Thought-provoking post Ed...Thanks.

Not too long ago, you said something along the lines of "Wealth is never created, only stolen"... Can you please explain this statement my friend. I just want to make sure I understand it.

Thanks Ed, and Happy Solstice or Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones...

Peace,

Bear

"Wealth can not be created only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future."

This is one of my laws I developed when I was working my Application of Physical Efficiency to Economics . Copyright 1991. (Only to establish the date, no finacial interests)

All based on well known and established physical laws, that religions, ideologies and economic theories have been trying to ignore through history, with the ever repetitious, disastrous results, as we can see omce again, right now.

Ed Deak.

if a romanian is free to travel to france in search of work, then why can't a canadian travel to california in search of work?

a north american union might not be so bad...

Hail to the Chief!

Harper is charting a course for the 21st century, bolding leading canadians to further prosperity.

Would you rather have Steve 'the fart' Dion?

One of Harper's best moves was to appoint Stockwell Day to his current portfolio. How refreshing to see someone actually carry out their duties and responsibilities with integrity and conviction.

"Wealth and prosperity are the temporary control of energy"

Energy/resources can not be created, only taken and the benefits of conversion directed into the pockets of special interests.

The purpose of both the Harper and Campbell gangs is the collectivization of energy/resource control into the hands of a self appointed power elite, similar to the Soviet politbureau system, even if it is fraudulently called "free enterprise"

The purpose of the NAU is total energy and people control, for the conversion of resources through imported slave labour.

Under the neoclassical capitalist theory people are also accounted as a form of commodity to be used, exploited and discarded.

The World Bank has just declared slavery in Africa an acceptable economic reality.

As the democratic decision making powers of people are removed through fraudulent "free trade" agreements, the same system is planned for here and all over the world. This is why they're called "rules based investment regimes". The "investors" set the rules and all others can kiss their feet and whatever.

The world's food supply is already controlled by a handful of multinationals operating under hundreds of names to pretend they're "free enterprise", controlling ever lower prices paid to the producers wile raising them to the users.

We went shopping on the 18th and when we go again tomorrow, a whole slew of prices will be higher, as are gas prices at the pumps. without any legal reasons, only to steal more from the public

This is "wealth creating free enterprise under the free movement of capital"

Ed Deak.

acadian driftwood, neither of the above please!
There are alternatives, all one has to do is to vote for them!

The problem with the NAU idea is that rather than being based on John Lennon's 'no religion no borders we all get along in peace' utopia, it is th ecaptialist's dream that we are being sold out for.
Globalization has made the poor, poorer and the rich richer. There has been no equalization, no spreading of the wealth and prospertity, but rather the typical capitalistic climbing the ladder on the backs of the lower to middle working class and corporate accountability, (meaning the corporation, whose only job is to make the shareholders richer, is accountable, but management isn't)

Everyone with half a brain should take issue with the idea of a North American Union. Why should Canadian resources be sold to anyone outside of Canada without real Canadian input and discussion? Why should corporate North America or any corporation for that matter decide what happens with OUR resources?

Excellent posts, Ed.

Many of these so-called reportings, or even more pretentiously, bits of analyses by the Tyee "professionals" :-) fall short of the depth and breadth needed to understand the crises evolving within the political, social and economic fabric, and formal institutions of capitalism within this country. And nowhere more so than in regard our/its key subservient colonial relationship with the evolving/in decline US Empire. (Now allied with our earlier/older colonial love object, Great Britain.)

But then, it is suggested by the passage of time and material evidence, I think, that Tyee aspires actually to be a much more domesticated or tamed "farm fish" in any case, than an actual fighting wild tyee creature from which it presumes to take its name. :-) Useful enough as a food source only in the absence of the real, more healthy and nourishing wild article.

To which Ed Deake alludes, I think, whether that is his intention or not. For it is typically left here for the commenters to put flesh on the bare bones of such an article as this. (At which they typically do better in any case.)

I mean, enough "controversy", yes, as to get some noticed in this otherwise much sterile and still "conventional" social and political environment as mires the country, hopefully, but no more than that-, seems to be the smiley-face social dem and liberal editorial policy of Tyee. :-)

Which is okay, and I even understand it on one level. This is capitalism, and one does have to take care of business. It's what the system is all about.

But still, I find such as Ed's offering infinitely more preferable and indicative of the depth of understanding we all really need to have, if the intention is at some point more than just endless yada, yada here, and more to actually secure the independent national development of the country and the equitable well-being of the great mass of citizenry at some point, and not just its ruling class and handmaiden elites.

For it's actually that which is in real peril here, and which the rise of Stephen Harper represents-, and before him the scarcely less neo-conservative bent Liberal's, of course, and who themselves actually prepared the way and set the course which he, Harper, is now but taking to its logical conclusion-, the final betrayal of the country and the best material and social interest of its citizenry to the US Empire creation of the North Amerikan Union. There is too much, I think, which "official" Tyee itself manifests, mistaking the man, or a man, for the greater social phenomena which he/she actually represents. (Which is why people can continue to think that now re-electing the Liberal Party back to national governance, for example, can actually be a meaningful solution-, for they/we make the same mistake too often. They fail to see the full dimensions of all the parties, institutions and personalities, that are essentially a part of the same social phenomena-, the ipso facto subservient demise and surrender to Big Global Capital, and its in turn betrayal of the country. It is an enterprise in which they have all, to one degree or another, lesser and more, had a hand in-, even if but to suppress the widespread knowledge of it.)

Continued next post...

From previous post...

So, Ed Deake is entirely right. He does not mistake the single tree standing alone, in and of itself, for the forest. The real story here is not Stephen Harper. He is squat. He is but another bit player in the long running evolution of the piece. It is the process, the very institutions of our capitalism itself, and the class and political parties to it, the issue of the decline and betrayal of the country that is the real story here-, in which Harper is but playing his assigned role.

But then, in this larger picture of decline and betrayal, he has certainly not been alone. Has he?

And there is actually some serious thought, even here, of not finally breaking with that process reality of betrayal, but of going back to the other party/persons who bear the actual greater history of responsibility for the betrayal. As though this were even some part of a real solution to the problem.

Like Tyee, there is still not enough depth of understanding abroad in the land, methinks. And because of that, too little willingness still to do what ever it takes to turn back the push of current events and prevailing ruling class/ handmaiden interests.

Geez, Ed. The only thing missing from your rants are the usual references to Bilderbergs and Trilaterals. I seemed to have forgotten, is the economy going to collapse later today or tomorrow?

harper has already drafted and proposed more relevant legislation that the idiot chretien did in 11 years. it's about time we had a prime minister who cared more about the country than he does about his ability to survive in politics at all costs. at least if he loses the next election he'll have made a stand for his principles and beliefs in the meantime, which is more than i can say about any liberal pm since pearson.

Harper really have made a stand for his principles and beliefs, but then so did Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Bush for theirs, with tens of millions dead and destituted over the ages.

So the question is what those principles and beliefs are, and for whose benefit?

And no, leftnut (What happened to it? Was it an accident or voluntary discard of a useless piece)- the Bilderbergers and the Trilaterals are not forgotten, because Harpo has been working for them also in his Reform and Citizen Coalition days. Another outfit that has no citizen voting members either.

Ed Deak.

Wow - right away, the public should realize that Harper doesn't know economics - or more specifically the Canadian retailer!
Knocking a percentage off the GST simply encourages retailers to raise their prices by the equivalent percentage.
The consumer will never see any tax reduction on goods.

Ed Deake posed,

So the question is what those principles and beliefs are, and for whose benefit?

And there is the rub.

It's a question of the appropriateness and suitability of those class/ideological "principles" of which "les miniscules", such as Elliot and NoLeftNut trumpet, that is the very issue and subject of discussion here. It is not, in and of itself, to have but mere "principles and ideals", that is sufficient, as Ed Deake correctly points out, but of their suitability to "the people's and country's interests" .

Whose interests do those ideals/principles and that ideology serve?

That is the question. And that is the question to which we have to put a satisfactory answer-, such as is better and more satisfactory, again, to understanding and serving that "peoples' interest", than our Braunshirt mentalities here do not address. (For with their tongues attached to the swabbing of the master class's boots, in a vain attempt to put a shine upon them, as the kid with his tongue frozen to the frosty mid-winter steel pole, they cannot. All they can really see, of course, save for the limited view of their side-wise glances and attempts to comprehend, are his Lordship's/ Fuhrer's boots. Mein Gott am Himmel!)

'Harper really have made a stand for his principles and beliefs, but then so did Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Bush for theirs, with tens of millions dead and destituted over the ages.'
perfect example of a lefty doing what lefties do best. chretien the idiot and martin the moron perfected fearmongering during their time in office, and layton the used-car salesman is the meister of this particularly pathetic political strategy. this is what happens when you have absolutely nothing constructive to offer. if it looks and smells like an antiquated lefty freak...

Thanks Ed :-)...Bear

Hmm.

Besides sticks and a bag of coal from that multi -national entity called Santa, some TYEE comrades also received " Leftie -Soap - On - A -Rope" to get all lathered up with....again.

Season's Greetings.

By the way Ed, on that saying from '91, I think it is brilliant...!
Bear

The interesting bits of this story are really the parts you don't see.

When the election campaign was on, I only met one or two people who didn't think Harper was probably somewhat insane. I know a fairly broad range of people, from many traditions, and very few were comfortable with him.

So, how'd he get elected? Lot of money spent managing this nutbar. Pretending to be somebody else, but he did hand Bush personally hundreds of millions of unaccountable money to use God knows how as part of the softwood lumber deal.

Since Harper, we have fewer civil rights, more secret police, citizens disappearing and being tortured, and the Prime Minister refuses to show himself or speak to who he really still is.

The only reason for a politician to hide himself is because he knows the people would stop him if they knew the truth.

To hide who you are from the people you swore to represent is a lie. Everything about this man shouts a warning to me.

Far from being scary and bringing in legislation that would restict a woman's right to choose, or restrictions on homosexuals marrying, or having soldiers in our streets, the Harper government has done something kinda freaky; they have kept their promises! Among other things the GST has been reduced, as promised and, perhaps the most important, the Accountability Act has been passed. This is an important piece of legislation that will change our politics and make it more transparent.

The Liberals promised child-care for over ten years. They couldn't bring it in for many reasons. Quebec would't dream of allowing a Federally run programme intruding into their jurisdiction, expecially regarding education which is a provincial responsibility, and they had started their own programme. So, it would have to be run by the provinces themselves, which simply means turning over cash after figuring out the cost. Stephen Harper came up with a answer after a couple of months. Many might not like the design but it was done, not just promised and ad nauseum.

Stephen Harper's government has also increased military spending by over $5 billion, over five years. Whether we like it or not the Candian military had complained that equipment used by servicepeople was outdated or just too old. Choppers dropped from the sky. Updating of equipment was and is badly needed, whether for peacemaking or peacekeeping. Harper has also not sent our troops into Iraq as some scaremongers suggested.

Taxes have been reduced and closing the Income Trusts loophole should convince anyone that this is not just a big-business government.

The lingering soft-wood lumber dispute with the USA has also been settled with multi-partisan support.

Harper has confounded many of his critics.

elliot.......what would you do without the word "leftie" in your vocabulary?

What would you have to repeat constantly, when you don't understand what's being discussed? What would you do without prescribed buzzwords, like "leftie", of course, then "competitive", "consumer", "wealth creation", "cost cutting", "outsourcing", "freedom", "free enterprise", "economy of size", etc. without your obvious lack of capability to understand what they really mean ?

Like the nazi SA used to say: "If you don't understand somebody, hit him with a chair"

I have lived under every political ideology known and have been wondering for many years what the words "left" and "right" really mean, as there's no such thing as a horizontal spectrum in politics, only vertical, like the F and C in thermometers, with a thin line separating them.

The only conclusion I can get from your, and the postings of the other faithful trolls, is that you have to call anybody who's capable of independent thinking a "leftie", which signals that you have no idea of what the hell is being discussed, but the scriptures order you to say something.

You have some serious problems in the upper regions, kid.

Cheers, Ed Deak.

sez Elliot.

Could we have a list, please?

And don't forget that 'CLEAN AIR' act?

Instead of throwing mud on the administrations of the past, what exactly do you like about what pee wee rambo has been up to?

I sense a little reluctance on your part to actually deal with Dear Leader's record. Hasn't he sent out the memo on that yet?

And you won't find it in on the sports pages either, despite another lie of Harpo's that he's an acknowledged expert in the field of hockey history.

As I've mentioned before, it was taken by Joyless Macphailure, I still have the teeth marks to show if you'd like to see. Oh, and those so-called elites that are part of those secret society boogey men that you fear, they're not citizens either?

