tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post5382138362095032426..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The State of the ReichUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-31274316703478569752012-02-05T17:50:06.813-05:002012-02-05T17:50:06.813-05:00I must say that it certainly feels a lot more stab...I must say that it certainly feels a lot more stable here, politically and economically. Obama is pretty socialist, even by Canadian standards, and our housing prices are still on the upswing of a bubble.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122129410990551416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-56113236174288687092012-02-05T17:47:07.710-05:002012-02-05T17:47:07.710-05:00Oh yeah, and you're welcome for the great cann...Oh yeah, and you're welcome for the great cannabis too.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122129410990551416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-3648910154436232612012-02-05T17:43:37.566-05:002012-02-05T17:43:37.566-05:00PS The Occupy movement was inspired by the Canadia...PS The Occupy movement was inspired by the Canadian leftist-anarchist rag Adbusters. <br /><br />Canada imports more than just a lot of Hollywood folks (I wonder if that's why they're so leftist), maple syrup, NHL players, and Nickleback: you get the mythology of the Great Experiment in Socialism, Soviet Canuckistan style.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122129410990551416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-7207826350961027782012-02-05T17:36:18.077-05:002012-02-05T17:36:18.077-05:00I haven't heard from them.
I've rec'...I haven't heard from them. <br /><br />I've rec'd various nonspecific threats that they will "come after" me from the die hard unionites. I can't see how I can get in trouble. I figure I could spend all day worrying about getting in trouble. Worst that could happen I think is they could deny representing me. Woopty-do. I ran in to trouble once and my union rep was either really late or neglected to show up to my meetings with management. They know they are redundant and act accordingly. The worst is the fear that management shows because they don't want to associate with me (I think) and get accused of violating some rule,clause, legislative mandate or whatever.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122129410990551416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-3577343496159232732012-02-05T11:52:08.793-05:002012-02-05T11:52:08.793-05:00Drew: Thanks for your comments and revelations her...Drew: Thanks for your comments and revelations here. The OWS movement in Canada hasn't received much press down here in the lower 48, but it's interesting that you expose one organization's support for OWS. How was your letter received by the ONA? I'm curious to know.Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-17196122769653182972012-02-05T10:45:46.125-05:002012-02-05T10:45:46.125-05:00CONTINUED...
ONA and the supporters of Occupy cl...CONTINUED...<br /><br /><br />ONA and the supporters of Occupy claim that the movement was about "democracy". But what exactly does ONA mean by democracy? It means majority rule. From the perspective of ONA and the "occupiers", it means if someone earns more money than you---e.g., the undefined 1%---you can form a large mob, and demand the forceful confiscation of their wealth. Democracy---although often used interchangeably with the word "freedom"---is the opposite of a free society, whereby individual rights are protected by law.<br /><br />Rich people have rights too. They are the individuals who take the biggest risks, and are rewarded by an act of justice (keeping what you earn). But according to the bigotry of the "occupiers", all those people "at the top" are evildoers who must live under the constant threat of force (i.e., wealth confiscation), because an envious mob demands "democracy".<br /><br />Before biting the corporate-hand that feeds them, ONA should consider how the fiscal-sustainability of pensions and benefits, to be paid out from its members' contributions, is created. It is only when banks and corporations are profitable---i.e., when there is an anticipated investment-return---that union members (and individuals), are able to financially secure their future. Otherwise, ONA members ought to be outraged that their union dues and financial contributions are wasted on unprofitable corporations.<br /><br />Contra Haslam-Stroud, it was the government---specifically through Community Reinvestment Act and subsequent regulations, along with Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the politically influenced Federal Reserve---that caused the economic crisis.<br /><br />ONA, just like any self-preserving organization (corporation or not) cares most about its long-term growth and perpetuating its dominance. However, unlike the "giant corporations" and the multi-million-dollar-earning CEOs of companies like Apple, Google, Suncor, Samsung, Pfizer, etc., ONAs dominance is guaranteed by the legal enforcement of anti-choice, pro-union legislation.<br /><br />Successful corporations dominate and profit because they create wonderful products that I voluntarily choose to buy; the richer they get, the better my life can get.<br /><br />A nurse might (or might not) choose to be a member of ONA, absent pro-union labour legislation. But that choice is denied, unless one quits employment by an ONA-represented hospital .<br /><br />It is time for all union members to demand a return to the principle that made organized-labour in free societies possible---the right to freedom of association---including its corollary: the freedom of disassociation.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122129410990551416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-82533814315145558792012-02-05T10:35:37.855-05:002012-02-05T10:35:37.855-05:00Hi Ed,
Somewhat related to the points you've ...Hi Ed,<br /><br />Somewhat related to the points you've discussed in your posts, I sent the following letter to my union and blanket emailed my colleagues. <br /><br />There are many stylistic points which could be improved, but thanks to people like yourself (among many others in the Oist community) speaking out, I've grown some balls to not tolerate the madness (publicly). <br /><br />It's obviously way too long and I said too much for one letter, but anyway....<br /><br /><br />Retort to ONAs support for "Occupy"<br /><br />In the December 2011 issue of the Ontario Nurses Association's publication Front Lines, the news story ONA supports Occupy Toronto's 'Message for All' was printed on page 11.<br /><br />As an Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) member, whose union dues are (involuntarily) confiscated and distributed to political causes and activist groups that I consider abhorrent, this letter is a mandatory retort to ONA's moral and financial support for the Occupy Movement.<br /><br />ONA President Linda Haslam-Stroud describes movement's message, stating, "The Occupy movement is trying to bring attention to the corrosive powers of the major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse".<br /><br />Putting aside Ms. Haslam-Stroud's sophistry, let's consider what the word occupy means in the relevant political-economic context: "To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest." (American Heritage dictionary.)<br /><br />In other words, occupation is what Poland suffered under the Nazis; "Occupier" is a smear-term used to denigrate Israelis; what violent and property destroying aboriginals did in places such as Caledonia, Ontario, was occupy a housing-development.<br /><br />True to form, the "occupiers"---which ONA supported by spending money on tents---disregarded property rights and acted like a group of opportunistic thugs, nihilists, slimy ingrates, and entitlement seeking wastrels. Sure there were many kind and innocent (albeit naive and ignorant) students who have been victimized by the fraud that "higher education" is a guarantee to a decent job (regardless how worthless a degree in Literary Deconstructionism actually is).Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122129410990551416noreply@blogger.com