"Clutching a microphone with both hands"

Ouch. I think Sam's disability precludes any Daltrey-esque mike-magic. Poor choice of phrase IMO.

I'd vote for Ladner in a heartbeat.

The implication here is that if these projects were not being worked on that the money would be spent on housing for the homeless. Probably not. Sociological complications force housing for the poor to the bottom of the priority list.

You bet RAV has sucked moey out of other projects as the province has quietly set aside $850 million for the projects. This is a lot more than the original 4250 million promiced!

And lookee here former RAV guru's Dobell and Fairburn are getting cushy city jobs @ $300 thousnad each! Not bad pay for keeping LRT off of Arbutus. Maybe now they can release the study thay said a $2.5 billion subway under Cambie St. would be better than a $800 million LRT on Arbutus. Oh yes, that extra $1.7 billion has to come somewhere....oh dar me all of RAV's private backers have jumped ship, it looks like the province has to ante up. Now where does the money come from? Dear me.....the Olympics? no, no, no, no!........Gateway? Oh no,no,no, no! Yes, we will get it from housing programs, like who gives a damn about the poor.

I interpret that statement to be more a condemnation of our priorities than an expectation that it's a tit for tat trade-off.

Even a fraction of the money and resources wasted on a two week party for white folk who like to slide down hills in the winter could make a real difference in the lives of many people.

We'll build arenas we don't need, roads that will be empty most of the time, and cry poor when it's all done. Short-sighted economics from short-sighted people.

On the one hand , I think the key to this article was the references by Peter Wall and Bob Rennie as to their " vote of confidence " for Sullivan in the Mayor's chair. Reading between the lines this implies the hired staff aka bureaucracy are currently pulling the strings.

On the other hand, however, on these social issues, most, if not all politicians are held up to the old " when -did -you -stop- beating -your- spouse " NO WIN quasi-logic.

In spirit of fairness, Sullivan has barely warmed up the Mayor's chair, has he not? and has not even finished a year...the learning curve is still huge.

Lest we forget, the homeless situation didn't magically appear and the previous left -of -center Vancouver Council did a M-A-G-N-F-I-C-O job in dealing with this , didn't they ? Seem to recall they were a bit distracted trying to deal with world affairs and tried being World Gov't(advisor) vs job description of Local Gov't.

Whoopeee with a broken kazoo.

Previous mayor apparently bailed due to all the , as usual, dysfunctionality of dealing with ideologues bereft of pragmatism. Of course, this downloads the problem onto the next administration after the usual "had their chance and blew it big time " leftie purge.

If you want miracles...go to Lourdes.

Otherwise, these Protests, which ARE their RIGHT in a DEMOCRACY,.... combined whatever inititiatives are in the works may expedite the positive solutions ...and in fact due to these protests more positive initiatives may also be forthcoming.

Gov't is often a lethargic beast,...and often needs a strategic poke in the ass, and often it will respond...one simply has to understand the nature of the beast.

In other words, I support the protestors, but I don't overly condemn the Gov't either. (But as per usual, the " usual TYEE suspects " will rag -on that).

"In spirit of fairness, Sullivan has barely warmed up the Mayor's chair, has he not? and has not even finished a year...the learning curve is still huge."

He's been a councillor for a dozen years. If he's not up to speed yet, how long will we have to wait?

Original $250 million!

The previous mayor, by playing the good sport with RAV, ended up with a senate seat. Richmond's mayor by playing the good sport with RAV got a Skating oval in his town and all those trips to italy!

Now now Grumpy...(Grrrrrr )...

Good insite...bang on....nice seguay into RAV's darkroom dealings.

If Sullivan can only hand welfare money to the rich he doesn't deserve to be mayor. Period.

A friend of mine lives in Whistler and tells me that work on the bobsled/luge run is proceeding nicely on the slopes of Blackcomb. Cost? $100 million.

The money can always be found for the projects the elite want. It's not "sociological complications", it's straight thumb-on-your-neck elite rule.

I wonder if Dobell shredded the RAV Arbutus plans? You know, the never released, peer reviewed, plans that said a $2.5 billion subway was better than a $800 million LRT on Arbutus?

More and more is seems this $50,000 transit plan (most transit plans come in between $2 to $5 million) has disappeared. Maybe $1000 a day Jane Bird knows for sure? $300,000 for cronies of the Premier, Sammy boy....looking to run as a Liberal MLA in the next election?

The Liberal farm team on Vancouver City council is certainly suckholing up to there masters in Victoria.And the Big Cheeses himself, while sunbathing in Maui (amongst other things), doesn't give a damn about anything in BC., well including the homeless. Sam the 'Unwise', Sullivan is a very sad little lapdog indeed.

