Toronto Education Strike Is Strickly Political--Has Nothing To Do With Wages
Iconoclast
workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
But Marxist-Commie Sid Ryan also today announced his candidacy to
run for the NDP in the coming provincial election. What a coincidence!
Look at all the publicity this little leftist labor goon is going to get.
However, the people of Ontario are not going to be fooled. The NDP
is currently running at only 14% popularity as people remember that the
NDP and wimpish Liberals within 10 short years doubled Ontario
debt to $100 billion while at the same time raising taxes time after
time. In contrast, Mike Harris in just over three years has cut taxes for Ontarians
30% and the economy of the province is booming.
Dave Smith
> Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
Balderdash!!
Perish the thought that the union membership rejected the contract because it gave them
nothing. The union members who voted to reject the last contract offer have no
political agenda. They just want to do their jobs and get a decent wage for it. They
are the lowest paid people in the education business and, like most public service
workers, have not had a decent increase in years.
The voted to reject a contract, not to go on strike. Thousands of people do not vote to
stand in the cold and go without a pay check for an indefinite period.
> However, the people of Ontario are not going to be fooled. The NDP
> is currently running at only 14% popularity as people remember that the
> NDP and wimpish Liberals within 10 short years doubled Ontario
> debt to $100 billion while at the same time raising taxes time after
> time. In contrast, Mike Harris in just over three years has cut taxes for Ontarians
> 30% and the economy of the province is booming.
You must be one of those that Barnum was talking about. Surely you don't think that the
growth in the Ontario economy that mirrored the improvement in the world wide economic
picture was due to something Harris did.
How much money did Harris actually put back in your pocket? Our household savings in
provincial income tax are not as great as the increase in our municipal taxes, thanks
to responsibilities that have been downloaded to our town and regional governments.
Then there are the user fees that we have to deal with.
Apparently, there is one born every minute.
Kent Richardson
>
> Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
>
otherwise. I don't know about you but if I was in that union I
wouldn't lose good wages for political reasons. Lets get serious
here.....would you lose pay that supports your wife and kids for
political reasons? Your letting your ideology get in the way of clear
thought. You call everybody who is against your neo-Conservative
leader Harris socialist wrongly. Socialism demands state ownership
and control of the fundamental means of production. Since when
did schools start producing products? Are you suggesting that
children are a commodity?
> It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
> Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
> on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
> a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
>
Your really funny! The board is the boss of the strikers and the guys
who are cutting the strikers jobs! Even if the chairman has said
this, which I doubt, I would hardly call him a representative of
the strikers!
> But Marxist-Commie Sid Ryan also today announced his candidacy to
> run for the NDP in the coming provincial election. What a coincidence!
> Look at all the publicity this little leftist labor goon is going to get.
>
Here you go again with your typical slander of other people's political
beliefs. Now you accuse the union of being communist instead of just
being socialist and add the term leftist. This is nothing but pure
ranting. Would it ever occur to you that these people might even vote
for Mike Harris? People like you may lose many votes for Harris!
Have you considered the fact that they may be just wanting to get
a decent wage for their family instead of pushing their political
agenda like you do? You have called them communist, socialist and
leftist in one breath. Do you even know what the differences are?
At least give them one particular label! Since when did the unions
in this province ever start campaigning for state ownership of
production as the communist do? Your accusations of being communist
are nothing more than cold war witch hunting during the early
part of the century.
> However, the people of Ontario are not going to be fooled. The NDP
> is currently running at only 14% popularity as people remember that the
> NDP and wimpish Liberals within 10 short years doubled Ontario
> debt to $100 billion while at the same time raising taxes time after
> time. In contrast, Mike Harris in just over three years has cut taxes for Ontarians
> 30% and the economy of the province is booming.
Yes...the multi-national corporations are doing real well in Ontario.
Unfortunately, the middle class and the poor are suffering and forced
to to support this corporate welfare. It was unfortunate that the NDP
had to endure the Conservative Mulroney and his cuts in transfers
to the provinces. Note how Mulroney made the national debt sky rocket.
We are expected to make cutbacks while the corporations all make
record profits and pay very little profits. Why is that? They make
profits on the backs of the poor and middle class.
James McCarte
>and control of the fundamental means of production.
No, socialism demands WORKER control of the means (fundamental or not)
of production (actually if they are means of production, they are
fundamental).
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
>workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
>security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
>CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
>and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
>on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
>
>It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
>Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
>on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
>a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
>
>But Marxist-Commie Sid Ryan also today announced his candidacy to
>run for the NDP in the coming provincial election. What a coincidence!
>Look at all the publicity this little leftist labor goon is going to get.
>
>However, the people of Ontario are not going to be fooled. The NDP
>is currently running at only 14% popularity as people remember that the
>NDP and wimpish Liberals within 10 short years doubled Ontario
>debt to $100 billion while at the same time raising taxes time after
>time. In contrast, Mike Harris in just over three years has cut taxes for Ontarians
>30% and the economy of the province is booming.
I wonder if Ryan will pick a nice, safe NDP riding, or will he take
his chances with a real knock down, drag out campaign?
>
E. Barry Bruyea
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:38:41 -0500, Iconoclast <icono...@ionsys.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
>>workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
>>security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
>>CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
>>and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
>>on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
>
>And how then would you classify underfunding the school system,
>leaving overcrowded classes without text books, in the first place?
Well, the text book problem was around a long time before Harris, and
you are forgetting he is the one who wants to reduce classroom size;
which, rose during the eighties and early ninieties as teachers traded
off size for money. But then again, anti-Harris forces don't really
care one way or the other, it's just additional propaganda for the
next election.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>Iconoclast wrote:
>>
>> Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
>> workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
>> security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
>> CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
>> and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
>> on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
>>
>You say that it is political but the strikers have publically stated
>otherwise. I don't know about you but if I was in that union I
>wouldn't lose good wages for political reasons. Lets get serious
>here.....would you lose pay that supports your wife and kids for
>political reasons? Your letting your ideology get in the way of clear
>thought. You call everybody who is against your neo-Conservative
>leader Harris socialist wrongly. Socialism demands state ownership
>and control of the fundamental means of production. Since when
>did schools start producing products? Are you suggesting that
>children are a commodity?
>
>> It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
>> Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
>> on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
>> a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
>>
>Your really funny! The board is the boss of the strikers and the guys
>who are cutting the strikers jobs! Even if the chairman has said
>this, which I doubt, I would hardly call him a representative of
>the strikers!
>
>> But Marxist-Commie Sid Ryan also today announced his candidacy to
>> run for the NDP in the coming provincial election. What a coincidence!
>> Look at all the publicity this little leftist labor goon is going to get.
>>
>Here you go again with your typical slander of other people's political
>beliefs. Now you accuse the union of being communist instead of just
>being socialist and add the term leftist. This is nothing but pure
>ranting. Would it ever occur to you that these people might even vote
>for Mike Harris? People like you may lose many votes for Harris!
>Have you considered the fact that they may be just wanting to get
>a decent wage for their family instead of pushing their political
>agenda like you do? You have called them communist, socialist and
>leftist in one breath. Do you even know what the differences are?
>At least give them one particular label! Since when did the unions
>in this province ever start campaigning for state ownership of
>production as the communist do? Your accusations of being communist
>are nothing more than cold war witch hunting during the early
>part of the century.
Again the calendar and Clarke/Kent's mind are at odds. There was no
'cold war' in the 'early' part of this century. But then again, his
knowledge of history does need a little brushing up.
>
>> However, the people of Ontario are not going to be fooled. The NDP
>> is currently running at only 14% popularity as people remember that the
>> NDP and wimpish Liberals within 10 short years doubled Ontario
>> debt to $100 billion while at the same time raising taxes time after
>> time. In contrast, Mike Harris in just over three years has cut taxes for Ontarians
>> 30% and the economy of the province is booming.
>
>Yes...the multi-national corporations are doing real well in Ontario.
>Unfortunately, the middle class and the poor are suffering and forced
>to to support this corporate welfare. It was unfortunate that the NDP
>had to endure the Conservative Mulroney and his cuts in transfers
>to the provinces. Note how Mulroney made the national debt sky rocket.
>We are expected to make cutbacks while the corporations all make
>record profits and pay very little profits. Why is that? They make
>profits on the backs of the poor and middle class.
"Make record profits and pay very little profits." What the hell does
that mean, Clarke/Kent?
John Carrick
>Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
>workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
>security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
>CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
>and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
>on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
That is right-wing bullshit of the worst kind, spoken by a
union-hating creep.
Some people have no shame at all.
>It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
>Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
>on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
>a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
Over 4400 out of 14000 of these people will lose their jobs within two
years under the present funding formula.
You are either a liar or an idiot. I suspect both.
>But Marxist-Commie Sid Ryan also today announced his candidacy to
>run for the NDP in the coming provincial election. What a coincidence!
>Look at all the publicity this little leftist labor goon is going to get.
You disgusting creep!
You don't think that people on the left have the right to exist, do
you?
Go straight to hell, and do not collect $200.00.
John Carrick
<jmcc...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>Socialism demands state ownership
>>and control of the fundamental means of production.
>
>No, socialism demands WORKER control of the means (fundamental or not)
>of production (actually if they are means of production, they are
>fundamental)
Hmmm. PoliSci 101 is it?.
Michael H.
>
> Iconoclast wrote:
> >
> > Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> > workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> > security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> > CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> > and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> > on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
> >
> otherwise. I don't know about you but if I was in that union I
> wouldn't lose good wages for political reasons. Lets get serious
> here.....would you lose pay that supports your wife and kids for
> political reasons?
You have a good point there. People aren't going to picket in the cold
as part of a left-wing political stunt.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> >Socialism demands state ownership
> >and control of the fundamental means of production.
>
> No, socialism demands WORKER control of the means (fundamental or not)
> of production (actually if they are means of production, they are
Nonsense. The "workers" elect bosses. In socialism, those bosses are
the state. So whether the "state" consists of labour bosses or other
types of politicians, the fact remains that the state controls the means
of production in a socialist country.
I don't recall the NDP ever claiming that the state should OWN the
fundamental means of production.
All of that ancient socialism dogma about "means of production" is
irrelevant today. It applies to the pre-automated industrial age when
most workers were involved in manufacturing goods, doing book-keeping
with pen and paper, etc. Today, that is all automated, and most workers
are not involved with the manufacture of goods. Most workers today
process information, and traditional socialist ideas don't even apply.
What socialism needs is a new philosophy for the future. I believe that
socialists are well-intentioned, but all that Marxist stuff is from the
wrong century.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> >Iconoclast wrote:
> >>
> >> Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> >> workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> >> security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> >> CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> >> and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> >> on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
> >>
> >You say that it is political but the strikers have publically stated
> >otherwise. I don't know about you but if I was in that union I
> >wouldn't lose good wages for political reasons. Lets get serious
> >here.....would you lose pay that supports your wife and kids for
> >thought. You call everybody who is against your neo-Conservative
> >and control of the fundamental means of production. Since when
> >did schools start producing products? Are you suggesting that
> >children are a commodity?
> >
> >> Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
> >> on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
> >> a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
> >>
> >who are cutting the strikers jobs! Even if the chairman has said
> >this, which I doubt, I would hardly call him a representative of
> >the strikers!
> >
> >> run for the NDP in the coming provincial election. What a coincidence!
> >> Look at all the publicity this little leftist labor goon is going to get.
> >>
> >beliefs. Now you accuse the union of being communist instead of just
> >being socialist and add the term leftist. This is nothing but pure
> >ranting. Would it ever occur to you that these people might even vote
> >for Mike Harris? People like you may lose many votes for Harris!