The mafia, child molesters, con artists, mass murderers, and religious fanatics who kill on the orders of their gods, are also citizens somewhere. So what? Citizenship is an automatic birthright, unless one has to work for it and earn it.

So, how is it that some of the biggest crooks, with mile long convictions, are permitted into the country, under corporate names and receive instant citizenship to order people and governments around under the free trade treaties?

My problem is that I don't like power elites, because I was born into one and educated to become part of one, so I do know how they work and think, also hate any form of dictatorship, since I discovered democracy at the age of 21 at the Marble Arch of London's Hyde park.

You should try to discover independent thinking and existence, that only democracy can assure and perhaps even join the human race one day.

No hard feelings. My mother refused to talk to me once for 6 years because I said that royalty has no right to dictate.

Cheers, Ed Deak.

perfect example of a lefty doing what lefties do best.

And what is that, which "lefties" do best Elliot?

I mean, other than demonstrate your incredibly shallow understanding of the world, politics and economics, and the defining events of their current events?

Your minuscule level of understanding is an embarrassment to you, Elliot-, matched only by your fellow Braunshirts here.

C'mon, give us something substantive, that actually makes it worth our while to treat you and your ideas seriously-, and that of your ideological pals here. We really do want to take you seriously-, as opposed to only having these involuntary "Guffaw!" reactions to your shallow offerings, all of which have only about the depth of a saucer of water.

Your posts are once again, on the button, Ed Deak. :-)

As for the rest of you nutters who think Harpers doing a good "job", best think of what a good "job" actually is. Ed Deak's first post really couldn't have said it more plainly. There are hidden agenda's here and someone ought to see what the agenda of say, the National Citizens Coalition is (for the Newbie's, its Harpers previous years as president of this rightwing, multinational U.S. corporate based organization that has strong ties to the Republican party of the U.S.).

What the little Elliots of the world fail to understand as they resort to slander with those who do understand... because perhaps the Elliots of the world didn't think of it first? I don't know... who cares, if not for the mere annoyance of needing to read the words of a fool since in the end, as they say, only fools take the words of a fool seriously.

What was I saying before I let a fool distract my attention? Oh yah. Buy low, sell high. Its basic investment economics 101. Buy commodities at the bottom, drive up the value if you can, and sell high. Steal the designs and intel to shape them, or buy low... and sell high. Buy the peanuts, the labour that it takes to manufacture the finished product and you guessed it, sell high. Its what investors and multinationals do to make money. What do us Canadians do with our goods and gifts? Give it away, or sell it low and buy it back at a high price.

Alberta sold out decades ago. Quebec, filled with unruly nationistic pride, believes in general that its Quebec first, Canada, well, who cares? Quebec first. It doesn't matter that they will be 4 times weaker against multinational's that will want to own them too... its Quebec first. How drull. I guess every nation in this nation of nations ought to have their own chunk of land for bragging rights and weakness because they too, come first and everyone else? Who cares... BC is to complacent with their trust of power and is also selling itself out. Quickly. Lorne Calvert, a staunch NDP'er is taking a lot of trips these days to washington to sell low, buy high. And the rest of the country has to watch thinking they are above it all when 2 or 3 decades from now, they'll do the same thing. And why? No common sense. No ability to reason what motivates such divisions. Its money, folks. Greed and pride.

This, Harperite supporters Harperites, has nothing to do with left and right as Ed Deak is saying. It has everything to do with economics 101, the simple will of the largest majority shareholders of multinationals... hasn't any of you heard George Bush speak? And with this, we see a sabatoge of leadership at the top of our polictical parties who are serving the interests of the U.S. more than they are Canada and in a nutshell, it does not stop short of treason. Treason, foolery, greed, pride, everything one could think of in terms of selfishness and all of the stupidity it breeds...

History repeats itself. If we are to give away resources to the princes south of the border, we will have given them away for nothing. All for not. We'd all better wake up quick and soon. Little issues like a GST point and stiffer laws that go against the grain of the lessons already learned from history are smoke and mirrors to the big picture. Its about power, control of the masses and simply, the rich making more money... at everyone elses expense. This has been the lesson of history since the origins of man (and man, are some of you ever slow to not catch on... still!)

I'm suffering from the metaphor and chiché blues - in spades! Are some malapropisms mixed in too or are they typos?

Someone please fix me a screwdriver!

now that, brain, I have no difficulty seconding. When you have a moment, take a quick side trip to Mary's blog - there's something going down on that front lately - you can find the link on the RCMP thread.

realisticman
You broke your screwdriver!
How droll.
Happy New Year!

Very good analysis Fiat lux, especially the 'vertical scale' commentary, where right/left matter not one whit.

I present that the 'vertical scale' is actually a measurement of Liberty or Autocracy (Dictatorship if you will).

We, across the western world, are progressing towards a variety of Dictatorships. Whether cloaked in traditional things like popular elections (that are bought and paid for) or more open, like Military Juntas I see a future world of micro-nations. First based on territorial claims and defended like the 'old world' nations did it from the French Revolution to the fall of the Berlin Wall, then later more 'loosly connected', thus operating more like the North German "Hanse" Towns or The Teutonic Knights with holdings scattered around the globe and administered from 'virtual' offices.

Just as the Nation-States evolved into their current forms, so too can they devolve to older visions.

It will be up to each and every person to decide where and under what form of 'rulership' they can conform, and whether or not they can flee from ones that become 'less-libertarian' if not outright dictatorial.

So this is harper's rise...well, now I'm waiting for his fall. It should be interesting to see who falls with him.

Elliot, put together a New Year's resolution for yourself that says, "In 2007, I will actually have something more to say in the Tyee threads, than my typical one line cliches. Indeed, I shall actually make serious minded and thoughtful comments which actually contribute to useful discussions, in place of my usual propagandistic garbage."

There is a serious dearth here of thoughtful and thought provoking right wing writers-, and I know that such do in fact exist. The closest is realisticman currently, but even there, his fondness for cute displays of wordy erudition in absence of real substance, in order to merely impress us with his haughty disdain for we mere proletarian hordes, largely fall short of making a worthwhile mark.

Such that instead we have to content ourselves again, again and again, as we so often do with these neocon writers, with but merely their brown-stained shorts offerings.

And a Happy New Year to you brothers, sisters and comrades. This is The Year the worm turns! B-D LOL.

(Is that our Neocon enemies laughing in the background? Patience, patience. They continue to create the larger world, the internal state of social, economic and political affairs, betrayal of the country and alignment of class and other social forces that we need for us to, in turn, in due course, have our next kick at the can. :-)

No, "Patience" isn't the word either, That is too simplistic as well.

Instead, maintain your understanding of how real history and its defining events dialectically evolve, and your sense of appropriate timing. :-) History does not shape itself and advance to merely suit us and our individualistic needs alone, though perhaps a tad, but itself and "the bigger picture". LOL.

You may have to start calling me the Left Realisticman. B-Dk

Good gangi, eh? (Just kidding, of course. :-)

Ed:

Re: Your "laws"

Isn't applying physical laws to society called "positivism"? Ie. That wave of hyper-scientification that led to the bureacratic mindset???

I appreciate the sentiments expressed in the laws but I'm not sure I'd frame them as such (as laws). Furthermore, if wealth is a social phenomenon then constructs such as "creation of wealth" etc. are relative and not really linked to 'nature' and thus are not only entirely possible but are only so in relation to this social (and thus arbitrary) phenomena.

Furthermore, your theory would invalidate Marx's labour theory of value, which is your prerogative, of course.

And lastly, in my opinion, that wealth can be created but also stolen (the latter being easier).

Hey Ed, you speculate that: "Wealth can not be created only taken from other sectors, the environment or the future."

Which is interestingly modelled on the First Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes called the Law of the Conservtion of Energy.

Right?

I'd be happy to have you as my side-kick Coyote. I think that you are probably a good guy that means well, although I don't agree that there's a right-wing danger and I don't have a chip on my shoulder although I come from a modest background with no money. The pendulum is just swinging in its cosmological natural way. I believe that compassion is sometimes better delivered with a firm hand, though not to those who truly need help. Much the way a wild horse or bad dog is treated and eventually thankful for.

My excercise in cute eridition comes from my early education and I laugh at it myself sometimes. I love the language and habits are hard to break.

What I hope for is honesty and accountability in those who govern us. We didn't have that in Canada for a long time and too many have become cynical and disengaged. That's bad for our children. I don't think that Harper is a bad guy. Time will tell. So far, to me, there has been no evidence of deceit.

I'm not sure why The Tyee hasn't signed Ed Deak (or Fiat Lux) on to write for them yet. Your comments above, Mr. Deak, give me hope that others might see through the charade. With a grounding such as you have in interpreting what's really going on, I encourage you to write a book in order to direct the activists to action.

Thanks.

O'Leary (formerly "Cuinn")

apollyon....It makes no difference to me whether we call them laws, or definitions, they're all the same.

As far Marx is concerned, I have seen communisms and fought against it for 45 years with weapons and everything I could, so Marx means no more to me than a pile of dogshit.

This is why I now fight its idiot twin, capitalism.

The same applies to most economic and ideological prophets. I don't subscribe to any of them after 60 years of research into the" common denominator of history's tragedies", always caused by religious and ideological dogmas causing wars, colonization and mass murder.

My economic facts are based on the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and Newton's Laws on Reaction and Speed, because all economic activities are tied to these four and also all tragedies, because they are ignored by nuts and crooks.

Ed Deak.

Indeed, interestingly similar in effect Truman, or a similar principle, but applied to the economic theory of wealth creation-, as distinct from the issue of energy in the Law of Thermodynamics.

Which is NOT to discredit Deake's observation in the least, or to suggest it is plagiarized, which I am certain Ed has not-, just one of those operating "similarities" as can occur across phenomenon, from the behaviour of gases to the movement of heavenly bodies, bicycles and kids wagons. :-)

And my own view is, that Ed and Marx are really talking about about quite different uses of the concept of value. Marx draws our attention to the amount of specific labour time, etc. to transform the natural resources of Ed's preoccupation into humanly useful "products" for our sustainance and the capitalist marketplace, what it costs to maintain and replace that labour, and in Marx's case afix a specific "value" to such a transformed "products" of the production process-, and, of course, the sleight of hand which actually occurs in the difference paid to that labour and what it actually sells for in the capitalist marketplace, to become the latter's "profit" etc. Marx is preoccupied in this context with the money value of things, and how profit is created and accrues to the capitalist as his share to control.

Ed I think , is talking more about the absolute content of all our measures of material wealth-, pointing out that it all accrues in fact, at rock bottom, from nature first, and at the expense of nature, or in its money form can only be secured in one set of hands at the expense of another set of hands-, creating the differences between richer and poorer in society. He is also pointing out, if I understand his intent correctly, that while we may find it useful in our "market" exchange of things to attach manipulatable dollars and cents values to people and things, the outcome of which may increase the wealth of some, while decreasing the share wealth of others, it has all derived from nature firstly, and like that conservation of energy principle returns back to it in the end. It is only in the interim secured and transformed into a specific "use form" by us from nature, through the interventions of our capacity to labour, and is returned as garbage back to it eventually. (Mitigated in its consequences only by the pace at which we seek to take it from nature, and the volumes we demand from nature, dependent on our population levels and greed demands, and whether that allows sufficiently sustainble recovery time and whether or not there are adequate systems of recyclability/ re-use in place. )

Marx is talking about value/wealth creation in one context, while Ed, I suspect, is talking about it in quite another, more absolute context. He is, in short, I think, correctly asking us to consider "wealth creation, and its effect from quite another perspective than just that of Marx's narrower focus-, though both can still be equally true, in their own specific contexts.

And I stand to be corrected, of course. :-)

I don't think Marx can be so disassociated,, however. Marx believes that humans possess the ability of creating use-value, which he dissociates from exchange-value (one can have use-value alone but never exchange-value without use-value). Thus humans create value.

Taking a simple example of a human carving a piece of wood into a handicraft of some kind or building a house. This product is not simply the aggregate of such and such existing resources but a qualitatively new product. The human has added value (wealth).

Now one could say that the human was powered by things (food, etc.) and so it was just a conversion. But then the lazy guy that sits around vs the one that creates are equal and either add equal value to the world or add nothing. I don't subscribe to that.

I think there are creative forces and not simply a recycling. I think that (without stealing from future generations) we can organize production to easily accommodate the basic necessities of the planet. This is not a feat that would have been possible a millenia ago. We have the potential today because we have created the "wealth" to do it, the problem is our system of organization.

I happen to be a trained artist, painter, sculptor, plus also tradesman in several fields, self employed in BC since 1957, qualified to teach nightschool and apprentices, so I know what it means to carve a piece of wood into furniture, or sculpture, as I have been doing it all my life. I even use the word "creation", although I know that it is false, because I still only convert resources into other forms.

