It's well-documented.

What happens when we all start to show up at the hospital...or the pharmacy...and demand our fair share of the "free" public health care system that we have been paying into for all of these decades?

Especially when we are looking at a system that is already overloaded and unable to handle the current traffic?  

Doctors who have been trying to deal with fifty regular patients of advanced age will be deluged by several hundred. Each. 

Oh...and by the way...we are already suffering from a shortage of doctors and nurses. Partially because of our monolithic government-controlled health care system. A whole boatload of health care professionals are due for retirement in the next decade or so.....(wait for it).....just when the rest of us are! I wonder if the next [much smaller] generation of Canadian doctors and nurses will choose Canada's limited-income system?

Or will they choose to go to almost any other "westernised nation"? Pretty much ALL of which offer them the opportunity to make better money, with shorter hours, due to their mix of private and government-funded medical services? 

And you haven't even dealt with the inevitable die-off that comes when any generation hits that age. Do you suppose that might...just might...affect the number of seventy year olds who are supposed to be (in your scenario) still working and paying heavy taxes?

Or, are you one of the many people of our generation who thinks we are immortal...and will never die? A bit more denial, perhaps?

Or perhaps you expect that wondrous medical system that we have here in Canada to devote a whole bunch of seriously scarce resources to the study of "life extension"? And to do this while they are closing beds and shutting down hospitals and letting people die, due to lack of funds?

Medical advances to keep the boomer generation alive and productive well into their seventh and eighth decade? So we can "all still keep working" and paying taxes into the system? (the system that is already in deep trouble?) 

Personally, old friend, I wouldn't bank on it.
















Sounds like just another pipe-dream from the other side of the political fence. More 'pie in the sky' stuff that will...in the final analysis...have to be "revised to meet the current realities". (a leftist credo these days)

No kidding.









Time to deal with reality...before it deals with _us_.

And reality is a cruel taskmaster.

It's shocked the heck out of those of us who couldn't see it coming before....(you know who you are)...and it's poised to do it again.

Watch and see.  

[ September 02, 2003, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



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

macnutt, you keep changing the rules:

1. You don't live in the US so don't care about their debt - hmmm.... maybe that will change. In any case, if you want to keep the US out of it, so be it. The huge debt tends to get in the way of the dream of US "prosperity".

2. You ask for answers/solutions - yet you rarely proffer the same. Instead we get various TV news anecdotes of how poor Canada's system is. Tragedies happen every day. The US system doesn't magicvally avoid them.

3. You mix facts and comparisons. Only a darn economist can know what the exact debt ratios are but the fact is that many of the US States also run deficits (check out California's!!!) so the figures I stated comparing Feds to Feds is legitimate.

The basic point is that the US will address the upcoming boomer healthcare crisis by ramping up prices. We will do it as best we can but not by basing it on ability to pay.

Amazingly, our healthcare professionals do show loyalty and preferences to work within our system. Sure, there are those who follow the money as in any trade (such as oil rigging). But they often only go south because they can't find jobs here. We do need to change that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thanks JW I was sort of wondering that myself just when Macnutt would come up with a solution instead of badly informed opinons.

"Time to deal with reality...before it deals with us."

Okay let's hear Prime Minister Macnutt deal with the "reality" you've laid out as facing Canadians. 
You've got a nice dictatorial party system to govern with so have at it....oh just don't forget you have a few Premiers who are responsible for healthcare to convince as well. Small caveat, I'm sure the wonder prescription will cure all our ills here in doomed Canada

Your soap box is ready for the Honorable Member from Salt Spring










sans "u" in honour of your love for things US.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Macnutt: "So, the question here isn't if we can afford to have all of the things we'd really like to have....it's whether we can really afford to have all of the things we have right now."

True wisdom from his rambling post of a couple of days ago even if inadvertent.  .......... if he refers to the gratuitous manufacture of our throwaway material culture from packaging to engineered obsolescence in vehicles and waste of energy ...... bang on!