> >Have you considered the fact that they may be just wanting to get
> >a decent wage for their family instead of pushing their political
> >agenda like you do? You have called them communist, socialist and
> >leftist in one breath. Do you even know what the differences are?
> >At least give them one particular label! Since when did the unions
> >in this province ever start campaigning for state ownership of
> >production as the communist do? Your accusations of being communist
> >are nothing more than cold war witch hunting during the early
> >part of the century.
>
> Again the calendar and Clarke/Kent's mind are at odds. There was no
> 'cold war' in the 'early' part of this century. But then again, his
> knowledge of history does need a little brushing up.
Kent probably doesn't know that Russia was at war with Germany in WWII.
Hitler wanted to take the Russian commies out, but we wouldn't let him.
I guess the politicians had the foresight to see that having a
protracted "cold war" with Russia would allow the weapons industry to
syphon untold billions of tax dollars off to finance the stockpiling of
nuclear weapons. The cold war was such a bonanza if you were smart
enough to invest your money in weapons of mass destruction.
> >> However, the people of Ontario are not going to be fooled. The NDP
> >> is currently running at only 14% popularity as people remember that the
> >> NDP and wimpish Liberals within 10 short years doubled Ontario
> >> debt to $100 billion while at the same time raising taxes time after
> >> time. In contrast, Mike Harris in just over three years has cut taxes for Ontarians
> >> 30% and the economy of the province is booming.
> >
> >Yes...the multi-national corporations are doing real well in Ontario.
> >Unfortunately, the middle class
It is the middle class that elects Harris. That is because they got a
cut in income tax.
>> and the poor are suffering and forced
> >to to support this corporate welfare. It was unfortunate that the NDP
> >had to endure the Conservative Mulroney and his cuts in transfers
> >to the provinces.
Cuts that Chretien has never restored, and that the Harris Tories are
also trying to deal with.
>>Note how Mulroney made the national debt sky rocket.
Federal Tories are huge spenders. They aren't "conservatives" in any
dictionary sense of the term. They raise taxes and spend like sailors on
shore leave.
> >We are expected to make cutbacks while the corporations all make
> >record profits and pay very little profits. Why is that? They make
> >profits on the backs of the poor and middle class.
> "Make record profits and pay very little profits." What the hell does
> that mean, Clarke/Kent?
I think he meant "taxes," but he obviously hasn't thought of the
billions of dollars that corporations pay in payroll taxes, taxes on
purchases, other tax-like expenses such as truck licences, etc. He
thinks that "corporate taxes" only include taxes on profits, but even
then, I doubt that he has considered that those profits are generally
either paid out as dividends (which are taxed as shareholder income), or
re-invested in research and development.
My main concern about large corporations is that so much money is spent
on buying out smaller companies, which is not really productive. The
carrying charges for borrowing to do that are passed along to the
consumer through higher prices. We are tending to a monopolistic economy
where ultimately every business and retailer will be owned by one
company, and they will be able to charge whatever they like because they
will have no competitors.
It is silly, though, to say that corporations don't pay taxes.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 03:06:55 GMT, i45.5yul4...@chi.com wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:38:41 -0500, Iconoclast <icono...@ionsys.com>
> >
> >>Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> >>workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> >>security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> >>CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> >>and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> >>on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
> >
> >leaving overcrowded classes without text books, in the first place?
>
> Well, the text book problem was around a long time before Harris, and
> you are forgetting he is the one who wants to reduce classroom size;
> which, rose during the eighties and early ninieties as teachers traded
> off size for money. But then again, anti-Harris forces don't really
> care one way or the other, it's just additional propaganda for the
> next election.
It makes me laugh when Liberals and NDP talk about textbook shortages.
Did they not turn the education system on its head, which required that
all existing textbooks be thrown out and replaced?
The best way to save money in education is to have courses designed so
that existing textbooks can continue to be used. A text probably costs
between $30 - $50. Multiply that by the number of courses each student
takes, times the number of students in the province, and we are talking
hundreds of millions, maybe billions. And most of those texts are bought
from American publishers, are they not?
Is McGuinty (forget about Hampton) willing to guarantee that he will
NOT turn the education system on his head again, and will NOT undo the
Tory advances towards re-streaming gd.9, for example?
Michael H.
Honest John
wrote:
ome people have no shame at all.
>
>>It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
>>Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
>>on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
>>a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
>
>Over 4400 out of 14000 of these people will lose their jobs within two
>years under the present funding formula.
>
You mean like the 10,000 teachers that the union told us Harris
planned to fire! Question Carrick, how many were fired? All smoke and
mirrors again. Perhaps this time the public will not fall for such
union lies
>Go straight to hell, and do not collect $200.00.
Carrick in his usual benevolent mood?
James Goneaux
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 06:26:21 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
>wrote:
>
>ome people have no shame at all.
>>
>>>It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
>>>Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
>>>on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
>>>a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
>>
>>Over 4400 out of 14000 of these people will lose their jobs within two
>>years under the present funding formula.
>>
>You mean like the 10,000 teachers that the union told us Harris
>planned to fire! Question Carrick, how many were fired? All smoke and
>mirrors again. Perhaps this time the public will not fall for such
>union lies
One hopes. I was at an OPSEU meeting on Monday, and someone from the
Queen Street Mental Health Centre bragged that the five week strike
in1996 saved jobs at the Centre. According to her, of 1,000 in the
local, only three were actually fired.
Of course, I would imagine THAT this net figure isn't used when the
number of "fired" civil servants is pegged at 15,000 or so...
>>Go straight to hell, and do not collect $200.00.
>
>Carrick in his usual benevolent mood?
And, rather amazing for someone who considers himself to be "sort of a
humanist".
James McCarte
>Hmmm. PoliSci 101 is it?.
No, it's actually reading Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of
1848 (in translation), reading Capital, reading some of Bakunin......
James McCarte
>thinks that "corporate taxes" only include taxes on profits, but even
>then, I doubt that he has considered that those profits are generally
>either paid out as dividends (which are taxed as shareholder income), or
>re-invested in research and development.
According to so-called conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute,
the large-scale American ownership of Canadian industry means that a
relatively small percentage of corporate income is spent on research and
development in Canada.
As far as dividends are concerned, again, the scale of American ownership of
Canada's industry (preumably) means that a relatively small percentage of
dividends are paid to Canadians.
> My main concern about large corporations is that so much money is spent
>on buying out smaller companies, which is not really productive.
In fact, in the United States at least, these buyouts are also used as a
means of reducing taxes.
>We are tending to a monopolistic economy
>where ultimately every business and retailer will be owned by one
>company, and they will be able to charge whatever they like because they
>will have no competitors.
More likely, an oligopolistic economy, as in the auto industry (or in
Canada's case in that industry), a (no-polistic) economy.
John Carrick
In that case the majority of the dolts that you encounter here won't
have the foggiest notion what you are talking about.
Their knowledge of political history is in inverse ratio to their
willingness to spout their stupid beliefs.
John Carrick
> What socialism needs is a new philosophy for the future. I believe that
>socialists are well-intentioned, but all that Marxist stuff is from the
>wrong century.
Certain things never go out of style.
One of them is social justice for all.
Millions arer being denied opportunity in this country, and a price
will be paid for that in future years.
John Carrick
> It makes me laugh when Liberals and NDP talk about textbook shortages.
>Did they not turn the education system on its head, which required that
>all existing textbooks be thrown out and replaced?
In a word, no.
Can't you find something to discuss, that you know a little bit about?
What is most alarming about you is not your ignorance...although that
is quite appalling. It is your false notion that you know the
slightest bit about what you are talking about.
Now that is really scarey!
john ramsay
>
> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 03:06:55 GMT, i45.5yul4...@chi.com wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:38:41 -0500, Iconoclast <icono...@ionsys.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> >>workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> >>security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> >>CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> >>and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> >>on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
> >
> >And how then would you classify underfunding the school system,
> >leaving overcrowded classes without text books, in the first place?
>
> Well, the text book problem was around a long time before Harris, and
> you are forgetting he is the one who wants to reduce classroom size;
> which, rose during the eighties and early ninieties as teachers traded
> off size for money. But then again, anti-Harris forces don't really
> care one way or the other, it's just additional propaganda for the
> next election.
Hi Barry, please explain how Harris has managed to reduce classroom
size. Despite his protestations he has accomplished the opposite.
And while you're at it, please explain how teachers traded off
classroom size for money yet got no pay raises in the 7 - 8 years before
Harris was elected.
Are you sure you're not just repeating the Harris propaganda
yourself?
He sure did spend a lot of taxpayers' money, buying your loyalty with
all those TV ads.
john ramsay
>
> James McCarte wrote:
> >
> > >Socialism demands state ownership
> > >and control of the fundamental means of production.
> >
> > of production (actually if they are means of production, they are
> > fundamental).
>
> Nonsense. The "workers" elect bosses. In socialism, those bosses are
> the state. So whether the "state" consists of labour bosses or other
> types of politicians, the fact remains that the state controls the means
> of production in a socialist country.
> fundamental means of production.
> All of that ancient socialism dogma about "means of production" is
> irrelevant today. It applies to the pre-automated industrial age when
> most workers were involved in manufacturing goods, doing book-keeping
> with pen and paper, etc. Today, that is all automated, and most workers
> are not involved with the manufacture of goods. Most workers today
> process information, and traditional socialist ideas don't even apply.
> socialists are well-intentioned, but all that Marxist stuff is from the
> wrong century.
>
Hi, you have a good point there. We do seem to have neo-conservatism
(an even worse oxymoron than 'progressive conservatism') bashing
'traditional socialism'.
But since Mike Harris is a neo-conservative, perhaps we should have
neo-rebels.
There were non-socialist rebels long before Marx and Lenin. People
like Spartacus and Wat Tyler come to mind.
Perhaps we need to go back to our Ontario roots, seeing that the
Harris government bears lots of neo-resemblances to the old Family
Compact.
john ramsay
>
> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 06:26:21 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> ome people have no shame at all.
> >
> >>It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
> >>Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
> >>on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
> >>a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
> >
> >Over 4400 out of 14000 of these people will lose their jobs within two
> >years under the present funding formula.
> >
> You mean like the 10,000 teachers that the union told us Harris
> planned to fire! Question Carrick, how many were fired? All smoke and
> mirrors again. Perhaps this time the public will not fall for such
> union lies
>
Instead of firing the 10,000 teachers Harris forced their pension fund
to subsidize early retirement. Between last year and this year the total
number of premature retirees comes suspiciously close to 10,000.
Problem is that Ontario now faces a severe teacher shortage and
Harris will have to a) Entice retired teachers back to work. Several
school boards are doing that right now. b) Make teaching a more
attractive profession as far as salary and working conditions are
concerned.
Net result = a loss of money for the Ontario taxpayer. And that's not
counting all those expensive anti-teacher TV ad campaigns.
It does not take into account the damage done to the school system in
the interim.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 00:42:41 -0500, "James McCarte"
And your ability to think rationally is in inverse proportion to your
penchant or posting.
E. Barry Bruyea
<jmcc...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>He
>>thinks that "corporate taxes" only include taxes on profits, but even
>>then, I doubt that he has considered that those profits are generally
>>either paid out as dividends (which are taxed as shareholder income), or
>>re-invested in research and development.
>
>According to so-called conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute,
>the large-scale American ownership of Canadian industry means that a
>relatively small percentage of corporate income is spent on research and
>development in Canada.
>
>As far as dividends are concerned, again, the scale of American ownership of
>Canada's industry (preumably) means that a relatively small percentage of
>dividends are paid to Canadians.