This might be a very brutal assessment of things, but unless we get away from the ideological claptrap, history will always repeat itself.

The fact is the while all other forms of life are programmed to fulfill certain, ecologically necessary functions, therefore there's no such thing as the "fittest", the human race has no reason for its existence, regardless of religious dogmas.

We're born with a great variety of talents and unless those talents have the chance to be developed and used for the betterment of humanity, within the laws of nature, we're wasting our lives.

Therefore, once we recognize that our talents as artists, surgeons. janitors and accountants are equally necessary, we'll take the first step to a better world

The point is not that we're "equal", which is a nonsense, except in front of the law and on the road, but that we should have the equal chance to fulfill our inborn purposes in life.

This is where the ideologies come in to destroy this simple fact and force us into occupations, nothing more than servitudes, to fill the demands of predator ruling classes.

And to hell with that and the ruling classes. Once I was trained as a sniper and used it.

Now I have to go.....

Cheers, Ed.

That has to be one of the wisest statements ever written on the Tyee...regarding the perversion of our natural talents into "occupations" in order to serve and tie the shoelaces of of a ruling class that hasn't the talent to do so for itself. I've always thought ambition was highly over-rated as a quality for that very reason.

Our polls during the last election revealed the Conservatives started at 31% and were at 34.5% a week or so before election day. The mainstream had them starting at 28% up as high as 42 and back down to 36%. The Liberals started at 32% with us and dropped to 30%. The mainstream had them at 37% and down to 27-28% and upward.

The people are more comfortable with government that provokes less up and downs. The mood is for consistency and less high drama. That is why Stephan Dion's win was orchestrated amongst party higher ups. Our understanding is that the only Liberal leadership candidate who was NOT made aware of this was Bob Rae.

Afghanistan is not the issue the press want it to be, simply because Bush has problems in Iraq. It is FOR this reason that there is less pressure on Mr. Harper in that impoverished country.

Global warming is a big issue, but Kyoto is not as imperative as the press likes to make it. This doesn't excuse the Clean Air Act, however I suspect that was more a tactic as it drew four Opposition parties to hold it as their own. The next 'real' environment policy from the Conservatives should probably be out in February of 1997, and I have had a premonition that it will be very impressive.

I have the Conservatives at 35-36% currently, while the mainstream has them at 32%. With the premature emergence of Jean Chretien on the political scene, it appears the Liberals will compel more energy on the Reform Liberal abstract of the political spectrum. This is also why many New Democrats are talking about new NDP 'star' Pat Martin.

Some Reformers and Canadian Alliance voters who aren't totally enamored with Mr. Harper won't vote for Stephane Dion or Jack Layton or even Elizabeth May.

They might vote for Pat Martin.

Correction February 2007, not 1997

Harper had plenty of help from the left what with the NDP's move to the right and its propensity to attack the Liberals.

Those of us who work for people living in poverty feel utterly bereft of representation provincially or federally.

Thanks Jack-ass and Carol Titmouse.

Who is Pat Martin and where can we find out more about him?

Unfortunately, he won't have a chance until after the elections.

Ed Deak.

Hi Ed,

I'm interested in your laws of wealth. I noticed you based them on Newtonian physics, which I actually find ironic because they are only proven on a given plane and rely on constants.

With the demise of the gold standard, wealth no longer truly exists except within the scope of one's own markets. I see special relativity as a better example, because you are moving into the relation between parallel planes of wealth, and dealing with comparative environments. While the wealthy are generally mobile, at a lower lever the valuation of individual "wealth" is not as much gained from other sources but based or a relative valuation of goods and services within a national economy, which is at whelms of a world economy. Global economies are not tied to resources or skills (more so in the last twenty years) as they are based on internal confidence and trade efficiencies. Thats why we see an American Economy or a Russian economy following behind the Chinese economy, even while China has the lease resource production ability. However, resource based economies are typically closer to standardized economies.

While it is easy to say that wealth must be gained from someplace, the correlation is to say that wealth lost then should be accounted for. However, the loss of wealth does not require a transfer to external sources, as it is self collapsing more often than not. Similar to the way in which a Nuclear reaction would have confounded Newton, our modern economy would make little sense to Marx.

Wealth can be lost much easier than gained because wealth is not an absolute measure, but a measure of opportunity. But its gains don't require it to take from other sources, but to refine itself to such a point where is has greater opportunity, either through assets, capital, intellectual property, or skills. This is why an economy with access to nuclear technology or computer manufacturing has much greater value and potential, solely through its information acquisition and its potential for growth.

Individual wealth is based on having enough assets to cover basic need, at which point wealth loses its relative value. At this point wealth exists solely as potential, for luxury acquisition, but it also will grow of its own accord, so wealth on its own within a capital lending enable economy are not stable or law driven by any means.

National wealth is also curious, in that our Canadian economy has grown nearly 30% versus the American economy in the last few years, but this is based not as much on the American's poor decision but based on the perception that the Canadian economy is less likely to hit an economic slowdown, because our consumer confidence is much higher. Ironically, having a charismatic and positive leader can do more for an economy that having an economist or basing it on market forces. This allows national wealth to be gained because others see it as potential for economic growth, but this doesn't require an equal removal of wealth, as as economy can collapse without equivalent wealth fleeing from it. If you look at Harper's move against income trusts, you will see a mass lost of wealth without equivalent gains in other sector. While it has mainly rebounded because the initial shock was excessive, its value so much stolen as completely lost.

To compound that, the currency trading market is completely ironic, as economic relativity is not based on real benchmarks as it is based on overall speculation, so that via no effort of their own, from day to day the value of one's labour in one country can be much different that the wealth in another.

I don't think your concepts are in error, but I think as long as currency speculation and the ability for governments to arbitrarily adjust their nations economy through manufactured inflation exist, then there can be no more laws to define wealth than there can be to pick a horse at a race track.

dangrice....Most interesting evaluation and concepts. Many thanks!

What I have done was to reduce the problem to its simplest, or if you like simplistic form, so that everybody can understand it. Even myself....

When I talk about the 4 physical laws, I mean their simplest, highschool versions.

Nothing can be created only converted into other forms. Newton's laws apply when we look at the terrible damage done to humanity and the environment with the excess use of wasteful energy causing reactions, like global warming, plus, plus, plus, and the huge energy inputs needed to replace human labour. The 1/2 hp. of human energy may need 100 or 1000 hp of energy inputs to be replaced. All for temporary monetary gains for a few, without any rational, or logical economic reasons.

I have no problem with the use of tools, machinery and equipment to make life easier and production more efficient, provided we're not talking about "monetary efficiency" which is a fraud.

"The lowest energy/resurce inputs will be the lowest cost on the long run."

There are thousands of jobs that can and should be done by automated equipment, but there are many more that should only be done by humans, especially when they require the inputs of "scarce resources".

E.g. A skilled craftsman makes a coffee table from some precious hardwood for $1,000. in today's money. A manufacturer comes along and produces the same table for $100, to be sold for $250.

According to our present economic calculations, the $250. table will be
"cheaper" and its mass production raises the GDP. But at what resource/energy inputs?

In reality, the handmade table will have a permanently growing value for hundreds of years, while the massproduced one will be junk in a few, wasting precious materials. I'm talking from long personal experience, not as a theory.

What I also oppose is when these so called "labour saving" devices are used to pocket the wages of the replaced workers, instead of giving them the chance for the development of their own "creative" instincts, away from dead end jobs. This is outright theft in any language.

Contrary to propaganda, the firing of the workers is not "cost cutting" but raising, because society will have to provide them with a new resource/energy base to support themselves, while the benefits from the previous energy base will feed the artificial entities of corporate shares.

This is one of the results of wasteful resource use and the resulting pollution etc. all covered by the 4 laws I mentioned.

I'm no scientist by any stretch, but I have friends in the sciences all over the world, who back me up with the necessary academic convolutions. My Principle has also been used in PhD dissertations and passed.

We must also consider the destruction of long established local, small, private enterprise based economic systems, reaplacing them with destructive oligopolies, causing mass suicides, as in India, et al, completely ignored in calculations.

Sorry, but I only have a few minutes at a time for this machine and now I have to quit for tonight.

But I would enjoy reading any logical, opposing arguments.

Cheers, Ed.

dangrice.com

I used a similar type argument with my accountant vis-a-vis valuations of my public opinion business. These professional fixtures seem somewhat cerebrally challenged if I may say so.

I enjoy reading the Tyee because what might be a little obtuse to many readers, is comforting to me, because bloggers are rather fearless, and increasingly less personal in exchanges.

We've had our eye on Pat Martin and internal emails to my polling search and to my email address are proving that many others are watching this fellow.

Personally, I think this guy has got game. Let me know what you think.

Ed Deak - If these "secret" negotiations are so "secret", how come everyone, even you knows about them??
\Just asking.

Here's an interesting piece that pulls no punches in describing the elite agenda that Harper serves. Make no mistake, our "government" is a puppet.

http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1963&lists=newslog

An excerpt: "As we now have it, globalization can be defined as an ideology that identifies the Sovereign Nation-State as its key enemy, basically because the State's main function is (or should be) to prioritize the interests of the Many - i.e., "the People" - over the interests of the Few. Accordingly, the forces of globalization seek to weaken, dissolve and eventually destroy the very foundations of the Nation-State as a basic social institution, in order to replace it with new supra-national worldwide social, political, economic, financial and military management structures. Such structures tie in with the political objectives and economic interests of a small number of highly concentrated and very powerful groups and organizations which today drive and steer the globalization process in a very specific direction."

I think that Ed's ideas are on the mark, at least theoretically, but it is so difficult to articulate the structure of complex institutions and equally interesting processes within these institutions, and factor in the human condition of living in the midst of this structure and the impact it has on directing our lives. Work, media, education, everything conspires to keep the flow moving, and only very novel ideas can make even a remote change in the GENERAL flow, or the direction of the flow, upward downward, sideways, or sometimes a sense that there is no flow, a contradiction, but not for long.

However, the theories are nonetheless generally accurate. To continue to espouse them makes it risky, I believe, to make nearly everyone that comes near you, believe you are crazy, or makes you crazy, because the sense of being ostracized is so great. It seems to me that this type of conversation must normally be held in very quiet company, not for any particular fear of risk of life or anything, but the abrasive exposure one will ultimately encounter from the aforementioned structures and institutions which as I have said flow through large cities and small towns, from the government bureau, to the every growing corporate groceries, retailers, lending institutions etc. Good lord, usury has become institutionalized and socially targeted (regressive).

What concerns me though is that Ed by omission I suppose, seems to exclude some of the mainstream parties, from the left I am guessing, who must also adhere or rely, or comply with (at least in public) these heavily laden structural 'oppressions' he speak so eloquently about.

Similarly Cynic assesses the reality of the situation. How do we reconcile the mainstream left's passionate, driven, to the point of begrudging respect, push for Kyoto, which to be successfully implemented must be constituted is some fashion by a "supra-national worldwide, social, political, economic, financial and (Yes) military management structure."

To successfully conquer global warming it will be necessary to extend demand for the ultimate utopian solution beyond any point of no return to even a signpost of past living, or dirty technology, dirty living, as many of the posts herein reveal, the disgusting exploitation of good things, the good earth, and the good people of the earth, (except for the 4% who continue to want to screw things up). Indeed the motivation must be as life changing, societal changing as the 1960’s, hippies, L.S.D. or however the new direction takes or whatever form, but certainly that dramatic. To accomplish this obviously requires some reconciliation of desire for a resolution to the abuse of the good earth, with the obvious danger we will encounter as we marry this ambition with non democratic global institutions which nation states and their corporate counterparts either control de facto or do so with influence (what I characterized as institutional flows’).

How do we build the utopia, knowing there is no time for delays, that the only ideas free of adulteration take place (relatively speaking) in shadows, when we must ignore all truths we believe we know to make it happen.

It takes my breath away.

Ed Deak said:

Spot on my Ed. As a trained sculptor myself, my inspirations come knowing I am leaving "good" things or understandings in someone’s home for them to discern, not at all from slapping some clay together to "create" form for the sake of creating form. to do so would seem so without meaning or purpose. Many artistically inclined approach their projects this way; the "perfect" texture, color, subject, and so on, is their end goal... I need to consider these things, but I need to do more for people (within the laws of nature), and it sounds like you do too Ed. Very cool... :-)

Bear

Ha...What-ever the heck "trained" is...
:-)
Bear

Maxwell....the negotiations are ostensibly "open" and people who take the time and effort can find out about their overall direction, but the details are close secrets, apart from the leaks, and all are purposely ignored by the controlled mainstream media to keep the public in the dark.

The vast majority of people have never heard of the SPP, NAU, NAFTA plus, the NAFTA superhigway, the TILMA, etc. all designed to strip people of their decision making powers. Or even what the 13 year old NAFTA stands for. Most people still believe it is a "free trade agreement".