If he refers to the cost of caring for each other ..... his stark fear of our future and the anguishingly painful cries for help from below the social horizon ....

*_Any real ideas? 
Anyone? 
Any suggestions? 
Again...any suggestions? 
Real ones? 
Time to wake up. 
This isn't going away...and it can't be denied. 
We need solutions. 
And we need them now. 
Time to deal with reality...before it deals with us .
And reality is a cruel taskmaster. 
It's shocked the heck out of those of us who couldn't see it coming before....(you know who you are)...and it's poised to do it again. 
Watch and see._ 

.... bear witness to: 
*The Heartbreak of being Politically Macnutts!*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The reason that I have not offered a solution is because an obvious one is right before your eyes...if you care to look.

And I have found, when dealing with "open-minded liberal/left" types that it is far better to allow them to arrive at their own answers to some of these things. (every time I have proffered a solution to anything like this, it has been roundly rejected by the other side because it comes from a "right-wing *******")

My task...as I see it...is to cut through the sea of rhetoric and slogans (and just plain old nonsense) that seem to dominate the thinking of _some_ of us here at ehmac...and to present an argument for the true reality of the situation.

Note: not the reality "as I see it", but the actual situation from a pragmatic standpoint. No "what-ifs" or pie-in-the-sky. Just pure reality. (It is the unfortunate inability to deal with reality, and the reliance on navel-gazing "what-if" scenarios, that has prevented the left from becoming the dominant political force on this planet. In fact....it has largely defeated the whole movement.)

So...what is the solution to our looming health care funding crisis? How do we end the lineups and stop people from dying while waiting for needed procedures? And...more importantly, how do we pay for the massive increase in medical care that will be needed when the biggest single generation all arrive at their sunset years? Especially when we are having a very tough time funding the current system?

The answer is right there, if you care to see it. Honest.

And it would mean that we can keep our universal-access health care system pretty much intact. Really.

But it will take a pretty big shift in thinking for some of us to recognise what that answer is. And it will definitely go against the teachings that led them to their particular belief system. A lot of what they consider to be the "truth" will have to be revised. (yet again)   


So...care to take a shot at it? Anyone?


----------



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

Oh puleeze, put us out of our misery..... - oh, that's it, economic euthanasia.....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

C'mon Jim, you're a smart guy. It's right there in front of you. It has probably been mentioned by your peers. Probably quite recently.


----------



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

You'd be surprised how strongly many in the medical profession defend the principle of universal access to healthcare being an inalienable right. Siphoning off procedures to private clinics undermines the whole system as pressure builds from privateers to capture profitable interventions. Canadians don't want the US two tiered system, any more than they want to pay US prices for their drugs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt what a load of horse pucky  
Either cough up the hairball or admit you don't know.

You are voluble enough elsewhere - let's see Prime Minister Macnutt's cure all formula.
Or would that be perhaps snake-oil formula.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Our resident medical research scientist just mentioned it...or, rather, a part of it. Blurted it out in front of god and everyone in a very short post.

And followed...pretty much immediately...with one of the old-time chants from the book of Left. You know...the sort of well rehearsed disclaimer that is designed to automatically discredit the idea at a base level.

And I just love it when the left makes statements that start with "Candians don't _want_....."

It just makes me howl with laughter when I hear it. Not because they haven't actually _asked_ the majority of Canadians exactly what they want... (and they haven't, BTW)

But it's because, quite simply, it doesn't matter WHAT we want. It's the situation that dictates the response. We have dug ourselves such a big financial hole here that we no longer have the luxury of choosing what we _want_ (or what some of think that the rest of us want)

What we have here is a scenario that demands a very definite course of action, if we are to retain a universal access national health care system. We need to rework the whole system from the ground up. It needs to be run like a business...instead of a sinkhole for tax dollars that allows people to die while waiting for treatment.