American or Canadian owned makes little difference to the colleciton
of dividends. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians hold shares in
companies that are U.S. owned. Everything from pension funds to
RRSP's (In the latter case, thousands of Canadians have found ways
around the 20% limit on foreign investment). Many of the American
companies operating in Canada a very widely held, so there is a high
degree of illogic in your statement. Conversely, many Americans are
shareholders in Canadian companies.
>
>> My main concern about large corporations is that so much money is spent
>>on buying out smaller companies, which is not really productive.
>
>In fact, in the United States at least, these buyouts are also used as a
>means of reducing taxes.
>
>>We are tending to a monopolistic economy
>>where ultimately every business and retailer will be owned by one
>>company, and they will be able to charge whatever they like because they
>>will have no competitors.
>
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
The teachers will love you, considering you've added a few years since
they had a raise. Great spinning! There is no evidence that class
size has increased since Harris began rebuilding the education system;
no evidence other than the anti-Harris propaganda. Remember the 10K
teachers that were going to be fired? Hasn't happened. As to
teachers contracts, all through the eighties in many jurisdictions,
teachers traded off class sizes for more money. Evidence of this was
available ad infinitum during the teachers protests. As to textbooks,
there is also plenty of evidence available for text book shortages
long before Harris took office. Like most anti-Harris fanatics, you
just ignore reality and carry on just as if you knew what you were
doing.
>
>
Dave Smith
> Hi Barry, please explain how Harris has managed to reduce classroom
> size. Despite his protestations he has accomplished the opposite.
I was listening to a radio call in show yesterday and a student said that there
were only two students who showed up for her math class out of a class of 28.
What happened to the maximum class size of 22? I wonder how many people failed
to pick up on that one. I wonder how many people are stupid enough to believe
what the government is telling them when everyone who works in the system is
indicating otherwise.
You can fool some of the people some of the time .....
James Goneaux
wrote:
>Michael H. wrote:
>> What socialism needs is a new philosophy for the future. I believe that
>> socialists are well-intentioned, but all that Marxist stuff is from the
>> wrong century.
>>
>> Michael H.
>
>Hi, you have a good point there. We do seem to have neo-conservatism
>(an even worse oxymoron than 'progressive conservatism') bashing
>'traditional socialism'.
> But since Mike Harris is a neo-conservative, perhaps we should have
>neo-rebels.
Well, there seems to be a good training ground for them at Harbord
Collegiate in Toronto: one student was bragging in the media that she
was clogging toilets as fast as her vice-principal was unclogging
them.
Is "Lord of the Flies" still required reading in senior grades?
Cameron Bennett
>>Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
>>workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
>>security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
>>CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
>>and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
>>on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
>
>That is right-wing bullshit of the worst kind, spoken by a
>union-hating creep.
>
>Some people have no shame at all.
While I may have no love for unions, I have even less for their
leaders. For the longest time it would seem that Buzz Hargrove's main
objective had nothing to do with his union but rather "What can I do
to get my picture in the paper today?"
Sid Ryan seems to be following a similar tack.
CB
--
Cameron Bennett
cs...@NOSPAMtorfree.net (you know what to do)
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a
urinating section in a swimming pool.
Ed
> And while you're at it, please explain how teachers traded off
> classroom size for money yet got no pay raises in the 7 - 8 years before
> Harris was elected.
Bob Rae bought off the teachers by committing all future gov'ts to
pouring in 1/2 billion $ per year into the pension fund - a very
big-time deferred pay raise. The current gov't managed to get out of it
in return for letting teachers retire even earlier - a full 10 years
ahead of real world people - on full pension.
Honest John
<jmcc...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>He
>>thinks that "corporate taxes" only include taxes on profits, but even
>>then, I doubt that he has considered that those profits are generally
>>either paid out as dividends (which are taxed as shareholder income), or
>>re-invested in research and development.
>
>According to so-called conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute,
>the large-scale American ownership of Canadian industry means that a
>relatively small percentage of corporate income is spent on research and
>development in Canada.
Check the section on Innovation in the February 26th Economist, page
14 has a graph of ***Corporate R&D*** spending as a percentage of
sales. With a rate of just over 10% Canada ranks second to Denmark in
the world. The US is 7th with a rate of about 7% well below Canada.
Are you sure of your facts?
Bill Robinson
Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
Ya gotta love those superb debating talents of on of Canada's best
"death wishers". What "Voodo School" did you attend CARRICK? BTW you
don't know anything about anything worthwhile. Who are you to comment on
anyone's level of knowledge. Go take your medicine...
Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
John Carsick wrote:
>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
--
Bill Robinson
Socialism is the concept - Fascism is the typical instantiation!
Support the unions - take an NDP MLA to lunch - at MacDonalds in
Squamish!
E. Barry Bruyea
<dav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>CARRICK
>
>Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
>Ya gotta love those superb debating talents of on of Canada's best
>"death wishers". What "Voodo School" did you attend CARRICK? BTW you
>don't know anything about anything worthwhile. Who are you to comment on
>anyone's level of knowledge. Go take your medicine...
>
>Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
>kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
I think is was "Paranoid Elementary". Or was it "Elementary
Paranoia?" Damn, I can never remember.
Michael H.
>
> > What socialism needs is a new philosophy for the future. I believe that
> >socialists are well-intentioned, but all that Marxist stuff is from the
> >wrong century.
>
True, but Marxism may not be one of them.
> One of them is social justice for all.
Also true, but define "justice." That was Socrates' big question in
"The Republic," as I am sure you are aware. And the dust still hasn't
settled on that question. Only a small number of sociopaths would not
believe in "social justice for all" as an ethical principle, but the
problem is in defining the concept. Fiscally conservative people see a
great injustice in the fact that half of every dollar a salaried
employee earns goes into government bureaucracies; and parents concerned
about the future do not want to think of their grandchildren being born
with a $50,000/capita debt hole to crawl out of. Conservatives see a
great social justice in people being rewarded for their industry,
initiative, and a strong work ethic, and they perceive leftists as
trying to subvert that. Even the staunchest right-wingers don't complain
about social services for the genuinely needy. The problem is that
leftists are perceived as dysfunctional re arithmetic and accounting,
and are also perceived as compromising themselves in pursuit of the
able-bodied indolent vote. That is an image that haunts the NDP, which
is why they should disband.
> Millions arer being denied opportunity in this country, and a price
> will be paid for that in future years.
I don't know what you mean. What opportunities are being denied,
exactly? I am not being sarcastic here. I genuinely wonder what you mean
when you write, "Millions arer being denied opportunity in this
country." In what way?
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> Michael H. wrote:
> >
> > James McCarte wrote:
> > >
> > > >Socialism demands state ownership
> > > >and control of the fundamental means of production.
> > >
> > > No, socialism demands WORKER control of the means (fundamental or not)
> > > of production (actually if they are means of production, they are
> > > fundamental).
> >
> > Nonsense. The "workers" elect bosses. In socialism, those bosses are
> > the state. So whether the "state" consists of labour bosses or other
> > types of politicians, the fact remains that the state controls the means
> > of production in a socialist country.
> > I don't recall the NDP ever claiming that the state should OWN the
> > fundamental means of production.
> > All of that ancient socialism dogma about "means of production" is
> > irrelevant today. It applies to the pre-automated industrial age when
> > most workers were involved in manufacturing goods, doing book-keeping
> > with pen and paper, etc. Today, that is all automated, and most workers
> > are not involved with the manufacture of goods. Most workers today
> > process information, and traditional socialist ideas don't even apply.
> > socialists are well-intentioned, but all that Marxist stuff is from the
> > wrong century.
> >
> Hi, you have a good point there. We do seem to have neo-conservatism
> (an even worse oxymoron than 'progressive conservatism') bashing
> 'traditional socialism'.
> But since Mike Harris is a neo-conservative, perhaps we should have
> neo-rebels.
> There were non-socialist rebels long before Marx and Lenin. People
> like Spartacus and Wat Tyler come to mind.
> Perhaps we need to go back to our Ontario roots, seeing that the
> Harris government bears lots of neo-resemblances to the old Family
> Compact.
I don't see why they call Harris a "neo-con." I think "archaeo-con"
might be more appropriate. I see the federal Liberals as being
"neo-con," i.e. they make brutal cuts and let other levels of government
take the blame.
We can't go back to our "Ontario roots" though, because that would be
taboo.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> >He
> >thinks that "corporate taxes" only include taxes on profits, but even
> >then, I doubt that he has considered that those profits are generally
> >either paid out as dividends (which are taxed as shareholder income), or
> >re-invested in research and development.
>
> the large-scale American ownership of Canadian industry means that a
> relatively small percentage of corporate income is spent on research and
> development in Canada.
That is believable.
> As far as dividends are concerned, again, the scale of American ownership of
> Canada's industry (preumably) means that a relatively small percentage of
> dividends are paid to Canadians.
I once read a book, as part of a course I took, and the book was by
Keri Levitt (sp), called "Silent Surrender." She was obviously quite
leftist, but the book was very well-documented, and I was convinced by
her case, and so I do believe that the Lib/Tory establishment handed the
Canadian economy to US buyers on a silver platter in the last half of
this century.
> > My main concern about large corporations is that so much money is spent
> >on buying out smaller companies, which is not really productive.
>
> In fact, in the United States at least, these buyouts are also used as a
> means of reducing taxes.
I see. So a holding company buying a TV network would be like a
carpenter buying a hammer. Tax deductible. How convenient.
> >We are tending to a monopolistic economy
> >where ultimately every business and retailer will be owned by one
> >company, and they will be able to charge whatever they like because they
> >will have no competitors.
> More likely, an oligopolistic economy, as in the auto industry (or in
> Canada's case in that industry), a (no-polistic) economy.
The fatal flaw in the auto pact, and everything to do with the car
industry, is that there is no car designed for a Canadian winter.
"All-weather radials" is a phrase that applies to Miama, Florida. Forget
about snow, icy windshields and all the rest. Even the heaters don't
heat the car to comfort level until you are two seconds from your
destination.
Think about this one. Canada was lined up with Chile and Argentina in
backing the US against the rest of humanity concerning the establishment
of an international protocol re the use of genetically-mutilated foods.
Canada has become a banana republic without bananas. Maybe the phrase
"maple syrup republic" will take on a new meaning as the cold north is
absorbed on this planet.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:02:18 -0500, "James McCarte"
> <jmcc...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> >>thinks that "corporate taxes" only include taxes on profits, but even
> >>then, I doubt that he has considered that those profits are generally
> >>either paid out as dividends (which are taxed as shareholder income), or
> >>re-invested in research and development.
> >
> >the large-scale American ownership of Canadian industry means that a
> >relatively small percentage of corporate income is spent on research and
> >development in Canada.
> >
> >Canada's industry (preumably) means that a relatively small percentage of
> >dividends are paid to Canadians.
>
> of dividends. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians hold shares in
> companies that are U.S. owned. Everything from pension funds to
> RRSP's (In the latter case, thousands of Canadians have found ways
> around the 20% limit on foreign investment). Many of the American
> companies operating in Canada a very widely held, so there is a high
> degree of illogic in your statement. Conversely, many Americans are
> shareholders in Canadian companies.
An interesting perspective. Baby-boomers with RRSP's consisting of
"diversified portfolios" adds a new complexity. It's no longer "blue
bloods" owning "blue chip stocks," as the anti-US, anti-Elvis contigent
would have us believe. It is an amorphous mass of international
investors, big and small, with diversified portfolios that no one could
possibly keep track of. It reminds me of the net, i.e. in being global
rather than local.