E.g. The Multinational Agreement on Investment, MAI, negotiations between the 29 OECD countries, including Canada, have started in Paris in secret, in 1995. Late in 96 a document was leaked in France and by Jan 97, the information was spread by the Net. That was when and how I found out about it on the ecol-econ list of the U of Colorado.

The countries involved wanted to sign it, again, in secret May 97, but when they realized the uproar, they postponed the signing for a year, to give them time to "sell it" to their peoples.

Meanwhile more and more details came out on the Net. That was when one of the Canadian negotiators Sylvia Crystal threw up her arms and said: "Is there no way to stop these people?"

I had the whole text of some 375 pages in my computer by May. The Liberal government was making big noise to sell the treaty, without releasing details to the public and the corporate media ignored the whole thing. Our MPs had no copies, so I offered mine to our Reform MP, the "invisible" Philip Mayfield. 2 weeks later I received a BS form letter from the office of Preston Manning, thanking me for "contacting" him. I never have and wasn't interested in his screwball, lying opinions.

Shortly after the French govt. backed ou, fearing a revolution, just as their people voted against the EU Constitution, another MAI dictatorship, while the Canadian public were kept in the dark.

The collapse of the MAI was the first internationally negotiated treaty in history, knocked over by people power, made possible by the Net. Now the MAI text is included in all ongoing treaty negotiations. All kept from the public.

Now, how much does anybody know of the details of the sale, of the public property, BC Rail, to CN ? Nothing. Requesting information results in a pile of blank sheets. Is this not a crime and theft? Who has known of the TILMA treaty, or the SPP, the ongoing NAU and Amero negotiations, etc. ?

All are secrets because they're dictated by a conspiracy of multinational corporations to establish a corporate North American and global fascist dictatorship, by removing the national state and all decision making powers from people and local governments.

How many people have heard of the long ongoing GATS treaty negotiations, or where Canada stands? Why has Canada supported the production of suicide seeds, or allowed the spread of GM seeds and foods without any independent scientific research into their long term and health effects? How much does the public know about what they eat ?

Shopping day in town today, 55 km each way, so I'm off here till tonight.

Keep on smiling. Look up the Mayan calendar on the Net. I vote for the "universal awakening" in 2012. May be a miraculous long shot, but what else can we hope for?

I have been sold by crooked governments a few times, so I've been writing about these dirty secrets in Jerry West's Gold River Record for years. One of the very few small papers that isn't afraid to inform their readers.

Ed Deak.

Harper, 2 other MPs exceeded donations limit
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 | 1:49 PM ET
The Canadian Press

After months of heated denials, the federal Conservative party has quietly admitted it failed to publicly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations.

That means at least three party members — including Prime Minister Stephen Harper — donated more than the legal limit last year.

Last Thursday, the party filed a revised financial report for 2005 with Elections Canada, acknowledging that it did not report delegate fees collected for its national convention that year as donations, contrary to political financing laws.

In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses."

The report does not explain what constitutes "other revenue" or "other expenses."

Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates.
Continue Article

Having been forced to count convention fees as donations, the report indicates the Conservative party then discovered three delegates — including Harper — had exceeded their $5,400 annual limit for political contributions. As a result, the party refunded $456 each to Harper and the other two delegates.

The party has also been forced to send belated 2005 tax receipts to the roughly 3,000 delegates who attended the convention, with instructions on the complicated process required to retroactively claim the tax credit.

"The Conservative Party of Canada does not believe that delegate fees paid to cover the basic costs of a convention should be subsidized by taxpayers through the political tax credit system," says a letter accompanying the receipts.

Harper, 2 other MPs exceeded donations limit
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 | 1:49 PM ET
The Canadian Press

After months of heated denials, the federal Conservative party has quietly admitted it failed to publicly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations.

That means at least three party members — including Prime Minister Stephen Harper — donated more than the legal limit last year.

Last Thursday, the party filed a revised financial report for 2005 with Elections Canada, acknowledging that it did not report delegate fees collected for its national convention that year as donations, contrary to political financing laws.

In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses."

The report does not explain what constitutes "other revenue" or "other expenses."

Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates.
Continue Article

More on the Harper payoffs on CP and CBC News

Ed/Fiat Lux

In reading your, as usual, great TYEE posts, I'd like to explore your views and theories a bit further.

If I am hearing you right( and please feel free to correct me if I am not), let's apply some of the quasi-science you apply to you socio -economic theories.

Let's use ,say, the lumber industry. Let's assume two extremes...the good old days where they used a springboard and a whipsaw or an axe to cut down a tree,and also a two man crew to rip the logs into various sizes of lumber. That is very labour intensive, but creates a lot of work/employment.

The OTHER extreme is say a modern Mill, perhaps evolving into a " theoretical " one - man operation with one person in a control booth...overseeing the entire plant, sub- contractors brought in on demand for repairs and maintenance .

I am presuming your models would, in theory have some "steady state" in- between these two aforementioned extreme cases...lets say Mill X would have had a peak employment of 300 workers at one time with a "modern Mill of the day", a sort of equilibrium of maximum employment in sync with a maximum mechanization ...mutually inter- dependent....symbiotic, ie the maximum employment was achieved due to the mechanization available at that point in time.

Hence, again, if I am reading you right, once this level of quasi -equilibrium is achieved,....again (i) maximum employment at (ii) X level of mechanization ..... it should be maintained, or all the other downside variables you mentioned come into play.

Any further mechanization would begin to displace workers.

In addition, the competing Mills would have to follow the same premise or all bets are off.

PS I look forward to your comments.

A beautiful sunny day here, which has motivated me to root out my equipment and set up some days of cross-country skiing (and as a means to help trim some of the extra Solstice accumulated fat off the old bod.)

Gawd, I will be thankful when the last Purdy's chocolate is gone from the box, and they can no longer call out my name to entice me.

Always a pleasure to read the thought provocations of Ed though.

Have a good day all.

Comrade Coyote:

Have a good one as well...and remember all the Neo -Con sacrifices that made it possible.

PS how come you are eating a Bourgeoisie product like Purdy's and why not something more multi - national Proletariat...ie like a Nestle's product ?

The so-called government(?) of Herr Harpo is wholly illegitimate it was won with the collusion of the RCMP over the'Income Trusts' issue .
A year after the fact the cowboys have as of today failed to file any type of report on this .
Funny that Harpo's(dear leaders)first photo op was with Zaccerdelli .
A telling moment to be sure .
This is no conspiracy theory only fact .
As for Harpos 'accountability act' read this link .
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsDec1206.html
The neo-Nazi's shattered over 14,of their much vaunted rules the first day they took office and have been breaking a whole whack on a daily basis .
The morons tried to change the election act retroactively to cover their asses over ill gotten donations .
Yea, Harp is a breath of fresh air alright !
CO2, pollution laced air .

Cynic,

At the risk of having others complain that I should stop saying this:

All the items you pointed out have been written about a decade ago.

The book:
http://www.amazon.com/SOVEREIGN-INDIVIDUAL-MASTERING-TRANSITION-INFORMATION/dp/0684832720

these highly concentrated and very powerful groups and organizations are the SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS.

Your little claim, Elliot, is still hanging out there in cyberspace.

I asked for a list.

Where is it?

We haven't yet had any indication that Harper is really ready to come to grips with global warming and its implications.

This, from the current issue of Forward, isn't afraid to do so.

It's too long for a single post so I'll split it in two:

The Tide Is Turning

Fri. Dec 29, 2006

An Indian island in the Bay of Bengal was reported by researchers last week to be the first inhabited island on earth swept away by rising seas as a result of global warming. The island, Lohachara, near the mouth of the Ganges, had a population of 10,000. The residents have fled to a larger neighbor, Sagar. So has most of the population of nearby, fast-disappearing Ghoramara. But they can’t stay there. Sagar, too, is disappearing. Within a few years, say the scientists at Calcutta’s Jadavpur University, at least 70,000 people in the Sundarban atoll will be homeless, victims of climate change. It’s only the beginning, and it’s come much sooner than most scientists had expected.
Article tools

This week, just days after the Calcutta study was released, India’s vast neighbor to the north, China, released its very first official report on global warming. The conclusion: Climate change threatens China’s very economic future. “Greenhouse gases released due to human activity are leading to ever more serious problems in terms of climate change,” said the report, prepared by China’s Ministry of Science and Technology in cooperation with 12 other ministries. Droughts, flooding and heat waves will threaten bridges and rail lines, destroy farm land and reduce grain production by as much as 10% by midcentury. “Global climate change has an impact on the nation’s ability to develop further,” the ministry said.

The Chinese and Indian reports, dramatic in their own rights, carry a special resonance in the worldwide climate debate. China and India are the giants of the developing world. They’ve been the leaders in the poorer nations’ resistance to environmental reform, arguing that they should be free to catch up with the rich nations and not be made to pay the price, in slower growth, for the ecological damage wrought by the industrialized world. Their resistance, in turn, is the main argument offered by Bush administration officials — the ones that believe in science, anyway — that it’s pointless for Americans to pay the price of environmental restraint, since the developing nations aren’t willing to do their share. What’s the point in making Americans rein in their appetites, the argument goes, when the Chinese and Indians are pouring carbons into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow?

now why would anyone in his 'right' mind try to debate seriously with the commercial drive/lasqueti island crowd. you people have no regard whatsoever for constructive deliberation, but are far more interested in calling your opponents nazis and brownshirts. say no more, your ilk will never hold power again anyway. you represent a very small minority of the population, but i must say you get a lot of mileage out of your pathetic fearmongering. the good thing is that you're finished, kaput, done.

Implicit in the administration’s arguments, of course, is the belief that global warming is not the looming catastrophe it’s made out to be. Harvard professors and French intellectuals may yell and scream, but right-thinking folks — Joe Lunchbucket, the business community, leaders of the emerging democracies in New Europe and the Pacific Rim — understand that it’s a load of bunk. Why should we worry about carbon emissions when the world’s two largest countries aren’t interested?

Well, now they’re interested. It’s too early to say how the dawning of environmental awareness will affect policy in Beijing and New Delhi, but it’s safe to say that the crisis has finally caught their attention. That’s more than we can say for our own leaders.

America’s official stance on global warming was laid out in painfully blunt terms just four weeks ago, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency. The Bay State, along with 12 other states plus several cities and not-for-profits, wants the federal government to enforce clean-air laws against carbon emissions that are destroying the planet. Massachusetts, the lead plaintiff, argues that it’s already lost miles of coastline as a result of rising sea levels. The complaint cites the worldwide scientific consensus that unchecked carbon emissions will lead to planetary disaster, and that America, as the world’s largest carbon emitter, must begin to act. The Bush administration’s lawyers, replying for the EPA, argue that carbon emissions weren’t among the pollutants singled out for the EPA to control when it was formed in 1970. They say that if the global crisis is as vast as the plaintiffs claim, then action by the EPA won’t be enough to save Cape Cod, much less the planet. And they claim — wrongly — that there is still “substantial scientific uncertainty” about global warming.

The justices have their work cut out for them. They should rule for Massachusetts, and for the obvious intent of the clean-air laws. Their ruling won’t rebuild homes in Provincetown — or Lohachara — but it can help save the rest of us.

Canada's Chief Electoral Officer has just submitted his resignation after a spat with Harper about their election expenses.

What do you think? Has he been knocked out?

Ed Deak - Thanks so much for your explanation of the "conspiracies".

Next question: Why would the mainstream media keep the facts to themselves? I don`t think they are hiding anything. I think they do not know of them, or care. Way too much trouble for them to research. Much like most of the population - just trying to survive and make the very best of their lives.........no?

Ed said:

"We're born with a great variety of talents and unless those talents have the chance to be developed and used for the betterment of humanity, within the laws of nature, we're wasting our lives."

I don't disagree with this perception, more accurately this possibility, as it seems to me that a similar number and variety of missteps and/or misfortunes can befall any individual which either nomimally or significantly can corrupt the opportunity for the efficacy of the talent which lies waiting, notwithstanding the overarching liklihood that the entire process required for the 'flowering' including the requisite experiences can be easily sabotaged by a system which cannot prevail without streamlining the individuals quest for self-actualization as Ed's post (at least to me) presumes.

Right to Bear:

I would like to sculpt, don't know where to begin. How is it that you can be sure that the people who take possession of your good work, are able to discern, or alternatively, what if their impression of your work isn't really more than an appreciation of its form without the 'collective additional appreciation' (caa) that comes with the presumed ability to discern?

What happens when the recipient of your energy, talent, and instinct, is not as equipped at the discerning as you are likely in making of the 'discernable form'? Isn't this possible, in fact isn't it likely, because very few can be as discerning as the maker?

I'm not interested in debate with you Elliot.