Where can we look for ways to improve the system? How about any number of european countries who...like us...used to have a monolithic government system that was falling apart and costing a ridiculous amount to run? One by one, they are all responding to the challenge and changing the way they do business.

And its working.

Have a look for yourself. But do so with an open mind. A REALLY open mind. Leave the old tired ideology at the door and check out how well they are doing with it.

It's pretty illuminating.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let me guess you were a wingback on the local football team.
Dodge, weave, slip by............

I don't want to know what others have done or are doing I want to know what YOU would do.

Quit ducking and dodging and answer the question!!!!!!! You've just been appointed PM - go for it
















Geez slippery character or what....must be all that salmon raining down from Ontario  

Oh BTW in your never ending record of being wrong

"Environics Research Group released a startling new survey today demonstrating that eight in ten Canadians want significant reforms to the Canadian health care system. But only one in ten Canadians want a two-tiered system"

At the end of 2002 
90% of Canadians DON'T WANT TWO TIER.

Is that clear enough, simple to understand, let's hear our solution now you know what we DON'T WANT.

[ September 04, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

IT'S SCARY







but I agree with a Macnutt principle... lets get our health care system on strong financial footing.









We should have a sustainable method of funding. I say a modified GST and like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have a HST (GST plus provincial tax as one tax).

The 15% HST not only would provide an excellent method of properly funding health care. All of a sudden we have an excellent method of calculating a tip for the service industry. 

BTW has anyone figured out why the puplic have to subsidize employers for not paying decent wages to workers in the service industry, but I digress!  

You Know You Waaant It!!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL, FYI, NL and PEI also have the 15% HST. (too many acronyms in this sentence)


----------



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

Gosh darn it, the health system is being run by a bunch of amateurs... That's the problem! Bring in some high powered CEOs. Fire a few hundred nurses. Scrap the tricky/lengthy procedures. Yes, that's the ticket.

Our hospitals are on fixed budgets. In Ontario they are penalized for going into deficit and rewarded for efficiency. In a for-profit private system there is an inexorable drive to maximize profits, not to provide universal care. Complex, chronic cases would be dumped onto the public system, further degrading it's ability to cope.

The small minority of Canadians who want two-tier healthcare can have it right now as long as they have a passport.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, what are your thoughts re the practicality of nurse practitioners to work in rural Canada where there are either no doctors, or too few for the population spread out over wide distances? Along with midwives, I honestly feel that these trained and dedicated persons could prove to be a vital link in our universal health care system, which I do NOT want to see leveled into a two-tier system.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sorry Dr.G. I forgot about NFLD and LAB. P.E.I. did not agree to the HST. They still have the 18 point what ever percent tax as a result of the PST. added on top of the GST.

And again you are right too many acronyms.

Your wisdom shines through once again with your views on mid wives and nurse practitioners.

Can anyone come up with the (right kind of) facility that has more equipment than an after hours clinic but less than a hospital emergency unit.

A place to check out the strain, sprains, cuts (that require stitches or not), simple fractures and fix up little childrens ear aches without a 4 to 8 hour wait.

It might be a way to save money too.


----------



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

Nurse-practioners or equivalently trained para-medics may be able to play a role in sparsely populated areas but it sets a worrying precedent since people rightly expect equal quality of healthcare. However, with current communications technology, it is easy and effective for such people to be able to contact an MD located a thousand miles away for a second opinion or guidance. Indeed, several Toronto hosppitals participate in Project North that uses video conferencing, electronic image transfer and real-time communications to train and interact with practioners in geographically remote areas.

This doesn't save money, necessarily, but it does provide "teaching hospital" levels of expertise to any centre with the matching telecom equipment. Our hospital has just opened a new suite of ORs (16 I think) to replace those that were up to 50 or so years old. All of these are linked by cameras and screens allowing coordination of multiple OR procedures (such as living donor ops) as wel as letting surgeons in North Bay tune in to a relatively rare event or new technique.