Which prompts the following view: the world of international investment
being the amorphous "owners" of a small share of everything. It gets
holographic when the ownership profile of any randomly-selected factory
on the planet is itself a microcosm of human investing activity.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> > It makes me laugh when Liberals and NDP talk about textbook shortages.
> >Did they not turn the education system on its head, which required that
> >all existing textbooks be thrown out and replaced?
>
> In a word, no.
You are wrong, yet again. You are number one on yet another list!
>
> Can't you find something to discuss, that you know a little bit about?
>
> What is most alarming about you is not your ignorance...although that
> is quite appalling. It is your false notion that you know the
> slightest bit about what you are talking about.
> Now that is really scarey!
What makes it even scarier is that it is not a "false notion." Before
you throw a hissy fit, let me state that I do believe that with the
rapid pace of change in every aspect of existence on this planet,
equality of opportunity in education is fundamental, yet at the same
time, I think that education should not be propaganda.
I have never proferred a cure-all idea for education, but I do think
that adequate funding is necessary, which is why I blame Chretien for
continuing Mulroney's abuse of Ontario. You would never blame Chretien
because you willingly bow to any idol that whips out a leftist shingle.
You love Chretien too much to allow him to absorb some of the
responsibility for his cuts in transfer payments to Ontario. You find it
convenient to blame Mulroney, indirectly, for Rae's "Social Contract,"
but yet you go schizophrenic in refusing to apply the same logic re
Harris dealing with Chretien's continuation of the Mulroney cuts to
Ontario.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> CARRICK
>
> Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
> Ya gotta love those superb debating talents of on of Canada's best
> "death wishers". What "Voodo School" did you attend CARRICK? BTW you
> don't know anything about anything worthwhile. Who are you to comment on
> anyone's level of knowledge. Go take your medicine...
>
> Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
> kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
>
> >
Students will encounter a wide variety of opinions from their teachers,
and I think that dealing with that is part of education. I would never
agree to banning political extremists from education. I think it is good
for young minds to encounter a wide variety of different political
opinions, even though I disagree with most of those opinions.
Look at it this way. A student in Carrick's class is probably better
off than a student watching the Springer Show.
Michael H.
bad...@cow-net.com
at 04:04 PM, jam...@my-dejanews.com (James Goneaux) said:
>Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with
>the process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know
>aren't against the ideas of social democracy, only the methods
>that are sometimes used, and the inability for some social
>democrats to admit that not everything they believe works as well
>as they believe it does.
"Most social democrats I know aren't against the ideas of
capitalism, only the methods that are sometimes used, and the
inability for some conservatives to admit that not everything they
believe works as well as they believe it does."
--
--------------------------------------------------------
SecureCom for OS2 and 95/NT support Page (formally NetChat)
http://cud.cow-net.com/badams/index.htm
Barry Adams
Vancouver Island,B.C.,Canada
---
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Goneaux
>In <36deaea1....@news.gov.on.ca>, on 03/04/99
> at 04:04 PM, jam...@my-dejanews.com (James Goneaux) said:
>
>
>
>>Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with
>>the process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know
>>aren't against the ideas of social democracy, only the methods
>>that are sometimes used, and the inability for some social
>>democrats to admit that not everything they believe works as well
>>as they believe it does.
>
>"Most social democrats I know aren't against the ideas of
>capitalism, only the methods that are sometimes used, and the
>inability for some conservatives to admit that not everything they
>believe works as well as they believe it does."
Fuck off, Barry. One more reasonable comment from you and you're
banned from UseNet.
Dave Till
James Goneaux <jam...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with the
>process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know aren't
>against the ideas of social democracy, only the methods that are
You hang out with a nicer bunch of conservatives than many of the
ones I see on the net. Many of those want to eliminate the social
safety net completely, and some assume that if someone is poor,
it's their own fault. (Much of my dislike of Mike Harris stems
from this attitude: deep down, our current Premier of Ontario really
believes that if you give pregnant welfare mothers money, they
will spend it on beer.)
I agree that conservatism and social democracy are not
necessarily incompatible (you seem to advocate both, from
what I've seen of your postings). But there are a lot of
neo-Darwinian sharks running around loose right now, who
are more than happy to let what they call "special
interest groups" fend for themselves.
--
--Dave Till - writer/programmer/reasonably pleasant person/big clumsy guy
email: davet (at) uunet.ca WWW: http://www.net/~davet/
Disclaimer: don't drag my employers into this discussion. Sheesh.
Always give 100% at work: 15% on Monday, 20% on Tuesday, 30% on Wednesday...
Dave Till
<bad...@cow-net.com> wrote:
>>Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with
>>the process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know
>>aren't against the ideas of social democracy, only the methods
>>democrats to admit that not everything they believe works as well
>>as they believe it does.
>
>"Most social democrats I know aren't against the ideas of
>capitalism, only the methods that are sometimes used, and the
>inability for some conservatives to admit that not everything they
>believe works as well as they believe it does."
I will second this. I am someone normally considered mildly "lefty",
but I am pro-capitalism - just not in favour of laissez-faire
capitalism. (Laissez-faire capitalists operate under the rather
quaint assumption that the marketplace is perfectly fair, and
always rewards its participants in direct proportion to their worth.)
James Goneaux
>In article <36deaea1....@news.gov.on.ca>,
>James Goneaux <jam...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with the
>>process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know aren't
>>against the ideas of social democracy, only the methods that are
>>sometimes used [...]
>
>You hang out with a nicer bunch of conservatives than many of the
>ones I see on the net.
Don't let a few louts paint your view of what a conservative is. I try
not to let the louts on the left paint my view of what social
democrats and fiscal liberals are. Lets face it, John Carrick tees off
on all and sundry, from left to centre to right. Just ask Barry Adams
or Victoria Baschok.
>Many of those want to eliminate the social
>safety net completely, and some assume that if someone is poor,
>it's their own fault.
>(Much of my dislike of Mike Harris stems
>from this attitude: deep down, our current Premier of Ontario really
>believes that if you give pregnant welfare mothers money, they
>will spend it on beer.)
And many conservatives who grew up poor know, from experience, that
many who are poor are not blameless. Not every conservative was born
with a silver spoon in his or her mouth.
What we saw during the 70's and 80's was a system that went too far
towards the "just give money, don't ask questions". Both my mother and
mother-in-law were single mothers in the 60s and couldn't believe that
such a thing as "the spouse in the house" rule was dropped, for
instance. And both women (among many other single mothers I know) are
just as vocal opponents of how the system traps people in poverty as
anyone else I know.
I certainly didn't grow up rich (working class rural, Central
Ontario), so I can't speak for conservatives who did. Most of the
people with whom I grew up were in the same financial position, and
the attitude you attribute to Harris is prevelant, among the very
people social democrats claim as supporters (i.e., working class).
>I agree that conservatism and social democracy are not
>necessarily incompatible (you seem to advocate both, from
>what I've seen of your postings).
One of the last, true, progressive conservatives, I is.
>But there are a lot of
>neo-Darwinian sharks running around loose right now, who
>are more than happy to let what they call "special
>interest groups" fend for themselves.
Well, use of the term "special interest group" is NOT exclusive to the
right., but you are correct.
But I would like to convince you that there is no small percentage of
fiscal conservatives who truly believe we had to get the deficit under
control. Barry Adams has shown (at least to me) that the REASONS for
the debt may be different than most conservatives will admit, but the
fact is, it exists.
And, hot button issues aside (drop the crime kick, Mikey, please?),
it seems a majority of Ontarians agree with Harris, although not the
speed at which he's reformed things. Which is what I've been saying
for three years...
John Connolly
newsgroup the same way you poisoned your class room those many years ago....
What a hoot, the arch slackers of NDP featherbedding, sabaticals, retirement
gratuities and $50,000,000,000 pension funds can't stop self-destructing.
John Carrick wrote:
> >Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> >workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> >security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> >CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> >and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> >on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
>
> That is right-wing bullshit of the worst kind, spoken by a
> union-hating creep.
>
> Some people have no shame at all.
>
> >It would seem that the Toronto Board is even in collusion with Sid
> >Ryan and the CUPE union. Ryan and the Board chairman are chummy,
> >on a first name basis. And the Chairman admitted that money was not
> >a problem, that the board has the funds to satisfy union demands.
>
> Over 4400 out of 14000 of these people will lose their jobs within two
> years under the present funding formula.
>
> You are either a liar or an idiot. I suspect both.
>
> >But Marxist-Commie Sid Ryan also today announced his candidacy to
> >run for the NDP in the coming provincial election. What a coincidence!
> >Look at all the publicity this little leftist labor goon is going to get.
>
> You disgusting creep!
>
> You don't think that people on the left have the right to exist, do
> you?
>
> Go straight to hell, and do not collect $200.00.
Michael H.
> >>Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with
> >>the process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know
> >>aren't against the ideas of social democracy, only the methods
> >>democrats to admit that not everything they believe works as well
> >>as they believe it does.
> >
> >"Most social democrats I know aren't against the ideas of
> >capitalism, only the methods that are sometimes used, and the
> >inability for some conservatives to admit that not everything they
> >believe works as well as they believe it does."
>
> I will second this. I am someone normally considered mildly "lefty",
> but I am pro-capitalism - just not in favour of laissez-faire
> capitalism. (Laissez-faire capitalists operate under the rather
> quaint assumption that the marketplace is perfectly fair, and
> always rewards its participants in direct proportion to their worth.)
> --
of ecomonies based on a few corporate monopolies.
Michael H.
doug rogers
qui...@email.com (E. Barry Bruyea) wrote:
>Well, the text book problem was around a long time before Harris, and
>you are forgetting he is the one who wants to reduce classroom size;
>which, rose during the eighties and early ninieties as teachers traded
>off size for money. But then again, anti-Harris forces don't really
>care one way or the other, it's just additional propaganda for the
>next election.
I came across recently some old articles I republished in our school
program newsletter. Here are some excerpts:
This article appeared in the Globe & Mail January 27, 1987.
...The OlSE poll, which was released yesterday, found that only 35% of
Ontarians are satisfied with the state of education in the province,
compared with 55% per cent when the first poll was conducted in 1978.
... also found that the prevailing public opinion is that the Provincial
Government should be spending more money on education. In the poll, 52%
favoured keeping government spending for education above the levels of
inflation, compared with 35% in 1979
...The largest public support, 73% of those polled, is for more government
investment in job retraining programs. The poll, which was conducted by
Gallup Canada, gives impetus to the campaigns of lobby groups such as the
Ontario Public School Trustees Association, which is pressing the
Government to provide more money for new schools.
June 1990 London Free Press
...Kindergarten teacher Colleen David at Arthur Ford elementary school has
a junior kindergarten class of 23 each morning and a senior class of 29
each afternoon.
...Classes should have about 18 pupils but many have up to 29,says the
Ontario Federation of Women Teachers' Associations. Junior and senior
kindergartens are voluntary, so the province has never legislated sizes.
Hoover said ministry guidelines push boards to restrict Grade 1 and 2
classes to 20 children, but set no limit on kindergartens. The Catholic
board's average pupil to teacher ratio is 17.5 to 1, said Pat Dunne,
operations and human resources superintendent with the Catholic Schools of
London and Middlesex.
...The September 1990 collective agreement between teachers and the London
Board of Education recommends;
* A target guideline for average class of 19 pupils.
* A teaching assistant be placed in a junior kindergarten if there are 17
or more pupils. and in a senior kindergarten if there are 24 or more
pupils.
From the Globe and Mail,Saturday November 1st 1997
... Consider this list of 10 criticisms of public education:
1. The public schools are controlled or dominated by professional
educationists of schools of education, school superintendents, experts in
departments of education, specialists and the national organizations of
educators.