I just want the 'list' of Harper's legislative achievements you compared with more than a decade of Jean Chretien's work. You know the one you mentioned here:

So, don't stick around for a debate you're clearly not the equal of, just drop the list and leave.

Ed-simplistic but are the laws you speak of similar to principles of social cost accounting?

Maxwell,

Here's an article on media concentration that illustrates that you're mistaken in believing that it is laziness at work in
presenting the news.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1106

I doubt that the Asper empire is unique.

You have to ask yourself should the economy exist to serve our interests... or do we exist to serve the interests of the people who own the economy and run it for profit? And should those whose only interest is in making a profit be allowed to use our talents by perverting them through a system of higher education (that is more and more being designed to facilitate the making of profit through a focus on corporate careers and trades)... or as Ed referred to them as occupational servitudes "to fill the demands of a predator ruling class."

I think the return to real democracy will take more than just "The Fall of Stephen Harper," since all political parties have been co-opted by a corporate system that has placed profits before people...and are marching in step by and large, to the same drummer...the drumbeat of a global capitalist economy. The system has now taken on its own malignant life and lives and breathes through a parasitic structure created to serve it alone.

"We" hardly matter at all...and that should make us very angry... angry enough to refuse to take it anymore. We are not quite there yet, it seems. But when Elliot writes: "the good thing is that you're finished, kaput, done", he doesn't understand history and life is all about process....and how close he is standing to the abyss himself. ;-)"Kaput" could soon be your new middle name, Elliot.

We need a whole new economic game with a whole new humanitarian focus and a whole new set of rules...rules of accountability designed and forged to serve and uphold our human rights, our working rights as people...as well as the rights of all living things.

That's all I gotta add to the conversation for awhile...off exploring up the coast. Happy New Year to all.

Gavin,

You must admit that Harper is effective. Whether you like him or not, he carries through. With Harper, unlike any others, you know what you are going to get.

He's focused on his 5 priorities, and done a fairly good job at achieving his objectives - whether you choose to like them or not.

I think he bungled the income trust issue, but has been fairly pragmatic, though very inflexible. He has cut taxes, rammed through cutting edge (socialistic) tax cuts, the GST cut, paid off some debt, forecasted to elimate debt by 2020, taken a leading role in Afghanistan (like it or not), developed a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases (realistically, Kyoto is impossible. We are a nation of commodities. BC and Alberta would be destroyed, and the Liberals know this. This would ultimately erode Canada), he has put through a daycare program (targeted tax cuts).....

He has done a fair bit in his year - I don't know if it is as much as Chretien, though he has done some. The Tories are not the Liberals, neither are the NDP. Things have changed, and for some, it has taken some getting used to.

If Harper can get into next summer, he should win his majority. Things in Afghanistan are looking pretty good - despite some violence in the south. The Globe (Harper Haters) and the Post (Harper lovers) are actually starting to acknowledge the progress. What might hurt him is the stumbling economies in Ontario and Quebec. However, the dollar is coming down and they should be much better off by June. Rates should come down at this point. If things improve, Harper will be able to market himself as the master of the economy.....

We'll see....he's smart and he's done a lot.

Cappy,
The only thing I support that Harper's done - [and he hasn't done anything in my view except cater to his base (with the one exception following)] - that I'd give him any kudos for is Income Trusts. I guess it's not a big surprise that's a black eye from your point of view.

But still, no list of achievements of any significant nature (apart from as noted) and I certainly don't agree that his Clean Air act is anything but more hot air.

So, I'm still waiting for Elliot's (and yours too I guess) list.

Surely there's more than one item on the list.

I agree he's smart, but not just because he fooled you.

So, the hundreds of millions for Bush personally from Canadian softwood producers isn't a problem for you, Capitalism? Harper's just allowed to do that stuff?

Why is that, exactly?

Bailey,

As long as the provinces and lumber producers supported it - I did too. With all due respect, I am sure the businesses know better than you do.

Over 80% of the businesses supported it, so did Liberal and Conservative governments in Ontario, BC, PQ, AB.

It wasn't perfect, but what was the alternative. I give them credit - yes.

And that little statement encapsulates what's wrong with your analysis and your understanding of the problems that people have to contend with.

I'll give you an opportunity to do a little independent research cappy. Instead of going to Vegas, do a little research on a firm called Archer Daniels Midland

Here's a start, go to this link, read, listen and learn:
http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/00/168.html

Then come back and tell me you still support business because 'they' know best.

Thanks for the questions and comments directed at me.

Unfortunately, people who live in isolation, as we have been for almost 28 years on our ranch, sudden exposure to crowds is very tiring. When we come home from our biweekly shopping trips to town , we're worn out.

I'll do my best to read everything and come up with some answers tomorrow.

Thanks, Ed Deak.

Re: The softwood deal. "It wasn't perfect, but what was the alternative. I give them credit - yes."
Why would you give them credit for leaving $1B on the table when the US has lost numerous trade tribunal challenges on Softwood? If your idolised business and government twits had any backbone they would have said look either settle fairly according to the dispute panel's decisions or we are walking out of NAFTA.
The Canadian rollover on Softwood was a pathetic maneuver by a bunch of corporate patsies. They all feed from the same trough. Wake up!

Re: The softwood deal. "It wasn't perfect, but what was the alternative. I give them credit - yes."
Why would you give them credit for leaving $1B on the table when the US has lost numerous trade tribunal challenges on Softwood? If your idolised business and government twits had any backbone they would have said look either settle fairly according to the dispute panel's decisions or we are walking out of NAFTA.
The Canadian rollover on Softwood was a pathetic maneuver by a bunch of corporate patsies. They all feed from the same trough. Wake up!

What? Purdy's Chocolates ain't a proletarian produced product?

Then what were all those ladies/workers doing walking that picket line there in front of the Purdy's factory on Kingsway, for one hell of a long time, when I was driving transit bus on Kingsway to Joyce/Elliot Station, and would toot the horn of my bus to them, going by, as a sign of my solidarity with them.... Hell, was it that long ago now?

Surely you don't think proletarians just wear pants and have dicks, do ya?

You really don't know jackshit, Herr Maestro.

Even we proletatians like good quality bling and snackies. And everything is mined or harvested, produced, marketed, transported and sold by working class folks, blue collar and white, as I see it out here in the real world-, contrary to the fantasies of the free-market fantasists.

That's just about the most elementary part of economics, dear maestro-, even if there is much else we can legitimately debate-, that is if you're really serious about attempting to hold your own up against us "lefties", and not just throwing yourself under and being crushed by our bigger and faster moving brain-wheels. :-) And superior understanding of, apparently up against yourself at least, elementary economics even. :-)

Nighty-night all. Gotta rise early and make bread tomorrow morning. :-)

Think I'll do a potato 'n whole wheat. Which means I gotta boil up a spud here, ready for morning, before I snuggle into bed.

Comrade Coyote:

Good to hear you (and your faculties) made it back OK ...was worried maybe an avalanche may have nicked the ski -wax when you were out cross - country skiing. ( Hopefully you remembered your pants as well, especially in environmentally -sensitive areas ).

You were a Transit Driver???...and STILL a Leftie ???.....That's gotta be BS, many Transit Drivers are some of the most Right Wing capitalists I know. Also did you ride the " spare board " gravy train ?

Re: "Economics"

" Economics: The only Nobel prize given out where you can be wrong and still win " . Proof is in the TYEE posters pudding.

PS Don't burn the proletariat pancakes. Maybe add Nestle's chocolate to add more proletariat flavour. More carbs for the revolution.

Maxwell.....the mainstream media are not keeping the facts for themselves, they're bone fide propaganda organs in service of a ruling class. No different from the nazi and communist media, all controlled by the same people, to mislead the public into servitude.

I happen to be a British trained analyst in the field and can assure you that the nazis and communists were babies in playpens when it comes to the degree of sophisticated mind bending we're experiencing now in the hands of true experts.

There's nothing new about this, It is a development and refinement of a hundred years of advertising, first selling junk and now ideologies. Today's TV ads are not selling cars, soaps and other products, but an enslaving ideology.

The communists' mistake was that they saturated their media with obvious propaganda that turned off people. They completely ignored crime and accident stories, unless they could use thm for propaganda.

On the other hand, the capitalist media is using crime and accident stories for the deliberate diversion of attention from the important issues, while the special interests are working under cover, using the perceived power of imaginary capital to conquer, colonize and enslave.

Where both were on common grounds was and still is the glorification of so called "sports", again, nothing more than brainwashing diversions from realities.

Lots of excellent books have been written on this subject over the past 50 years, predicting the present total mind control.

I have a whole series, but, just to name one author, "The Hidden Persuaders, The Naked Society, The Pyramid Climbers, The Status Seekers, The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard, from the 60s have predicted what was coming, although then nobody could yet foresee the mental stupor of a brainwashed society we're experiencing today.

What people will have to realize one day is that the nazi and communist "leaders" are now the globalizer capitalists.

Our so called "capitalist" trolls on this blog would have been pushing nazi and communist propaganda in those days, because the rulers say so and they just "have to believe in something".

Ideologies and religions are nothing more
than tools and springboards for would be ruler predators and some people are just patsies for any crap.

The communist politbureaus and the capitalist boards of directors are the same.

However, when it comes to personalities, they come in different, contradictory shapes. E.g. Gordon Campbell is a low brow patsy in the servitude of his bosses, without an original thought in his pretty head, but Harper is a dangerous, highly intelligent
predator and a desperate "pyramid climber", without any human conscience, who believes that he was born to rule and his masters, including the controllers of the media accept him as one of their own.

Ed Deak.

Maestro....There's no Nobel Prize in economics. The name is just another lie in a long string of them.

It is the Bank of Sweden Prize, falsely named after Nobel and against the opposition of the Nobel Family.

It was set up in the late '60s, I believe '68, by the Bank to "sell" and propagandize neoclassical market economics, in an attempt to legitimize them in the eyes of the sucker public.

Ed Deak.

To keep this discussion basic. Harper scares the pants of a lot of Canadians. he has a slim minority government yet flings money and programs around, trying to get some extra folks to vote for him. Its realy quite basic. when this present so called government fails,and it will hopefully really soon, go vote to make sure he is history. Somebody mentioned Stockwell Day. Has he lost his wet suit yet?

Ed:

Re: Economics and Nobel Prize

That's my point, which you picked up on.

" Models " and Theories etc. " Work " to some degree, under certain " givens ". However, often the "awards and laurels" bestowed upon them are via an adjudication process within the backslapping "good old boy's" club professional peer group.

Nobel Prize in economics is prime example...and the rest of us are to bow down in homage. Oh well, it keeps them off the main streets.

'We need a whole new economic game with a whole new humanitarian focus and a whole new set of rules...rules of accountability designed and forged to serve and uphold our human rights, our working rights as people...as well as the rights of all living things.'
yawn.....must be latte time. where's that fair trade coffee shop?

Ed knows whereof he speaks :

The Nobel Prizes were established from a fund bequeathed for that purpose by the Swedish inventor and industrialist Alfred Nobel. In the will he drafted in 1895, he called for the bulk of his fortune to be set aside as a fund for the award of five prizes awarded annually "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." The five prizes established by his will were: the Nobel Prize for Physics, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, the Nobel Prize for Literature, and the Nobel Prize for Peace. The first distribution of the prizes was made on Dec. 10, 1901, the fifth anniversary of the death of Nobel. A sixth prize, the prize for Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, was set up in 1968 by the Bank of Sweden and was first awarded in 1969. It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize for Economics.

And if you can't see the evidence of this all around you Max, it's 'cause you simply choose not to.

Consider Harper's latest program to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board and thereby hand over the grain industry to Cargill and the other massive multinationals. Does anyone really believe this is being done for the good of Canadian farmers or consumers?
It is just another sellout to the elite by their good corporate minion Steven Harper. Of course, the minority conservative government could be taken down on this issue, but will the Liberals do it? Fat chance, as most Liberal policies are also written by the Council of Chief Executives.
Welcome to corporate fascism as described by Moussolini.

There has been some talk about the laws of science with respect to Ed Deak's economic law. Here they are - briefly.
The first is the Law of the Conservation of Mass-that in all reactions, matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Newton then came up with three Laws of Motion; the Law of Inertia, F=ma, and action force equals reaction force.
The 3 Laws of Thermodynamics; 1 in all reactions energy is conserved, 2 in all reactions or interactions some energy is lost (entropy) and, 3 we cannot reach absolute zero. Some refer to entropy as randomness or chaos.
Ed seems to use the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Law of the Conservation of Energy to set up his Application of Physical Efficiency to Economics.
He says, "Wealth can not be created only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future." This seems to be in line with the two conservation laws.
Some have suggested that economics can be based on Einstein's theory of relativity. This theory relates the passage of time, mass and length to motion and how those physical measurements change with respect to motion.
I would suggest if economists want to find some justification for inflationary economics and uncontrolled growth, they look to the second law of thermodynamics. However we will run out of resources.