Of note, the new ORs were funded by a $300 million bond issue with the reasoning that the efficiencies gained by operating with the latest technologies will more than account for the repayment schedules (hope they're right!).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You bring up an interesting point. I wonder how much the internet has allowed people to deal with minor emergencies more effectively.

Certainly it has allowed much medical information to be codified in a distributable form altho that could be a curse as much as a blessing.

I think tho people in rural areas are smart enough to realize the trade off of staying out of the "big burgs" has drawbacks - hey no 24 McD's would be intolerable for some  

Seriously tho my doctor is way the other side of the GTA. I did some research and felt I would benefit from Celebrex. We discussed it over the phone and he felt it appropriate knowing my minor indicators for arthritis.

My son is juvenile diabetic and when a minor site crisis occurred he figured out the best course of action along with a pharmacist. Short of a diabetic specialist my son knew more for that specific issue than the average medical personnel could or should be expected to know.

I wonder how much the general "folk knowledge" of the internet community is being harnessed to lwoer the stress on the medical system??
Specialist forums must be wonderful for sufferers of specific problems.

Comments?? Personal experience???


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Pharmacists are very helpful and underutilized in our healthcare system, there is a push by their national body to have them licensed or certified to prescribe medications. The physicians are against this practice, but in a limited way this could be more efficient. (The same as nurse practitioners.)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(man, its funny how some thread titles just have no relation to their content...)

One thing that has gone unmentioned in this discussion of the health care system is the outsourcing of hospital management to private firms. background info

An excerpt:


> *An American public relations firm has referred to Canada's medicare system as one of the largest "unopened oysters" left anywhere. The United States government is on record that it intends to use the WTO and the FTAA to pry this oyster open. Says the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, "The mandate is ambitious: to remove restrictions on trade in services and provide effective market access. The United States is of the view that commercial opportunities exist along the entire spectrum of health and social care facilities, including hospitals, outpatient facilities, clinics, nursing homes, assisted living arrangements, and services provided in the home."
> 
> Continentally, the main threat posed by NAFTA and its FTAA successor lies in the creeping privatization of health services. If a government allows any currently exempt sector, such as public services, to become even partially privatized (Alberta's Bill 11 for example) the sector no longer qualifies for trade-exempt status. For-profit companies from other NAFTA countries must now be allowed to enter the sector as competitors. Under NAFTA's Chapter 11, those corporations would have the right to huge financial compensation if any government tries to bring now-privatized services back under public management. *




Source: http://www.canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=COC_token&id=390&isdoc=1&catid=246]The Real Threat is International[/url]



Any hospital workers in here who can provide informed comment?

M.

[ September 05, 2003, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: CubaMark ]


----------



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

Cubamark,

The Feds and provinces are well aware of this threat/opportunity. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons our system is quite safe from the likes of Klein and the privateers because it is a binary and irreversible decision. Once there is any privatization of core services, the whole system is ripe. In the case of out-sourcing hospital management, it would like putting the wolves in charge of a flock of sheep.

The is a lot of out-sourcing of non-clinical services such as catering, cleaning, purchasing, diagnostic testing, etc. It's not as though the healthcare system is averse to economic pressures. In some cases the out-sourcing has been effective, in others not. But the core and key elements of care provision, drug budgets, organization are protected.

This is why it is nonsense to propose partial privatization of certain elective procedures.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It may be 'nonsense'...but it is also inevitable.

Just ask socialist Sweden. They, too, were dragged kicking and screaming into reality.  

What we should be discussing here is _how best_ to accomplish this change without losing control of the whole thing. Without negating the basic tenents of Canadian health care.

THEN we might have a chance to make it all work...like it was supposed to in the beginning. 

Because, if we don't cut through the nonsense and start running it like a sustainable business...and soon...then we won't have anything left except a big debt.

If we are still arguing about whether we should allow private clinics and turn this whole thing into a viable system fifteen or twenty years from now...instead of using that time to FIX the damn thing...

Then, folks, at that point...it won't matter.

The point will be, as they say, moot.


----------