2. Progressive education has taken over the public schools, leading to a
crisis in standards.
3. Intellectual training has been replaced with soft social programs in
many schools.
4. The spirit of competition, an important incentive for learning, has been
eliminated by the 100-per-cent-annual-promotion policy and the
multiple-standard report card.
5. Lax discipline in the public school is contributing to the increase of
juvenile crime.
6. The reaching of classical and modern foreign languages is infrequent in
the secondary schools.
7. High school students, even the bright ones, are avoiding science and
mathematics.
8. The public schools are neglecting gifted children because they are
geared to teaching the average child.
9. The public schools are neglecting the training of children in moral and
spiritual values.
10. Academic standards of schools of education are low; their programs of
study are of questionable value, and the intellectual qualities of future
teachers are poor.
Sound familiar? Any follower of recent debates on education has heard these
criticisms But this list is not current. In fact it comes from a small
pamphlet issued by the United States National Education Association in
1957, given to [the writer] a couple of of years ago by a colleague who was
clearing out old files prior to retirement. The publication was a Research
Bulletin from December, 1957, entitled Ten Criticisms of Public Education.
Honest John
> (Much of my dislike of Mike Harris stems
>from this attitude: deep down, our current Premier of Ontario really
>believes that if you give pregnant welfare mothers money, they
>will spend it on beer.)
Some will, that's how they got pregnant in the first place.:-)
this does not imply that ALL welfare mothers will do this but enough
of them do to make many citizens recognize a hint of truth in the
statement.
Most of us have no problem giving temporary help to someone down on
their luck. The problem comes when that becomes the lifestyle of the
person and they pass that view of life on to their children. There are
families in this community that have used public assistance as a way
of life for generations, that is where I draw the line. That's why I
strongly support workfare so that the kids can grow up with the idea
that leaving home every morning and going out to do a job is normal.
Currently too many see sitting around in front of the TV, sleeping and
partying as a normal lifestyle while going out to work is deplored as
something only mugs do.
Honest John
wrote:
>Now John, you know what happened the last time you tried to treat this
>newsgroup the same way you poisoned your class room those many years ago....
>
I'll bite, I'm interested in NG history. What happened?
Honest John
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 09:32:29 +0800, Bill Robinson
><dav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>CARRICK
>>
>>Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
>>Ya gotta love those superb debating talents of on of Canada's best
>>"death wishers". What "Voodo School" did you attend CARRICK? BTW you
>>don't know anything about anything worthwhile. Who are you to comment on
>>anyone's level of knowledge. Go take your medicine...
>>
>>Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
>>kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
>
>
>I think is was "Paranoid Elementary". Or was it "Elementary
>Paranoia?" Damn, I can never remember.
They are probably all arch-conservatives. A few years of hearing
Carrick rant on would put any normal human being of left-wing politics
for life.
Hello Kittyhawk
Honest John <Hones...@gov.ca> wrote:
|
|Most of us have no problem giving temporary help to someone down on
|their luck. The problem comes when that becomes the lifestyle of the
|person and they pass that view of life on to their children. There are
|families in this community that have used public assistance as a way
|of life for generations, that is where I draw the line. That's why I
|strongly support workfare so that the kids can grow up with the idea
|that leaving home every morning and going out to do a job is normal.
|Currently too many see sitting around in front of the TV, sleeping and
|partying as a normal lifestyle while going out to work is deplored as
|something only mugs do.
Jeez, sounds like what I do much of the time.
Actually I don't watch TV all that much but I
can see how the internet is a kind of substitute.
The idea of leaving home every morning on a
regular basis is appalling to those of us who
work from home.
No doubt dysfunctional lifestyles abound - some of
which are communicable diseases - but there are
many more ways to solve those problems than the
one-dimensional method-wranglers of Harrissment
seem able to imagine.
--
,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario 1 416 699 1868
a \i\ Internet: b...@gts.org Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
`/o/-e carbon is finished as a molecule, we are on tuareg time now
_\ >_ - Sandy Bull
Dave Till
E. Barry Bruyea <qui...@email.com> wrote:
>>Millions arer being denied opportunity in this country, and a price
>>will be paid for that in future years.
>
Thanks to recent tuition increases, post-secondary education is
becoming an unaffordable luxury for thousands of poor Canadians
(unless they are willing to saddle themselves with thousands of
dollars in debt, which is expected to be repaid immediately
following graduation).
>Or are you another one
>these fanatics that feel people should be guaranteed outcome as well
>as opportunity?
I don't feel that there should be equality of outcome, but there
should be some economic support for the poor. There are purely
pragmatic (as well as moral) reasons for this: if you provide
the poor with the necessities of life and means to improve
themselves through their own efforts, you reduce the strain
on the penal and health-care systems. (Better-fed people get
sick less often, and people with opportunities tend to commit
fewer crimes.)
From what I've seen, jurisdictions with harsh, punitive welfare
schemes wind up spending welfare savings on additional prisons.
James Goneaux
>In article <36de9407...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
>E. Barry Bruyea <qui...@email.com> wrote:
>>>Millions arer being denied opportunity in this country, and a price
>>>will be paid for that in future years.
>>
>>And just how are they 'denied' opportunity?
>
>Thanks to recent tuition increases, post-secondary education is
>becoming an unaffordable luxury for thousands of poor Canadians
>(unless they are willing to saddle themselves with thousands of
>dollars in debt, which is expected to be repaid immediately
>following graduation).
And yet, when I left college (sometimes I wish I could say
"graduated", but that's another story...) I was saddled with thousands
of dollars of debt, which was expected to be repaid immediately
following graduation. This was in the late 1980's.
However, I do realize what you mean. Students have to borrow more
money than I did (and I did get grants, too), so I'm not complaining.
But I did know of fellow students who weren't so lucky then either,
and not a few dropped out because they coudn't afford it.
Interesting, though, that the NDP is promising to cut tuition by a
whopping 10% - leaving, what, 90% of the Tory hike intact...
>From what I've seen, jurisdictions with harsh, punitive welfare
>schemes wind up spending welfare savings on additional prisons.
Perhaps, but if you are talking of the US, the crime rate is down, and
most of the people in prisons are there for "crimes" involving the
ridiculous war on drugs.
Kent Richardson
The Laissez-faire capitalist did notice the Great Depression!!!
E. Barry Bruyea
>In article <36de9407...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
>E. Barry Bruyea <qui...@email.com> wrote:
>>>Millions arer being denied opportunity in this country, and a price
>>>will be paid for that in future years.
>>
>>And just how are they 'denied' opportunity?
>
>Thanks to recent tuition increases, post-secondary education is
>becoming an unaffordable luxury for thousands of poor Canadians
>(unless they are willing to saddle themselves with thousands of
>dollars in debt, which is expected to be repaid immediately
>following graduation).
How come the universities are full?
>
>>Or are you another one
>>these fanatics that feel people should be guaranteed outcome as well
>>as opportunity?
>
>I don't feel that there should be equality of outcome, but there
>should be some economic support for the poor. There are purely
>pragmatic (as well as moral) reasons for this: if you provide
>the poor with the necessities of life and means to improve
>themselves through their own efforts, you reduce the strain
>on the penal and health-care systems. (Better-fed people get
>sick less often, and people with opportunities tend to commit
>fewer crimes.)
>
>From what I've seen, jurisdictions with harsh, punitive welfare
>schemes wind up spending welfare savings on additional prisons.
>--
>--Dave Till
C'mon, Dave, our welfare system is hardly punitive. Granted, Harris
cut it in one great wack, (I believe if he was going to do it all it
should have been done in stages) but it is still on par with the rest
of the country; even higher than most othe provinces. Welfare is not
supposed to be an easy ride; it's supposed be a hand till the person
gets on their feet. Opportunities are there in this country, but
sometimes you just have to go and look for them. They don't always
knock at your front door.
John Carrick
>Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
I wish pain and suffering on those who have caused pain and suffering.
You find that odd?
I call you a partisan imbecile, because the term seem to have been
coined for someone of your ilk. That is strange to you?
>Ya gotta love those superb debating talents of on of Canada's best
>"death wishers". What "Voodo School" did you attend CARRICK?
Bullshit!
[1] I do come here and engage in invective against brainless right
wing turds like yourself.
[2] I also come here and have thoughtful correspondence with people
who show a glimmer of intelligence.
You, on the other hand have only one string to your bow, and it is
stupidity writ large.
> BTW you don't know anything about anything worthwhile.
I see. My three university degrees, plus my post-graduate work in the
United States compare poorly with your grade eight diploma, do they?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Some are born pricks, Some achieve the
status of pricks. And some have the qualities of being a prick thrust
upon them"
Tell me, which was it in your case?
> Who are you to comment on anyone's level of knowledge. Go take your medicine...
No, you are getting *your* medicine now, you smooth-brained little
shit! What makes you think that you can engagr in a war of words with
me, when you are quite obviously unarmed?
>Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
>kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
Your progeny should be so lucky!
It is disappointing to learn that you may have passed on your
regressive traits, thus polluting the gene pool.
Now try taking on someone who is in your league, you inarticulate
fool.
Bob Davies
I read your post to Bill. I'd like to comment if I may.
Wow I am impressed! Three degrees? And that gives you the right to be a
foul mouthed SOB in front of millions of people? Why do you bother to
try and insult someone who is obviously considerably smarter than
yourself? You're not playing with a full deck boy!
My observations of socialists is that they are greedy little pigs who
lap at the public trough and don't do anything useful for a laving. And
you, you scumbag, are an admitted socialist. Well we know where you
stand. Are you sure you aren't a buddy of Premier Glenocchio Clark? If
it weren't for the the capitalists footing the bill for your ill
conceived life you would be lying in a gutter, drinking rice wine,
dribbling on your shirt and claiming you were Napoleon. Three degrees my
ass! You talk like a sailor with a grade eight education! What did you
do? Did you persuade a neighborhood kid to come over and write your more
literate posts?
"Socialists" like you spend all their time dreaming up ways to waste
resources, wreck the earth pollute our rivers and streams and then you
figure out how to horde goods and services while writing and shouting
diatribes blaming your failures on hard working business people. I know
all about your self serving, greedy, stingy, mud slinging kind. The kind
of behavior you exhibit is typical of the *greediest*, *most* self
serving kind of low life communist brand of socialist. In communist
Russia under Stalin you would likely have been a valued member of the
secret police. You probably would have been assigned to torturing
confessions out of children and pregnant women. It takes a certain
mindset to enjoy that type of "work" and you seem to have it in spades.
You have to be able to justify the sick and polluted attitude that you
so willingly display.
I bet I know how you got three degrees! One thermometer in your nose,
the other in the ear and the last one up your butt! (And you probably
orgasmed too!) That way you get three different degrees right? I'm sure
you're the type of guy who had to stay up all night studying for a urine
test. (And you probably failed that too.) Anybody who has three degrees
doesn't have to talk to any one the way you do to make their unless they
have a mental illness. So you have unwittingly proved yourself a
pathetic liar of the lowest kind.
Now crawl back under your communist rock and count your hoarded goods
again. You scum bag! And quit bothering honest, valuable members of
society!
Keep your sick and disgusting posts in the alt.sex.perverted newsgroups
where they belong.
Now I kept the number of syllables down so you could mouth out the words
and do your one finger typing response. So just apologize, turn off your
computer and go jump off a very high cliff while praying for forgiveness
you godless creep.
--
Bob Davies
Socialism builds Fat Ferries!
Michael H.
> The Laissez-faire capitalist did notice the Great Depression!!!
Why would they?
Michael H.
Bill Robinson
welcome to it.