Some comments were made about the press and our politicians. An essay was written by Harry Frankfurt, a philosophy professor, titled "On Bullsh*t." He compares lying, BS and spin doctoring. He said on the Daily Show, " Political Spin Doctors - They don't care about the truth, they care about a certain impression in the mind of the people they are addressing. They are engaged in the enterprise of manipulating opinion, they are not engaged in the enterprise of reporting the facts."

There was, for me, a certain usefulness to having had an opportunity to be part of an official delegation of Communists from Canada, to have visited even briefly the old Eastern Soviet Bloc, especially the old DDR (East Germany). For having been raised within capitalism within this country and its low level notions and concept of democracy, so-called, even though I was early turned against this system, I did not always appreciate "fully" the degree and extent of the propaganda machine and control mechanisms of this "State", directed not only against myself as a Communist worker, but workers in this country in general. Having been raised within and grown accustomed to them, they were the only norm I knew, and I knew the rules of behaviour well enough, what it took to comply sufficiently in order to avoid outright persecution. "This System" then, in the immediate postwar, was in a period of sufficient prosperity and a degree of working class co-optation and behavioural compliance, that it knew that it could tolerate such persons as myself with relative impunity, and that we could pose no serious threat to it, in that particular socio-economic and political environment then extant.

In short, I was, to a degree that I did not sufficiently appreciate at the time, numbed somewhat, given to "conditioned reflexes" such that even though I was "in my understanding" opposed to my own capitalist society, that understanding of my youth lacked a gut appreciation and understanding of the precise, many and varied mechanisms of control that were constantly in place and acting in the background of this so-called "democratic capitalism", even then.

Which changed during the course of that delegation opportunity to the East Bloc. For going into another quite different socio-political situation like that, while the ordinary people of say, the DDR, did not exist that awfully differently in their daily lives from my own, frankly, I was suddenly made acutely aware in conversations with them, and that of leading Communist politicians and bureaucrats, and in visits to industry and meetings with leaders of industry and delegations of their workers, of those "systems of control" which were indeed very much in place-, at all levels of their State, media, and in the workplaces of the average citizenry. And in a way, within a "system" that was far less secure from the capitalism of my own country, that was more stark and obvious, certainly less sophisticated-, that worked to make clearer to me, to the bone in a new way, the scarcely less precise ways in which all those same "control mechanisms" existed in my own country, even though it had been made rich by the war, and had not been destroyed, on many social levels other than simply economic, and therefore had much less to fear from internal dissent issues. And it is only now, as the crisis of our own State and social system deepens along a whole number of social, political and economic fronts , that it is being made ever more obvious to greater numbers of never before realizing folks, the systems of control; social and democracy engineering and ideas/opinion manipulation and control which while they seem new, doubtless, to some of you folks, I have seen before-, and were always here as well. Though they were always scarcely hidden beneath the surface of a period of then prevailing "prosperity capitalism" and a more apparent than real "democratic consensus" that is only now beginning to fall increasingly apart. Which serves to make the real state of affairs more obvious, doesn't it? If nothing else.

From previous post...

From previous post...

I remembering sitting in one of the conference rooms of one of East Berlin's largest industrial machinery and construction equipment repair facilities, discussing with some management and a delegation of workers from the shop floor, how things worked in this facility. The management, it was soon clear to me, wanted to discuss issue of "production goals" and technical issues of organization and management of this state enterprise only, and to steer away from controversial areas I was especially anxious to get at.

I was a young active trade unionist, a bit of a bull in a china shop, full of ideas of changing the world and the situation for my social class, and I wanted to talk to the largely silent delegation of the union from their shop floor. And lacking an appreciation for the required etiquette of my situation, I addressed myself directly to the fellow who seemed to be the spokesman for the workers of this facility.

"And how are your workers organized to have input into the setting of these production targets?" I asked. "And what inputs do you have in determining workloads, pay rates, the length of the workday, scheduling, investment in tooling and all the other matters and decisions that have to be made as part of, I would presume, being at least a "part" of the management and direction of this enterprise?" (Though my interpreter, of course-, who was a really good fellow, and I knowing just enough German to know that he was well enough posing my questions accurately.)

Well, there was a stunned silence on both sides, that led me to think I had maybe gone too far as a guest in another country.

The workers looked at the managers and vice versa, and from the degree of discomfort on both sides, I could see that I had hit a nerve, of course, and was maybe not going to get my answer.
But a the youngish man who seemed to be in charge for the management side leapt into the breach and said to me, with some obvious discomfort, " Well," he said, " We certainly don't presume, even in socialism, that the workers know everything. Those are largely management decisions".

Which I knew very well, was an answer I could have just as easily gotten out of the management of the "capitalist" factory in which I worked at the time, within my own "capitalist" society. Things were not so different after all... from a perspective of working class interests.

But another equally revealing little thing happened that told me even louder that I was about right on the money in what I was then thinking. On a sideways glance to the "union" side, it was clear from the sparkling eyes and smiles of the fellows there, that they clearly liked my question. With a broad smile even, the leading union spokesman gave me a big wink-, which spoke volumes to me.

There was a great difference in the effects of the war on this country and the US, and upon "the Eastern Bloc"-, which allowed for a loosening of the control systems on the working class in this country and the US especially. Such that at least "seemed" to make our "democracy" more satisfying and effective at the time... than what it has of late at least become. "The System" over there was in a much more precarious, especially economically, and immediately war "threatened" situation. Such that the systems and mechanisms of control were more clumsy, heavy handed and obvious. Or as it seemed/seems to me.

But really, dissected and in their beating hearts, and put on a level playing field, the two reputedly and at least shallowly "apparently" different social and economic systems were really not that different-, not at the very core of their being.

As Ed has said, the same ruling class folks and types, behind a red flag and hammer and sickle, were in charge there, as are in charge of capitalism here. No real difference. Certainly not from a working class perspective on things.

That's the fact.

As long as this line is still going on, I might as well explain what I'm talking about.

In 1945 I was an 18 year old, wounded war veteran in POW-MASH hospital in Austria. After my recovery, I volunteered as an orderly to look after leg amputees and in the operation theatre, holding the guys' legs as they were amputated and reamputated, for several months. I took part in approx. 100 of these operations.

As I was standing there, holding some poor victim's leg, a starving, homeless refugee, looking at all the destruction and suffering around me, I started thinking that history's ever repeating cycles must have a common denominator and set out to find it.

Obviously, I had to make a living, but I followed this research up, including 7 years at Cambridge, working and studying, reading hundreds of history books from all sides and angles.

After a while I discarded history as a chronicle of events and concentrated strictly on the causes of the events, why they've happened and repeat themselves.
Slowly I began to realize that empires and ruling systems are not thrown over by "barbarians", but always self destruct, but I still couldn't explain the exact reasons.

It was most interesting that whenever I came to a dead end, some book, accidentally , always came into my hands that opened up a new vista and line.

This is how I picked up my first new, $40. economics textbook at a garage sale, for $1. in 1982. I had 25 years of independent business experience by then and with that background, I realized almost from the first page on that that it was a pile of ideological crap wrapped into academic language.

It took me 3 years,in 1985, when I stumbled on 2 contradicting definitions of economic efficiency, within 100 pages, in the same textbook, which I still have, for reference and being a chronic book collector.

"Economics, Principles, Problems and Policies" Third Canadian edition, by Campbell R.McConnell U.of Nebraska Lincoln, and William Henry Pope, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst.

Page, 23,: "Economic efficiency is also concerned with inputs and outputs. Specifically, it is concerned with the relationship between the units of scarce resources that are put into the process of production and the resulting output of some wanted product. More output from a given quantity of inputs designates an increase in efficiency. Less output from a given bundle of inputs indicates a decline of efficiency"

There's nothing wrong with the above, as it is based on simple engineering, or physical, efficiency.

Then on page 123, they kill the whole thing: "...economic efficiency entails getting a given output of product with the smallest input of scarce resources, when both output and resource inputs are measured in Dollars-and-cents terms"

This piece of blatant, ideological nonsense opened my eyes and I followed it up in history and by consulting with many scientist friends, a slow process before fax and the Net, until I could nail it down on one page in 1991 as the "Principle for the application of physical efficiency to economics", and copyrighted it to establish the date, not for any financial reasons.

It has now been published on many worldwide economic forums, including several by the World Bank , used in PhD dissertations and remains unbroken.

I'll explain later, how this fatal mistake, through the ages, has destroyed many civilizations and the lives of billions.

In the meantime, I define history as "The chronicle of the failed attempts for energy control."

Ed Deak.

Fiat Lux /Ed and Coyote:

In Ed's search for "the common denominator"...perhaps its another Law of Thermodynamics ...the 2nd one called ENTROPY aka basically " maximum disorder ". Perhaps put another way change is a constant/ the only constant is change.

This applies at the human scale, and all empires and political philosophies either collapse or evolve. Those that literally and figuratively "collapse" likely hit a quasi- quantum leap cliff...the inevitable was delayed too long...here comes the cliff.

Regardless, all are constantly being challenged and chiselled away at by the many forces that come into play.

Resistance is futile and morseo by those who try to actively shift the natural equilibria of what are effectively the same forces in play, whether it be lowly molecules or higher life forms and their interactions.

In essence , the same basic forces that hit Vancouver's Stanley Park are those that can and will hit the Socio-Economic-Political world everywhere .

PS Just heard Saddam Hussein was hanged.

See ?

Sorry, I couldn't get back to this today...

Maximum disorder should not be influencing species capable of logical thinking. If we're capable to keep our homes, businesses and our road systems in order, what is stopping us from living in an orderly world built on cooperation?

Or are you suggesting that the stupidity of ruling classes should be the ultimate decision making powers and we all should just lie down and take it, with all the precedents staring us in our faces?

Too bad Saddam didn't have a few others joining him. On the other hand, I'd rather wish nice tight jails for them until they croak.

Ed Deak.

Hi Ed:

RE: Entropy/Maximum disorder.

Its perhaps applicable if one takes other natural laws as well and apply them to the discussion. Perhaps in the bigger scheme all natural laws apply, we can't pick and choose some and yet ignore others.

Take Communism as an entity. It is a system based on control in almost all facets of a given society. The natural law may be that like most entities , it cannot last in perpetuity. Thus UNnatural forces are need to sustain it.

If all the components molecules or "citizens" accepted it , it would form a natural equilibrium . If not, this requires a greater expenditure of resources to maintain that UNnatural status -quo.

The collapse can occur via either side of the equilibrium equation. The citizens (on one side) may revolt and the opposing force capitulates.

Or.... the opposing force (Gov't)has expended all its resources and collapses and something else takes over in the vacuum created. A new equilibrium results and all the given forces shape it.

In a Democracy, apathy plays a big part. Omit those who don't participate. Those that do vote influence the outcome and form an equilibrium . The NDP, say, will have a core group of support that will never vote for the other parties...call that a "constant"/less of an equilibria component .

The OTHER parties who can form Gov't are more subject to the equilibrium. Their supporters can flow freely between either party camp...the shift is often based on the negative vote, vote against one vs. for one.

Regardless that negative vote is an entropic force where the soon - to - be - defeated party has maxed out and cannot UNnaturally support itself, like the previous Communist example. Perhaps a vote can be compared to a chemical bond. "Bonds" are made and broken all the time based on equilibrium shifts via external variables.

Throw into that another sub -equilibria , ie NDP's Layton (the constant) who can shift the equilibria of power via his own entry into the post- electoral power equation, aka can hold the balance of power after all the other forces have shaken down and stabilized.

The key "Unifying force" variable is as you and Coyote discussed , PROPOGANDA driven, what the voters believes is THE TRUTH when they enter the voting booth. That is where the resources are directed by the power wannabees.

The final equilibria is whether (i) the propoganda approaches the truth VERSUS (ii) is the propoganda separate from the truth ?. Idealistically the propoganda should equal the truth , realistically it often doesn't .

However, Gov'ts that play fast and loose with the truth get the propoganda exposed and they ultimately hang themselves, whether they be communists or within a democratic society, the same laws, entropy or otherwise, still apply.

There are always forces at play which by definition cannot all line up and continually perpetuate a status quo. More the exact opposite is true. Once entity "X" peaks, its all downhill, only a matter of when, unless it is supported by new equilibraic forces.

Entity "X" could be a given leader, or a party in power too long and entropy has always won out in any form of Gov't , whether it be Saddam Hussein, BC NDP, BC Socreds, or Paul Martin etc.

Entropy applied to human scale...A bit complicated, but in my view a very applicable natural law as well if one looks at it more closely.

Entropy:

Inert uniformity is complete order - or complete homogeneity - maximum disorder is quite something else.

However, Ed is not suggesting any law of thermodynamics. He is saying that not a single leader in history has EVER done for a people what the people could not have done for themselves. Leaders like to tout "The Big Picture" or "The Common Goal". In fact, they cannot live without it. But whatever appellation they attach to it, it universally means "What I Want". And THAT would be in the direction of your 2nd law of complete uniformnity...........

maestro:

That statement is equally true with Capitalism substituted for its second word...which is the point you don't seem to get - ever!

And in fact, to call the ideological claptrap that 'ran' the Eastern bloc for most of its history communism is an insult to Marx. That system was an elitist state sponsored oligarchy every bit as much as most of our governments here in the west are. Ed also pointed out the much more prescient form of propaganda we use in the west. You should read those Vance Packard books – it might be a good place to start your re-education.

Rick W, on the other hand, seems to have actually 'gotten' it.

Propaganda is NEVER the truth...you've been suckered by the idea that lies and obfuscations in support of the truth are somehow noble. They aren't; they can't ever be...and they always get you into trouble.

And there is the rub. What has been absent to here, is the realization amongst the broad mass of people that this is true-, and where there is the will to do so.

Hence, for ruling class beholden leadership, it is sufficient that they merely satisfy enough people, and just enough. that they remain in that state of inertia. Which historically ever breaks down sooner or later, precisely for the reason to which Maestro alludes, perhaps unwittingly;

Which is demonstrably true, even in each of our daily experience.

And what drives it, or has to here within the long history of class societies, from the time of slavery, down to and including our own, is that with all that power of control over society and its material and human creations concentrated into the hands of a specially privileged ruling class and its professional hired gun leadership, there is that constant tendency for "greed" instincts to assert itself obsessively amongst them such as begins to break down that "inertia" of the untermenschen class masses, and/or changes occur within the economy and with the numbers of humans, and that effect upon the natural environment that, the old social and economic order becomes no longer possible to continue with, regardless of our sentimentalities about it. Both these phenomenon , the former "greed phenomena" since the rise of the Neocon period in the early 80s which ended the Prosperity Capitalism Period , and the latter "environmental phenomena" we have become aware of since the collapse of the east coast cod stocks, and the failure of ocean systems generally, and with the no longer ignorable realities and consequences of global warming.

Which suggests to me, as I have been saying for awhile now, that the way of "Endless Growth Capitalism" is no longer possible and needs of necessity to come to an end, and with the emergence of lower class poverty and rising working class insecurity generally, is being created anew, with its echo sound of the Great 1930s Depression, the pressures and social forces likely destined to change it.

Though I/we shall have to likely yet wait awhile to see if I am definitively correct, it is clear even from the debate that occurs here, that there is already an attempt on the part of broad cross sections of social and class opinion underway, to define and deal with this "constantly changing" reality, and attempt to redefine the future direction of our further collective evolution need.

The old "inertia" is in its yet early stages of breaking down, but is nonetheless, breaking down. Which isn't to say that it happens entirely on its own, of course, but as a consequence of human activity and what begins to become obvious over the course of that.

Unless, of course, to conclude with a quote from Ed,

Good comments directly above me there, GW. Regardless of what one thinks of Marx, the man or the philosopher. That "communism" had, as its development into "capitalism" in our time has demonstrated, with fundamentally the same persons and class of people running it as did in Soviet Communism, had, and still has in so-called Red China, more in common with "capitalism" than any early idealized "communism", a democratic co=operative notion, such as existed even well before the time of Marx.

I don't always agree with Ed about his ideas around "ideologies", save to the degree that all tend to become like religions over time, even the secular ideologies, for I suggest we all to one degree or another carry our own personal "ideologies"-, even Ed. But what is correct is, that all ideologies, or formalized systems of ideas, once they become "fixed" and no longer subject to that law of "change/evolution", but an immutable "belief system", have already outlived their usefulness.

Which may be why, somewhere I read many years ago, Marx was reputed to have complained, "God save me from the Marxists."

Now, whether or not he did actually say that, and I don't really know, it is still a true observation of probably any philosopher from any time, mayhaps even our friend Ed Deake. Who knows? B-D LOL.

Further to Entropy :

As I noted in my last posts' conclusion, it(Entropy) is admittedly complicated, but is a paradox of the interplay of the forces of " order " versus the forces of " disorder ".

On the global socio - political scale...one may take a view that a mass homogenization is occcuring, aka that most countries , their Gov'ts, their cultures, their laws etc. etc. etc. are UN-natural. They are based on micro-forces battling macro - forces. Ie Protectionism/Trade barriers are examples of micro-forces. NAFTA and other international laws may be examples of macro - forces.

The European Union and the Euro currency are the start of a larger global homogenization process ?

Entropy in the guise of " Peace in the Middle East " is being " artificially denied/manipulated" by certain parties so that the Arab States do not form a union/united front and then control a huge percentage of the world energy supply(and hence control the world) as Fiat Lux/ Ed alluded to ? An artificial disorder in the Middle East is actively being encouraged that creates order elsewhere ?

In their place is coming a " New world order" , ONE World Gov't, " Globalization - equilibrium " , whether it be by Gun or by Negotiation. Entropy would suggest more peaceful means.

ENTROPY: An admittedly huge discussion, but perhaps can explain, in both theory and reality , why Alberta isn't Communist and why Russia may one day vote in Ralph Klein, why the NDP is losing energy...why China will be a huge(maybe even catalytic) variable globally....why the Federal Liberals may join the NDP.... etc etc.

I thought this line was dead and, as I'm fed up with looking at Fisheye Harpo every time I put on this blog, I didn't bother to continue.....

In any case, I don't pretend, or have any wish, to be a philosopher, or prophet, or theorist. I worked on this question for 60 years now for my own satisfaction and never had any intention to write books. If it hadn't been for the Net, only a very few people would have ever known of my work and I was quite happy to leave it at that. I got onto the net over 10 years ago on the suggestion of scientist friends and whatever I am saying has been in circulation ever since.

If you go to google and type in "Ed Deak on thermodynamic efficiency", or just my name, you can read more.

Yes, I do believe, together with a lot of scientists and people, that thermodynamic efficiency not only can, but must be applied to economics if the human race wants to survive.

"Energy can not be created, etc........."

"Wealth, prosperity and "power" are the temporary control of energy"

"Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment and the future"

"Monetary costs are not realities, but temporary, often distorted perceptions, therefore can not be used for economic calculations"

"Because of the eternal qualities of energy we don't know the real cost of anything, as they began and end in eternity"

"Costs can not be cut, only transferred on other sectors, the environment and the future"

All forms of life exist every second of their existence on resource conversion into energy for their survival, therefore all our actions, thoughts, plans, theories, religions, ideologies, politics, conquests, colonizations, wars etc. are forms, or intents, for some forms of energy control from the individual to the national and international levels. Not "creation", but the use of existing energy.

This is an unbreakable fact. Ruling classes were always built and survived by the conspiracy of 3 sectors: The Merchants, now represented by the multinationals and banks, who develop the demands for energy control into their own hands; the Priesthoods who develop the theories for the legalization of energy theft from others, sold as divine orders, now represented by fundamentalist religions and economists; the Military who do the dirty work for the above two, hoping for more and more power and salvation or their crimes.

All ruling classes, big business and the miltary maintain their power through secrecy, fraud and the spreading of lies, which is also a form of major energy control. In other words, neither believes, or can survive on any democratic principles and always are doing their best to destroy them. E.g. Money creation and free trade, both designed for the destruction of democracy.

Contrary to propaganda, competition doesn't cut, but always increases real costs. All forms of competition require ever increasing inputs of energy, which create early depletion and reactions, e.g. wars of conquests and empire building, that raise costs and burn out the practitioners, resulting in the collapse of the system.

There's no escape.

This is all have time for now. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

I would like to point out that I'm not the least bit interested in undefineable concepts like "social conscience", etc. or any ideology based theories. I believe that cooperative self sufficiency from the personal to national levels is the best form of economic theory.

My work was to find the causes for history's cyclical repetitions and I have done it. As I am a firm believer in democracy, the decisions on what has to be done to get out of this mess must be done democratically by people and societies, from the ground up and not on the orders, or theories of prophets and ruling power elites.

Cheers, Ed Deak.

Thanks again Ed...as always.

And Happy New Year. I often have questions; maybe one of these days I'll figure out how to ask one or two and send you an email.

Cheers.

All ruling classes, big business and the miltary maintain their power through secrecy, fraud and the spreading of lies, which is also a form of major energy control. In other words, neither believes, or can survive on any democratic principles and always are doing their best to destroy them. E.g. Money creation and free trade, both designed for the destruction of democracy.

Excellent development of this concept. With which I agree entirely.

But I agree with one other conclusion that flows from this, as the likely best answer to the major class and environmental issues both, in our time. Without which, it is likely that the human species and its societies have about run their course as sustainable entitites within our finite natural planet systems:

Amen. And additionally, its realization is all that stands between the future independent existence of this country of Canada and its absorption into the US Empire controlled North Amerikan Union.

And a Happy New Year to you all. It has been and is a pleasure to discuss our shared life situation with you all. And to endeavour to find our best collectively possible path forward into the future-, for ourselves and our future generations. :-)

Peace.

Here is a site that examines the plight of many who have fallen and are not been cared for. I don'tmean to make light of some of this discussion but maybe they are the victims of the entropy of our society and economic systems. This is a comment in response to Paul Willcocks column, "Paying Attention." Read it here http://willcocks.blogspot.com/2006/12/resolution-pay-attention-and-be.html#comments

North.... "Poverty is the loss of energy control."

There will always be people who become destitute for a number of reasons, many of them self inflicted, but the majority of poverty is always caused by "legalized energy theft" by power elites, who may be using weapons, or the perception of power of religions, ideologies, fraudulent economic theories and now imaginary capital created for the purpose to conquer, enslave and oppress.

E.g. NAFTA destituted millions, most of them in Mexico, yet where the false GDP figures have gone up and the ruling sector considers it, as they do in the USA and Canada, the best thing that ever happened. To them, of course.

Norway kicked out Alcan, which they could do because the people voted against joining the "free trade" EU.

When you look at history, the incredible robbery, the killing of millions of natives, and the tons of gold taken to Spain from Central and South America, has been used by the rulers to oppress their own peoples.

The fantastic palaces, forts, castles, cathedrals of Europe have been built during the biggest and most inhuman poverty all over the continent. Again, with legalized energy theft.

The Renaissance has given us some of the greatest artworks in history, but also caused the biggest poverty and loss of human rights.

What those writers should consider is getting off the moaning and groaning and examine how and why energy theft is being perpetrated and used against humanity.

That's what I've been trying to figure out and do most of my life.

Ed Deak.

O.K. Now I`m REALLY depressed.

- Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men (1992)

That about describes the well-to-do citizens of any society; and our society has many of these citizens. Doubtless, most of us are well-to-do, relative to the world. But the plain truth is that freedom is scary, and one would think that, with riches comes more freedom and the ability to appreciate it. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. With riches comes a grasping attitude, verging on paranoia. It's as though some niggling part of us recognizes that our wealth came by ripping it away from others -- and we perceive that these others, in the wings, are waiting to rip what we have come to consider ours, away from us. So we spend our wealth on mechanisms designed to help us keep it, most notably, government, religion, and the military, just as Ed mentions. Pity that we don't take this same wealth and use it to "give a hand up, not a handout" (as the kitschy saying goes) to the world. But our paranoia won't let us, and we are the poorer for it.

Don't get depressed, get angry at the incredible degree of corruption and theft that goes on in the name of ideologies and economic theories.

A child starves to death every 5 seconds in the world, millions suffer a die for the lack of clean drinking water, at the same time 10 days of military spending could give clean water to everybody on Earth.

The crooks talk about the need of "security", piling money and resources at the militaries of all countries, at the same time they let loose the biggest crime wave under so called "free trade agreements".

Ed Deak.

As Fiat Lux /Ed alluded to , much of the world's current politics "zeitgeist" revolve around a commodity called "energy".

This can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution. This created an increasing demand for energy . Prior to that,pre -Industrial Revolution colonialism and empire expansion was based on plundering of what are now considered frivolous commodties..ie tea, spices, precious metals etc.

Modern society is built upon less independence/less self reliance and greater interdependence, almost a quasi-"socialist" underbelly.

Past societies, often pioneering and agrarian, were more internally self- sufficient. Now, we are reliant on electricity, fuels for heating and transportation...,etc. etc.

Energy is the blood flow to the modern societal body. Its disruption of flow or lack thereof would catalyze mass global upheaval...if one stopped to think about it.

Its simply a linear progression given the " given " of progress and change are the constants. However, Ed hit the nail on the head re: energy. (Also : WW II was decided to a large degree by who had the resources and who didn't, was it not ?)