Springer seems so much more literate, articulate and reasonable to me.
Over the last few years I've seen several six second clips that were
actually funny and witty. Besides, Springer makes good entertainment if
you watch him in one second bursts while channel flicking. CARRICK isn't
entertaining in any dose - no matter how small.
"Michael H." wrote:
> Look at it this way. A student in Carrick's class is probably better
> off than a student watching the Springer Show.
>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>
> Bill Robinson wrote:
> >
> > CARRICK
> >
> > Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
> > Ya gotta love those superb debating talents of on of Canada's best
> > "death wishers". What "Voodo School" did you attend CARRICK? BTW you
> > don't know anything about anything worthwhile. Who are you to comment on
> > anyone's level of knowledge. Go take your medicine...
> >
> > Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
> > kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
> >
> > John Carsick wrote:
> > >
>
> Students will encounter a wide variety of opinions from their teachers,
> and I think that dealing with that is part of education. I would never
> agree to banning political extremists from education. I think it is good
> for young minds to encounter a wide variety of different political
> opinions, even though I disagree with most of those opinions.
> Look at it this way. A student in Carrick's class is probably better
> off than a student watching the Springer Show.
>
> Michael H.
--
Bill Robinson
Socialism is the concept - Fascism is the typical instantiation!
Support the unions - take an NDP MLA to lunch - at MacDonalds in
Squamish!
john ramsay
>
> Now John, you know what happened the last time you tried to treat this
> newsgroup the same way you poisoned your class room those many years ago....
>
> gratuities and $50,000,000,000 pension funds can't stop self-destructing.
>
Hi John C., that teachers pension fund hasn't self-destructed yet.
Indeed it's a model of capital investment and provides all sorts of
jobs to the business community.
Better hope the teachers pension fund does not self-destruct. Might
take the entire economy of Ontario with it.
john ramsay
>
> On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:48:00 -0500, john ramsay <jra...@mergetel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Barry, please explain how Harris has managed to reduce classroom
> >size. Despite his protestations he has accomplished the opposite.
> > And while you're at it, please explain how teachers traded off
> >classroom size for money yet got no pay raises in the 7 - 8 years before
> >Harris was elected.
> > Are you sure you're not just repeating the Harris propaganda
> >yourself?
> > He sure did spend a lot of taxpayers' money, buying your loyalty with
> >all those TV ads.
>
> The teachers will love you, considering you've added a few years since
> they had a raise. Great spinning! There is no evidence that class
> size has increased since Harris began rebuilding the education system;
> no evidence other than the anti-Harris propaganda. Remember the 10K
> teachers that were going to be fired? Hasn't happened. As to
> teachers contracts, all through the eighties in many jurisdictions,
> teachers traded off class sizes for more money. Evidence of this was
> available ad infinitum during the teachers protests. As to textbooks,
> there is also plenty of evidence available for text book shortages
> long before Harris took office. Like most anti-Harris fanatics, you
> just ignore reality and carry on just as if you knew what you were
> doing.
> >
Hi Barry, if there's plenty of evidence, why don't you provide us with
some? Be a nice change from your usual unsupported ravings.
As for your own spinning. No, those 10K teachers were not fired.
That's because a couple of things happened in between that you choose
not to acknowledge.
We now have a teacher shortage thanks to Mike Harris, Barry.
I'm back in the classroom costing you $37- an hour. On top of my
pension.
Mikey's really saved you a lot of money in education, hasn't he?
john ramsay
>
> john ramsay wrote:
>
> > And while you're at it, please explain how teachers traded off
> > classroom size for money yet got no pay raises in the 7 - 8 years before
> > Harris was elected.
>
> pouring in 1/2 billion $ per year into the pension fund - a very
> big-time deferred pay raise. The current gov't managed to get out of it
> in return for letting teachers retire even earlier - a full 10 years
> ahead of real world people - on full pension.
Hi, your ignorance of the facts is appalling.
1. In 1990 the teachers pension board and the Ontario government came to
an agreement that it would be an equal partnership as of 1997 with both
parties sharing gains and losses.
2. The so-called Bob Rae buy-off was the government finally paying its
share after the teacher side allowed it deferrals.
3. The Mike Harris ploy to force teachers into even earlier retirement
was a short-sighted attempt to save money and make the government
accounts look good. (Teachers could retire at 55 long before Mike
Harris. Mikey allowed them to retire even younger.)
4. Now we have a teacher shortage in Ontario because Mike Harris forced
all those teachers into retirement and I'm drawing my pension and
earning $37- an hour on top of it.
5. Guess I'll keep working till age 65, just like real world people like
you :-)
john ramsay
>
> On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 03:06:43 -0500, john ramsay <jra...@mergetel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael H. wrote:
>
> >> What socialism needs is a new philosophy for the future. I believe that
> >> socialists are well-intentioned, but all that Marxist stuff is from the
> >> wrong century.
> >>
> >> Michael H.
> >
> >Hi, you have a good point there. We do seem to have neo-conservatism
> >(an even worse oxymoron than 'progressive conservatism') bashing
> >'traditional socialism'.
> > But since Mike Harris is a neo-conservative, perhaps we should have
> >neo-rebels.
>
> Well, there seems to be a good training ground for them at Harbord
> Collegiate in Toronto: one student was bragging in the media that she
> was clogging toilets as fast as her vice-principal was unclogging
> them.
>
> Is "Lord of the Flies" still required reading in senior grades?
Hi James, what's your point? Mike Harris flushed the education system
down the toilet so the students are doing the same thing?
BTW As I recall 'Lord of the Flies' the villain, called Jack, does
bear a close resemblance to Mike Harris.
Jack sure did a number on all those liberal/lefty/commies like Ralph
and Piggy, didn't he?
Honest John
wrote:
"Mensa Man" Carrick is again in rare form:-
>
>>Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
>
>I wish pain and suffering on those who have caused pain and suffering.
>You find that odd?
So tell us which members of this NG have "caused pain and suffering."
The only suffering I have caused is to your ego when I point out the
truths about your vile posts.
>Bullshit!
>
>[1] I do come here and engage in invective against brainless right
>wing turds like yourself.
>
Tell us Carrick, why do you still have a preoccupation with
excrement?. Is the compulsion so powerful that you cannot resist it
even when you know it makes you the laughing stock of this NG?
>I see. My three university degrees, plus my post-graduate work in the
>United States compare poorly with your grade eight diploma, do they?
>
You must feel really inadequate to have to keep boasting about you
three degrees etc. Feeble minded efforts to impress people with your
"learning" count for nothing when you use gutter language and debating
tricks that would discredit someone in kindergarten.
>No, you are getting *your* medicine now, you smooth-brained little
>shit! What makes you think that you can engagr in a war of words with
>me, when you are quite obviously unarmed?
>
"engagr?", drooling on the keyboard again Carrick? Come on try hard,
get your mind out of the sewer for once, concentrate on what you are
doing. Obviously he can "engagr" in a war of words with you and he is
clearly winning.
>>Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
>>kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
>
Amazing the think that Carrick taught anybody anything given his
obvious inability to learn. Perhaps this whole business he spouts
about being an educator with "three" degrees is simply some syphilitic
delusion.
Ivan Satori
>>Socialism demands state ownership
>>and control of the fundamental means of production.
>No, socialism demands WORKER control of the means (fundamental or not)
>of production (actually if they are means of production, they are
>fundamental).
Wonder whether this time you would be as kind as to explain what is the
difference between the two in practical terms. By practical terms I don't
mean throwing in a few more intellectually sounding words, but a
description, if just rudimentary, of the mechanism how the control would be
set up and maintained, basic structures, preventive measures against abuse
of power by individuals, and such. And which of the workers (sorry,
WORKERs), will have that control. (If your reply is going to be the
anticipated "all of them", then please some detail about the way how, let's
say, a worker on a conveyor belt is going to exercise that control.)
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:48:00 -0500, john ramsay <jra...@mergetel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Hi Barry, please explain how Harris has managed to reduce classroom
>> >size. Despite his protestations he has accomplished the opposite.
>> > And while you're at it, please explain how teachers traded off
>> >classroom size for money yet got no pay raises in the 7 - 8 years before
>> >Harris was elected.
You're something else. I reply to your post, in which you provided no
facts other than your opinion and now, because you didn't like my
reply, you're asking me for facts. Physician, heal thyself.
>
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 14:03:43 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
>wrote:
>
>"Mensa Man" Carrick is again in rare form:-
>>
>>>Just wish a slow lingering death on him. Swear at him. That'll fix him.
>>
>>I wish pain and suffering on those who have caused pain and suffering.
>>You find that odd?
>
>So tell us which members of this NG have "caused pain and suffering."
>The only suffering I have caused is to your ego when I point out the
>truths about your vile posts.
>
>>Bullshit!
>>
>>[1] I do come here and engage in invective against brainless right
>>wing turds like yourself.
>>
>Tell us Carrick, why do you still have a preoccupation with
>excrement?. Is the compulsion so powerful that you cannot resist it
>even when you know it makes you the laughing stock of this NG?
>
>>I see. My three university degrees, plus my post-graduate work in the
>>United States compare poorly with your grade eight diploma, do they?
Once more the paper hanger confuses education and intelligence. He
just can't seem to avoid that trap, no matter how many times he's been
warned.
Honest John
<dav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bill:
>
>I will be laughing/crying for quite some time over your post. It took a
>while, but actually, I think I was laughing so hard it caused the most
>exquisite pain. <ROTFLOL>
>
>It is so sad that some one must behave in the fashion CARRICK behaves.
>He must have been beaten repeatedly as a young child. Should we feel
>pity instead of disgust? I suspect the only post graduate work he did
>was Toilet Cleaning 501 after completing "Floor Sweeping 101 through
>401" while taking his "Basket Weaving and Janitorial Studies degree".
You may be giving him too much credit! Carrick likes spreading filth,
I've seen no evidence that he like cleaning it up.
>
>Or should we leave him - to have a prick thrust upon him as he so
>obviously desires? Does Alzheimer's Disease cause this sort of behavior?
>
I have never seen it. I think neurosyphilis is in fact more likely.
With luck Carrick will now go of into a corner and sulk, he often does
that when hit with a few good posts.
>
Minor correction to my earlier post...
>> Amazing *to* think that Carrick taught anybody anything given his
Michael H.
>
> In <36deaea1....@news.gov.on.ca>, on 03/04/99
> at 04:04 PM, jam...@my-dejanews.com (James Goneaux) said:
>
>
>
> >Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with
> >the process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know
> >aren't against the ideas of social democracy, only the methods
> >that are sometimes used, and the inability for some social
> >democrats to admit that not everything they believe works as well
> >as they believe it does.
>
> "Most social democrats I know aren't against the ideas of
> capitalism, only the methods that are sometimes used, and the
> inability for some conservatives to admit that not everything they
> believe works as well as they believe it does."
>
runaway monopolism. Capitalism would be perfect for a planet of infinite
size, but on this finite planet capitalism collapses into a small number
of monopolists owning and controlling everything.
Maybe there should be a different set of laws for people who control
more than a billion dollars of economic activity, but since those same
people can buy TV networks, etc., that is not likely to happen in a
democracy populated by TV addicts.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> I'm sorry you believe that Michael. But, it's your opinion and you're
> welcome to it.
>
> Springer seems so much more literate, articulate and reasonable to me.
> Over the last few years I've seen several six second clips that were
> actually funny and witty. Besides, Springer makes good entertainment if
> you watch him in one second bursts while channel flicking. CARRICK isn't
> entertaining in any dose - no matter how small.
If there were such a thing as "THE CARRICK SHOW," hosted by Carrick
himself, it would probably blow Springer off the map for the simple
reason that the host of it would be more spectacularly dysfunctional
than any of Springer's guests, no?
>
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> >On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 09:32:29 +0800, Bill Robinson
> ><dav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >>Hey! Anybody know where CARRICK taught school? I want to make sure my
> >>kids avoid contact with anybody he ever taught!
> >
> >
> >I think is was "Paranoid Elementary". Or was it "Elementary
> >Paranoia?" Damn, I can never remember.
>
> They are probably all arch-conservatives. A few years of hearing
> Carrick rant on would put any normal human being of left-wing politics
> for life.
That is so true. I appreciate, though, that he perceives certain issues
to be worth ranting about. I think that his solutions are misguided, but
I do admire the fact that he cares.
My concern for the disadvantaged makes me care about the squirrels and
the racoons, and I fight anything that would cause them to lose their
homes, which is why I believe in a no-growth immigration policy -NGI.
(Forget ZPG - they have been hijacked). Liberals and socialists support
immigration levels that cause bulldozers to crush the homes of
indigenous wildlife. It is perhaps ironic that the sense of compassion
that led me naively to socialism in my youth leads me to thinking of
strategically voting Reform, because Reform immigration policies would
save the homes of wild creatures from the urban sprawl that is fueled by
Lib/NDP immigration levels.
Reformers would probably want to go into the bush and gun down those
creatures for fun, but at least there would be a forest with creatures
to gun down in the first place, unlike as in the other scenarios.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:48:00 -0500, john ramsay <jra...@mergetel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:38:41 -0500, Iconoclast <icono...@ionsys.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Today we learned the real reason for the CUPE strike of support
> >> >>workers in Toronto's schools. It has nothing to do with wages or job
> >> >>security but everything to do with defeating the Harris government.
> >> >>CUPE and the socialists are playing politics with the school children
> >> >>and their parents in Toronto. This is despicable, irresponsible behavior
> >> >>on the part Sid Ryan and his labor union.
> >> >
> >> >And how then would you classify underfunding the school system,
> >> >leaving overcrowded classes without text books, in the first place?
> >>
> >> Well, the text book problem was around a long time before Harris, and
> >> you are forgetting he is the one who wants to reduce classroom size;
> >> which, rose during the eighties and early ninieties as teachers traded
> >> off size for money. But then again, anti-Harris forces don't really
> >> care one way or the other, it's just additional propaganda for the
> >> next election.
> >
> >size. Despite his protestations he has accomplished the opposite.
> > And while you're at it, please explain how teachers traded off
> >classroom size for money yet got no pay raises in the 7 - 8 years before
> >Harris was elected.
> > Are you sure you're not just repeating the Harris propaganda
> >yourself?
> > He sure did spend a lot of taxpayers' money, buying your loyalty with
> >all those TV ads.
>
> The teachers will love you, considering you've added a few years since
> they had a raise. Great spinning! There is no evidence that class
> size has increased since Harris began rebuilding the education system;
> no evidence other than the anti-Harris propaganda. Remember the 10K
> teachers that were going to be fired? Hasn't happened.
The bizarre thing is that there was a time in education when the glut
of teachers was considered the big problem. Now, with the "freedom-55"
mentality, there is a major shortage of teachers. That is funny. Make
teaching a disgraceful profession in the media and only a small number
of dedicated fanatics of learning want to do it. That ought to improve
education. Right.
> As to
> teachers contracts, all through the eighties in many jurisdictions,
> teachers traded off class sizes for more money. Evidence of this was
> available ad infinitum during the teachers protests. As to textbooks,
> there is also plenty of evidence available for text book shortages
> long before Harris took office. Like most anti-Harris fanatics, you
> just ignore reality and carry on just as if you knew what you were
> doing.
> >
Any time the education system is turned on its head, the way the
Liberals, NDP and Tories did, it involves trashing billions of dollars
in textbooks. The whole thing is such a farce and a fraud, in which the
publishers are the winners and the taxpayers are the losers. Damn, the
naivety of the voting public will guarantee malevolent governments for
all time, no?
Michael H.
Michael H.
<snip>
> We now have a teacher shortage thanks to Mike Harris, Barry.
> I'm back in the classroom costing you $37- an hour. On top of my
> pension.
> Mikey's really saved you a lot of money in education, hasn't he?
That is not nice, john. I don't have a problem when workers in communal
interests such as health and education make equivalent money to workers
in the private sector, but there is obviously going to be a huge
disagreement about where that line of equality is. That is on the whole
dividing line between left and right, and you do not help your cause by
portraying you and your tax-funded cronies as gluttons at the trough.
Michael H.
Tim Meehan
tor.general on Fri, 05 Mar 1999 16:15:30 GMT and came up with:
>And yet, when I left college (sometimes I wish I could say
>"graduated", but that's another story...) I was saddled with thousands
>of dollars of debt, which was expected to be repaid immediately
>following graduation. This was in the late 1980's.
I find it strange that one of the most promising programs that the Tories
considered for fixing this problem - income-contingent loan repayment plans
- was shot down by the banks because it would mean that people would be in
debt longer and unable to borrow money (and increase bank revenue) because
of this debt load.
This shortsightedness totally ignores the fact that if someone defaults on
a loan or goes bankrupt (and IIRC this avenue has now been taken away due
to changes the feds made to the Bankruptcy Act), they're not only losing
revenue for the next seven or so years because of a bad credit rating this
brings, but also losing the student loan monies they lent out in the first
place. Not to mention that if a "deadbeat" student is facing garnishment
of his/her income tax refund, there's going to be little incentive for them
to invest in RRSPs and the like.
The only possible reasoning I can think of for this policy is the desire to
create a market for secondary lenders, where usurious interest rates bring
in higher revenue. IIRC, in the US a lot of these
"we'll-give-you-money-when-no-one-else-can-at-20-percent-above-prime"
places are, in fact, divisions of existing primary financial institutions.
Not sure what the situation is up here.
Even stranger, though, is the CFS' and other student organizations'
position opposing ICLRP based on the ideology that tuition should be
low-cost to "free" and that this program would somehow put that goal
further away. It's an equally shortsighted position. Any improvement over
the status quo would be welcome.
Oh, and I looked into the fine print of the changes Ottawa made last year
to interest relief and principal reduction for those unable to pay. It
only covers a very small number of loans, and I've yet to run into someone
who has benefitted from it.
-Tim
--
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this
guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Tim Meehan send
this e-mail. I guess it's pretty serious.
Michael H.
An excellent question. In fact, that would be an excellent question for
a term paper, which might be a welcomed freebie from some of the young
leftist post-grads on line. Hahahaha!! Not. But maybe. The difference
between "state control" and "worker control" in a socialist state. That
is interesting.
The concept of "worker control" is untenable, because the workers would
have to elect a representative, which makes the whole system prey to
propagandizing and false hearsay.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> If there were such a thing as "THE CARRICK SHOW," hosted by Carrick
> himself, it would probably blow Springer off the map for the simple
> reason that the host of it would be more spectacularly dysfunctional
> than any of Springer's guests, no?
> >
Sorry to John Carrick. Just having a laugh. Although he seems to have
established himself as a WallyWorld poster-gargoyle extraordinaire, he
does sometimes make sense. As the self-proclaimed voluntary
poster-character for his cause, he is often ridiculed, tormented, and
ripped apart by people whose logic skills are not dysfunctional. His
thinking is such an easy target.
I admire Carrick, though, in a way, although his disgusting language is
nauseating. I mean no harm.
Michael H.
Ivan Satori
>In article <36de9407...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
>I don't feel that there should be equality of outcome, but there
And you're claiming that in Canada this is not provided?
>(Better-fed people get sick less often,
Sounds reasonable to me - how do you propose to accomplish that - some sort
of public eateries?
>and people with opportunities tend to commit fewer crimes.)
You just assume or you have some data backing that assumption? Would you
consider possible that the willingness to take advantage of the
opportunities that present themselves to people in this country might be a
factor?
>From what I've seen, jurisdictions with harsh, punitive welfare
>schemes wind up spending welfare savings on additional prisons.
Where have you seen it? What was the relation between the saving and
spending (I mean numbers, just roughly is good enough).
john ramsay
Hi, actually the Tory government is winning more that the publishers.
The schools are now obliged to order textbooks through the government
which charges a cool 25% above the publishers' catalogue prices.
And if Barry Bruyea chooses he can always access Ontario Hansard for
proof of that fact. And Johnson's feeble attempts to explain it away.
john ramsay
Hi, the Harris government of course never gets into 'propagandizing and
false hearsay'.
john ramsay
>
> You're something else. I reply to your post, in which you provided no
> facts other than your opinion and now, because you didn't like my
> reply, you're asking me for facts. Physician, heal thyself.
> >
Hi Barry, here's a few facts that you have chosen to ignore in the past.
About 5,000 teachers took early retirement last year and another
5,000 will this year. That was forced on them by the Harris government.
That's what happened in between to those 10,000 teachers who would
have been fired. A fact that you blithely neglect to reply to.
Another fact is the teacher shortage. I told you in a previous post
I'm back in the classroom at $37- an hour thanks to Mike Harris's
foolishness.
You never did reply to that post, Barry. You always run from facts.
Then turn around and demand them when you think it's safe to do so.
I gave you the facts, Barry. Your turn now.
P.S. Are you still too chicken to visit the Teachers' Pension Board
Webpage? There's a lot of facts there too that you refuse to
acknowledge.
john ramsay
Hi, please explain how I am a 'glutton at the trough'.
That's pretty heavyhanded language from someone who prides himself on
his intellectual detachment.
Gluttons at the trough, to me at least, are corporate execs who get
in excess of a million a year. Not someone who makes $37- an hour.
You are also not facing the fact that I am now re-employed because of
a Mike Harris-created teacher shortage.
What has happened to your capitalist theories of supply and demand?
And, on both humanitarian and capitalistic grounds, would you prefer
that the 45 students I taught the last 2 months not have a teacher?
john ramsay
>
> Honest John wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 19:04:08 GMT, qui...@email.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
Hi, have you looked at the Ontario government plan for provincial parks
and wilderness protection?
You seem to be even more naive in your mature Reformism than you were
in your socialist youth -:)
Michael H.
>
> Michael H. wrote:
> >
> > john ramsay wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > We now have a teacher shortage thanks to Mike Harris, Barry.
> > > I'm back in the classroom costing you $37- an hour. On top of my
> > > pension.
> > > Mikey's really saved you a lot of money in education, hasn't he?
> >
> > That is not nice, john. I don't have a problem when workers in communal
> > interests such as health and education make equivalent money to workers
> > in the private sector, but there is obviously going to be a huge
> > disagreement about where that line of equality is. That is on the whole
> > dividing line between left and right, and you do not help your cause by
> > portraying you and your tax-funded cronies as gluttons at the trough.
> >
> > Michael H.
>
> Hi, please explain how I am a 'glutton at the trough'.
I didn't say that you were, but you seemed to be portraying yourself
that way. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
> That's pretty heavyhanded language from someone who prides himself on
> his intellectual detachment.
> Gluttons at the trough, to me at least, are corporate execs who get
> in excess of a million a year.
Usually "the trough" refers to taxpayers' money.
> Not someone who makes $37- an hour.
> You are also not facing the fact that I am now re-employed because of
> a Mike Harris-created teacher shortage.
> What has happened to your capitalist theories of supply and demand?
Those theories don't apply too well in a monopolistic economy.
> And, on both humanitarian and capitalistic grounds, would you prefer
> that the 45 students I taught the last 2 months not have a teacher?