G West..FTR: In my previous entropy discussion , in my view, Propoganda can at times = "the Truth" ... ie someone may use a true statement as part of their goal and objectives.

Of course, when I speak of energy, I mean anything that supports life, from a bite of food and a breath of air to sap inte trees and vegetations to nuke power.

This is where Newton comes in. Not as we learned in highschool about the cart pulling the horse with the same energy the horse is pulling the cart, but the overall reactions caused by energy use.

There ain't no "win-win", only "win-pay" or "win-lose" in economics, because every move depends on some form of energy use.

Global warming, pollution, cancer epidemics, growing global poverty and illness, permanent wars etc. are all "reactions to energy use"

The more energy we use, the bigger the reactions that show up in transferred costs on other sectors, the environment and the future.

This is why "Human labour doesn't cost anything in and to an economy", because it already exists and its replacement with automation increases energy use and resource waste.

Which doesn't mean the return to primitive lifestyles, but the use of energy enhancing and saving equipment to
support human activities, life and enjoyment.

Of course, energy = resources.

Ed Deak.

It has been said, since the time of my youth, that the main problem with being rich and having lots of "stuff" is, you then have to constantly worry about someone else trying to steal it from you. :-)

And one of my own observations of the rich as a class is, having worked close enough to observe old Chunky Woodwards of now demised Woodward's Stores fame, and some of his rich pals from pretty close up for a period, that no one cries poverty more loudly or frequently than the wealthy. (Hatred of taxes is part of it, of course. And even when you largely inherit your great wealth start in life, how they attempt to manipulate perceptions that they are in fact, "self-made men".)

The neo-conservative crime wave of the ruling class continues unabated. And Stephen Harper is its leading hired gun at the State level. Soon to likely go up against the new young gun from the other longest running, would-be main hired guns from the ageing, so-called Liberal Party. (The other aspirant Green and NDP Parties will doubtless have a shoot out amongst themselves, on the fringes of ruling class controlled society.)

Democracy, my ass.

If one can access a copy of Today's DEC.31 / 2006 PROVINCE newspaper, a columnist in the editorial section muses and predicts that Harper will " call " or " have " an election in February/2007.

Good arguments re: timing , the strategy, and how and what will make it happen.

Then it's not propaganda maestro.

I knew Chunky quite well and have made a lot of furniture for his Marine Dr. , Kitsilano and Douglas lake houses. Also rebuilt the interior of the company's Armstrong-Siddeley jet, before it was sold.

At least the guy wasn't obnoxious, like some I have known and treated his employees quite well. My wife giftwrapped whole truckloads of Christmas gifts for the families of his ranchhands, in the store. The ranch was the only place where he was happy.

Of course, people born with silver spoons, they don't have much contact with the real world and there's no point in arguing with them.

Ed Deak.

Even the truth, used manipulatively and for some kind of end - other than simply information and knowledge (which cannot be, by definition, properly restricted to the elect) becomes propagandistic when used by one element of a society to get over on another element or to expand the user's power.

That's exactly the kind of thing our governments do when they emphasize the good effects (for example) of some social or statistical reality without disclosing the other consequences of the same phenomenon.

Propaganda can also be simply a matter of withholding information that the public has a right - as the ultimate source of power in a democracy - to know. Hiding the truth is as much a propaganda exercise as revealing it in a piecemeal or planned way for maximum effect.

"Propaganda is the rape of the human mind"

And I have seen them all and can smell it from a country mile.......

Cheers, Ed.

Ed;

One thing in the greater -bigger picture we have to keep in mind is what is man's place in the overall picture ?

If man was some primal beast, natural forces would limit our numbers...and a steady state would be achieved, the natural carrying capacity of the given environment, all other things being equal.

However, OUR very " I think, therefore I am " 'being' creates a continual evolution by the literal and figurative second. The global population continues to grow. We accept that as a global right of our species, no Gov't dare deny it or else, and the geometric progressions can show how two people can lead to a multi-generational future impact.

However, it appears as we continually post Industrial Revolution modernize, there are declining birth rates in these aforementioned "modern societies".

Given the previous ENTROPY model, would the " entropy of globalization" suggest that this modernization will spread along its own continuum , and that say in 100 - 200 years...every nook and cranny of Mother Earth will have a quasi -"Western Civilization" look and a by- product of that would be a stabilized global population?

Is modern society, by design or by default, inherently a form of Birth Control ?

The point is that various forces come into play, subtley or otherwise, yet which often make the final result more predictable and less of a surpise. Would anyone have predicted a declining birthrate, say 10 - 20 years ago...yet some "force/s" have now entered the thermodynamic equation ?

Much like your Thermodynamic models , a large global entity like Red China literally pole vaulting into the 21/st Century in quantum leap -like fashion really shouldn't have come as a surprise. Equilibrium vs. Statics etc.

When Red China re-acquired Hong Kong..."WHO" really absorbed "WHO" ? Natural forces would suggest Hong Kong would be digested, absorbed and disappear. However, a broader more comprehensive analysis may have predicted exactly what we see today.

when you've got coyote and fiat lux on the same thread there's certainly no shortage of grade A shite. throw gwest into the peanut gallery and it's a veritable laugh riot. do you guys actually believe this crap, or do you just like hearing yourselves whine?

G West:

The Joker in the deck is APATHY.

In addition... "Truth" is a rather primal element...always goes back to some basic...but does not necessarily imply an agenda or insidiousness by the " truth giver" .

Many NON status -quo movements have had their epiphany moments based on subtle minute inspirations when the "current truth" doesn't add up.

Anyone can say " something ",... its up to others to accept it, reject it, or perhaps say " THAT's interesting...I'd like to look into THAT issue/topic further..." .

Unfortunately, most tend to be apathetic, or maintain an "ignorance comfort level"...till their Ox is gored...then the possible conversion.

Then its simply pick and choose one's battles.

And nothing illustrates how utterly pointless Elliot is than just re-posting his own words with a little box around them. Framed, as it were and hung a little more prominently to illustrate his complete irrelevance.

How about the game last night? Just stick to the sports commentary and leave the 'real' discussions for the adults El.

maestro.
We were talking about 'propaganda', remember - or has that cancept slipped your mind already?

I thought his wife was the more personable of the two. In addition to being stunningly beautiful, and a former beauty queen, if I remember correctly. (Wealth is a major chick magnet, no doubt. And that really isn't a put down of women. Though it is too lengthy an issue to get into here though.)

Chunky himself, from my close enough, but still outsider perspective, as a bottom rung ranch hand, was of an almost shy man-, though very watchful of everything and everyone around him. He had the aloofness of royalty, which he really kind of was on the ranch. (Douglas Lake, again from my perspective, was not unlike I would imagine it being working in one of the British royal family's feudal estate households.)

And Chunky never had to be anything but nice really, in public and with "the help". If he wanted a bullet fired, he had all those sycophantic hired guns to do it for him. All he ever really had to do was, give the look, or say that quiet word aside.

Outside of that, he only ever really seemed to want to play cowboy, in the select company of a number of them-, starting with Cow Boss, Mike Ferguson. (Now dead as well, I read or heard somewhere, a fair while ago now.)

Outside of that, like the Queen, he could really be quite charming, in his still always aloof and royal way.

(My refusal the years I was there, to attend his annual employees Xmas Party at The Big House was a kind of... What? ...scandal (?), for which I took some heat on occasion-, from "management". Who viewed it as a "slight" against Chunky, of course. Though it was really just that I preferred any time off I could get, which wasn't bloody much, at home or drinking and toking up with my own class friends. Though I was told by those who did attend, that he put out the best Scotch Whiskey. :-)

All forms of life are programmed to fulfill certain tasks needed for the survival of overlapping ecologies by eliminating waste and slowing down resource conversion.

The human race is the only one without any such purpose and the only species capable of abstract thinking for the absorption of crap as truth. As we can witness just above and in the destruction
all over the world.

This is how and why humanity can fall for the most idiotic theories and concepts and has been led by the nose and sent up the scaling ladders by rulers, since the first of our forefathers/mothers stood up on their hind legs, which they considered an entitlement to call themselves "dominant".

How long ago was that, elliot, about 7,000 years ? What do you think Harpo would say ? Like Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, Jim Watts said: "When the last tree is cut the Lord will return"

That's when we can see Harpr and Manning flying to heaven, in Rapture, stark naked

Ed Deak.

now there's some imagery fiat. thanks a bunch. and happy new year.

G West:

A review of more formal definitions of the term "propoganda" does NOT exclude the use of what may be deemed " truth " .

If one wants to trump someone elses " propoganda " , then fight fire -with- fire...use enough of your own " propoganda " which contains more truth than theirs. ( Adding a dash of proper context doesn't hurt either ).

Example: that's why the NDP is getting it's ass kicked. Who wants years - old bread 1/2 full of artificial ingredients ie 1/2 truths, the rest is simply air ? Time to grind it into bread crumbs to stuff the upcoming turkey..ie Stevie "No-Wonder" Dion and Co.

Re: Chunky Woodward;

Had a chance to see his ex - S.W. Marine Drive home before it was demolished it in the late 1970's /early 1980's ...seemed very basic, relatively spartan , quite amazed at the unfinished basement, given the neighbourhood.

Trivia: Anyone remember WHO he sold it to ?

This, is what you posted:

Remember.

I prefer Ed's:

There are no "half truths" - just lies.

,....and the same to you and all of you friends.

Cheers and best wishes, Ed.

G West:

You at times tend to re-run a point I have already made.

Also, maybe the NDP needs a makeover..the 1/2 -assed 1/2- Truth party.

Otherwise...Chill dude...have a beer ( and maybe charge it to Coyote ).

BTW...Re yesterday's " Nuck's " game...I guess the bandwagon is on warp speed, maybe Frank is Capt. Kirk...can't decide if you are Mr. Spock or Scotty.

Regardless, now approx. 1/2 way through the NHL season, keep the duct tape and jumper cables handy. Maybe time to discuss what their needs are and what trades they will need to bolster the playoff odds ( if they don't choke in the last week...that's "truth" = propoganda )

P.S. Season's Greetings and a Happy New Year to all.

maestro:
1. My remarks were perfectly clear;
2. they had nothing to do with any kind of partisan politics;
3. they were in direct response to something you wrote;

I only talk sports with elliot - it's the only area he says anything sensible about - as to Frank, we'll leave him out of it - he happens to have had a sad Christmas this year.

Season's greetings to you all.

G West:

Sorry to hear about Comrade Frank.

Otherwise ... no problem... you have a whole week off till classes start up again.

Entropy is death.

Happy New Year!!!!

And indeed all, a HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Rick W

Actually , you are correct....LIFE itself contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Well.....I would say that life itself makes entropy possible.............

maestro makes a point, a very palpable point.

This whole definition of entropy leaves a question. Entropy is usually given as the general tendency of things to deteriorate; to move from a higher to a lower level of energy and organization.

It seems evident that since energetic bodies radiate, they will eventually run out of energy, which will have dissipated away.

Extrapolated to organization, the same reasoning assumes that complex systems will tend to become less organized, and eventually die out.

Neither thing seems to be true, despite the fact that there are mathematical proofs. The universe is more complex and more organized than previously, not less. The energy content is the same, but looks quite different and is distributed differently.

A first generation star is all hydrogen and helium, it radiates for a few billion years, explodes and that looks like entropy in action, except that it then reorganizes itself into a new, second generation star, and starts working on more complex elements, then the third generation more complex than that and so on. Soon you have a hundred elements interacting where once were only the two simplest.

Living systems do the same thing. Feed off the products left behind by other life and reorganize it in a higher state.

I like the idea that a good definition of life is any process that operates counter to entropy.

On rereading, I feel I should like to make it clear that even though it might lead to a higher state of energy and organization, nothing in my previous post should be taken as a recommendation to cook and eat Mr. Harper.

Harper's comment on Israel's destruction of Lebanon as 'measured response' is like the Bush man's comment about weapons of mass destruction and the subsequent USA's destruction of Iraq which I guess Harper considers also a 'measured response'. The man is dangerous - unless of course you agree with him that war is a 'measured response' and an excellent way of settling problems we don't like.

What happened to our role as peacekeepers ??

Happy New Year Coyote...!!

Hey, I was over at cow boss, Mike Fergusons place when I was just a kid. I remember his wonderful bronzes and Alan Sapp paintings...Beautiful. It was that experience that got me into doing wildlife and western art. If my memory serves me well, didn't Mike have a "friend" that lived with him. What was his name?? Either way, nice fellows if I recall correctly... But I was just a young lass at the time. :-)

Peace bud,

Bear

This country needs more men like Stephen Harper.

If it wants to stop being a real country Stephen Harper is definitely the way to go ad.

I guess as an American citizen that would be in your interests wouldn't it?