Oh, I see where you are coming from now. I thought you were gloating
over the fact that you were pulling $37/hour out of the pockets of
taxpayers like Barry, but now I see that you are saying that Tory
mismanagement of eduction in Ontario is costing the taxpayer that money.
Okay - sorry for any implied personal offence. At the same time, it is
probably debatable whether the teacher shortage is Harris' fault. One
could argue that changes made by the Liberals/NDP, e.g. destreaming,
have made public education so unworkable that teachers retire as soon as
possible.
When I talk to people about retirement, most expect to get continued
small raises, and so there is a reason to work to 60 or 65, because your
best five years' salary would be at the end. Teachers, however, are
unlikely to ever get another raise, and so there is no reason to put up
with the nonsense, the media abuse, etc. Teachers have already had their
"best five years." Does anybody have the stats on teacher retirements?
I think that the Tory scheme might have been to encourage the senior
teachers (at max salary) to retire early, and then replace them with
entry-level low-salaried teachers. Unfortunately, students going through
the system have learned to avoid the teaching profession like the
plague. (It is not like it was when I was a student, where you could be
expelled for swearing, and there were detention halls, and you actually
had to pass the courses in public school to get promoted to the next
grade). This problem of teacher shortages is not going to go away, and
will only get worse as teacher workloads are increased and the fixed
salaries fall farther behind inflation.
Michael H.
Dave Smith
> Hi Barry, here's a few facts that you have chosen to ignore in the past.
> About 5,000 teachers took early retirement last year and another
> 5,000 will this year. That was forced on them by the Harris government.
> That's what happened in between to those 10,000 teachers who would
> have been fired. A fact that you blithely neglect to reply to.
> Another fact is the teacher shortage. I told you in a previous post
> I'm back in the classroom at $37- an hour thanks to Mike Harris's
> foolishness.
> You never did reply to that post, Barry. You always run from facts.
> Then turn around and demand them when you think it's safe to do so.
> I gave you the facts, Barry. Your turn now.
There you go... confusing the issue with facts again. You know by now that
some people here will never bother to check facts if they think they can
make their point by smearing the reputation of the person who posted the
information.
> P. S. Are you still too chicken to visit the Teachers' Pension Board
> Webpage? There's a lot of facts there too that you refuse to
> acknowledge.
The success of the teachers pension fund is a burr under the saddle of
rabid anti unionists. Stuck in the mindset that all unionized workers are
ranting commies with no sense of personal responsibility, they are
determined that any fund run by a union will be squandered. It shatters
their simple belief system to see the teachers pension fund doing well, much
better than the civil service pension fund that was invested <?> into low
interest loads to friends of government for peanuts when interest rates were
at an all time high.
Ivan Satori
>On 5 Mar 1999 11:05:02 -0500, da...@angel.uunet.ca (Dave Till) wrote:
> ...
>C'mon, Dave, our welfare system is hardly punitive. Granted, Harris
>cut it in one great wack, (I believe if he was going to do it all it
>should have been done in stages) but it is still on par with the rest
>of the country; even higher than most othe provinces.
I am not sure, but wasn't that blood thirsty Harris' cut essentially more or
less just a roll back to pre-Rae era of caring Peterson?
>Welfare is not
>supposed to be an easy ride; it's supposed be a hand till the person
>gets on their feet.
One of the fundamental problems with the welfare system the way it is setup
today is that it is so difficult to get off it. To get off, probably working
for minimal wage at the beginning, people might very well find themselves
worse off than staying at home. I understand, they lose the benefits such as
dental, etc. If somebody works while on welfare, his earning - if declared -
is subtracted from the support, dollar for dollar. That's not much of an
incentive, and I supect, some paperwork is in addition to that. If the
subtraction from the support payments was say 50c per $1.- earned, people
would be able to make some extra money, so looking for even some part-time
work would make much more sense, and they could build up both financial
backing, work experience and history (to put on resume, among other things),
and some relationships for getting back into the workforce in an increasing
extent.
>Opportunities are there in this country, but
>sometimes you just have to go and look for them. They don't always
>knock at your front door.
Definitely. Now, I can understand that it might be difficult for people
living on welfare for some time to see them and break the pattern of
dependency. In my view, all the negative, defeatist talk by people who might
sincerely consider themselves caring is doing a great damage in terms of
human potential lost.
David Collier-Brown
> Bob Rae bought off the teachers by committing all future gov'ts to
> pouring in 1/2 billion $ per year into the pension fund -
That's odd, the discussion here had Mr. Rae negotiating a
"holiday" from contributions because the earnings of
the plan had improved so much.
I think you're thinking of the Liberals who preceded him.
Heck, it might even have been MY permier, Bill, who increased
the contribution rate (from both employer and employee)
because the government-run plan was doing so poorly.
> The current gov't managed to get out of it
> in return for letting teachers retire even earlier - a full 10 years
> ahead of real world people - on full pension.
Which their real-world pension fund paid for. Don't forget,
that fund was managed by private industry. And did rather
well, actually!
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave., | and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
Work: (905) 477-0437 Home: (416) 223-8968 Email: dav...@canada.sun.com
David Collier-Brown
> I don't feel that there should be equality of outcome, but there
> pragmatic (as well as moral) reasons for this: if you provide
> the poor with the necessities of life and means to improve
> themselves through their own efforts, you reduce the strain
> on the penal and health-care systems. (Better-fed people get
> sick less often, and people with opportunities tend to commit
> fewer crimes.)
Far too sane, dave: you're suggesting both providing
necessities (which the left will approve of) and
means to improve themselves through their own efforts,
(which the right will approve of).
Alas, the right will attack the first point and the
left the second (:-))
David Collier-Brown
> > "Most social democrats I know aren't against the ideas of
> > capitalism, only the methods that are sometimes used, and the
> > inability for some conservatives to admit that not everything they
> > believe works as well as they believe it does."
Michael H. wrote:
> The problem with capitalism is
> runaway monopolism. Capitalism would be perfect for a planet of infinite
> size, but on this finite planet capitalism collapses into a small number
> of monopolists owning and controlling everything.
That's the steady-state behavior. Capitalism works
particularly well in a growing economy, although it does
induce some instability. It appears to work badly in
a shrinking one, and certainly did in a rapidly shrinking
one like the great depression...
David Collier-Brown
> >Thanks to recent tuition increases, post-secondary education is
> >becoming an unaffordable luxury for thousands of poor Canadians
> >(unless they are willing to saddle themselves with thousands of
> >dollars in debt, which is expected to be repaid immediately
> >following graduation).
E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
| How come the universities are full?
They're not: I used to work for one of the local
ones and they were seeing price elasticity eating at
their budgets with each tuition increase... it's
become worse since.
(For non-ecomomists: I mean the students weren't coming)
My university, Windsor, started a programme to attract
U.S. citizens, with some success.
James McCarte
>of dividends. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians hold shares in
>companies that are U.S. owned.
WOW!!!!!! Hundreds of thousands out of a population of about 20+ million.
Well, my apologies, I guess we're safe then!!!!!!
James McCarte
>14 has a graph of ***Corporate R&D*** spending as a percentage of
>sales. With a rate of just over 10% Canada ranks second to Denmark in
>the world. The US is 7th with a rate of about 7% well below Canada.
>Are you sure of your facts?
Are you sure of how they did their research?
James McCarte
>C'mon, Dave, our welfare system is hardly punitive. Granted, Harris
>cut it in one great wack, (I believe if he was going to do it all it
>should have been done in stages) but it is still on par with the rest
>supposed to be an easy ride; it's supposed be a hand till the person
>sometimes you just have to go and look for them. They don't always
>knock at your front door.
Sometimes they don't even knock at your city. Here in Cornwall, there seem
to be almost no jobs.
(Actually, there were a couple of jobs that I could have gotten, but because
of this province's stupid rule for new drivers, I was unable to apply for
them, even though I had more than enough skills/knowledge for the jobs.
There are a lot of possible obstacles to finding a job that are completely
out of the control of the job seeker. )
Maybe the federal government should consider implementing a program for
worker relocation, so that workers are more able to go where the jobs are.
(God knows, I would have been out of Quebec 10 years earlier if such a
program had been in place.)
And maybe companies should go back to the apprenticeship system or make it
more widespread than it is now. And maybe all university programs should be
organized on the same lines as the Engineering Co-operative at Waterloo
University.
Just a few thoughts.
James McCarte
David Collier-Brown wrote in message <36E302A8...@canada.sun.com>...
>Dave Till wrote:
>
> Far too sane, dave: you're suggesting both providing
> necessities (which the left will approve of) and
> means to improve themselves through their own efforts,
> (which the right will approve of).
>
> Alas, the right will attack the first point and the
> left the second (:-))
Say what? When has the left (e.g. the NDP) ever attacked the notion of
improving oneself? The left has been attacking the notion of relying on the
second without providing the first.
James McCarte
>Once again John Carrick confuses the idea of social justice with the
>process to obtain social justice. Most conservatives I know aren't
>against the ideas of social democracy,
It seems to me that the ones we always hear are those like Jack Plant, who
do NOT believe in social democracy.
James McCarte
Michael H. wrote in message <36DE99...@netcom.ca>...
> Laissez-faire capitalists certainly do not take into account the rise
>of ecomonies based on a few corporate monopolies.
Of course not. Laissez-faire capitalism originated in an era when corporate
monopolies did not exist. And there has never been any such thing as
laissez-faire capitalism. The government has always aided and abetted one
side or another, be it capitalists or socialists. Read Karl Polanyi's "The
Making of the Industrial Revolution".
James McCarte
> particularly well in a growing economy, although it does
> induce some instability.
By definition, a growing economy is unstable.
James McCarte
>partying as a normal lifestyle while going out to work is deplored as
>something only mugs do.
Actually, mugs don't go out to work, they get drunk from. :)
James McCarte
>neo-rebels.
> There were non-socialist rebels long before Marx and Lenin. People
>like Spartacus and Wat Tyler come to mind.
> Perhaps we need to go back to our Ontario roots, seeing that the
>Harris government bears lots of neo-resemblances to the old Family
>Compact.
And what are these `Ontario roots'. Mine are Quebec, so this is meant as a
legitimate question.
James McCarte
>have to elect a representative, which makes the whole system prey to
>propagandizing and false hearsay.
Not at all. In fact, this a perfect venue for the exercise of direct
democracy. The usual criticism of direct democracy is that it can't work on
a national scale because of the sheer numbers involved, but it could
certainly work in the context of a factory or other production environment.
Actually, ALL systems are prey to propagandizing and false (and true)
hearsay.
However, as far as a representative system is concerned, one possibility is
that which was instituted during the term of the Paris Commune in 1870
(which was destroyed by the Prussians): all deputies were subject to recall.
If a certain percentage of the citizens disapproved of his/her actions, s/he
was removed from office, and another election would be conducted for that
position.
WORKERs), will have that control. (If your reply is going to be the
> anticipated "all of them", then please some detail about the way how,
let's
> say, a worker on a conveyor belt is going to exercise that control.)
This is not really relevant. The issue of worker control deals with the same
scale of issues as any government system. for example, the House of Commons
doesn't deal with things like whether Joe Black should get a government
subsidy, but whethe the auto industry, one of whose companies is owned by
Joe Black, should get subsidies. So, for example, the workers will decide
whether the factory will operate 24-hours-a-day, or whatever.
Does this give you some idea of what I mean?
James McCarte
>that led me naively to socialism in my youth leads me to thinking of
>strategically voting Reform,
The term "strategic voting" is such a bogus term. It's strategic to vote
for the party that supports what you believe in, and it is self-annihilating
to vote for a party you don't believe in.