A friend of mine in Richmond says that the Skating Oval is not going well as there are stability problems. The cost is climbing and Mayor Brodie is at wit's end to try to keep the fianl cost secret untill the next civic election, in two years. Fat chance.

it seems that the huge preload is affecting other land owners, its all hush, hush. And compensation is being quietly paid!

Just more money spent on the Olympics that could have been spent on housing for the poor.

Stump:

COUNCILLORS tend to be a PART- Time position, many have outside careers.

MAYORS tend to be FULL - Time positions.

Councillors can rant and rave, but the Mayor often has to take a bit more fence-sitting refereeing -neutral stance, and often ends up like a glorified Chairperson.

Mayors are ONE vote at one level of the empowerment scheme, but they also end up as the Chess Master in how the City business will be run during their administration, especially how Councillors are strategically placed and delegated in various positions.

Their powers are defined via the Provincial Local Gov't Act and their own Local Gov't policies.

Teachers don't jump to the Principal's job, it's usually after years of mentoring as a Vice Principal. With Mayors its usually a huge overnite pole vault.

Many Mayors have acknowledged the steep learning curve at the start, and that much of their better work gets done in the latter stage of the first and subsequent terms( other than swashbuckling ONE -term -or -less Lefties, No names mentioned ).

YOu KNOW all that , Do ya Stump ?

PS Further explanation can be provided, my before Noon rates are cheaper, the old TYEE comrade discount. Just blog your VISA/MC card number... the one with Mike/Glen's/Ujjals' picture on it.

Stay dry .

I'm sorry, but if after twelve years on council you can't make the leap to the Mayor's chair and be effective from day one, you shouldn't be in that chair to begin with.

Sullivan came into the Mayor's office claiming he had the skills to do the job. He was the man with a plan. Unless he starts demonstrating that asap he won't get a second term spending our money to get up to speed.

I can't think of too many other jobs where you get a year's grace to demonstrate your capability to perform can you?

By running for mayor, he made the implicit promise he could do the job. There's was no mention of "give me a year to learn the ropes."

Sam Sullivan has a lot admirable qualities, but effective leader (at this point) doesn't appear to be one of them.

I agree with you but COPE's antics stained Jim Green. Added to that anyone who has ever seen him at the end of the Yale Hotel bar. It is not a pretty sight.

However, one has to debate the logic of trying to find housing in the most expensive place in Canada at $325 a month.

The poor are discounted just like the environment! BY 2010 I will have lived in two cities (Montreal & Calgary), and a province (BC) that has hosted an Olympics (oh wait, Am I allowed to use that word, or will the IOC Police dlete it off my post!).

Elites serving elites!

Sad fact was,both Sullivan and Greene were too inept for the job. COPE had it's roblems but OMG, Vision Vancouver is just the NDP farm ream as is the NPA is the Liberals farm team.

COPE was hamstrung by a glory seeking mayor who sold out to the highest bidder and I think Sammy boy is to "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

The trouble with the homeless is that they are so dirty, so poor, so sick, that they do not make the news .... unless you send in the riot squads.

And don't you think that the almighty IOC gods are not noticing this too! Very bad Olympic publicity to have the poor run out of town before their big event!

Sam the 'Unwise' will do nothing but play the poor little wheelchair boy, as he does so well, but the public will tire of this as will other disabled people!

Sam has blunderd into theat strange territory that he thought he was really smarter than he is, a big mistake! As for the poor, take SkyTrain to Burnaby, New Westminster or Surrey, that's why they built it for!

While City Hall is better than it was under COPE - I must agree that Sam Sullivan doesn't have what it takes. Peter Ladner or Christy Clark should have been nominated party leader.

There is no doubt that Jim Green would have been a far better advocate for the poor. What you commies fail to realize is that there is a heck of a lot more to running a city than poverty and keeping big box stores out of areas designed for big box stores!

This is the problem - all you people see is welfare and wealth redistribution. There is tourism, the olypmics, city planning, noise and sound by-laws, events, attracting business, etc. COPE and Green failed miserably in all of these areas.

Larry Campbell was a good, fair and balanced man. Pragmatic, responsible and saw all sides. There are few like him. His antics were perfect in city hall, but too "urban" for provincial or federal politics.

Freebar, the Irishman and the IOC police are fast on your heels!

I think dear old Christy & familly has some police problems.....oh dear me, another Liberal gone up in smoke in Legigate!

Grumpy...yer too mellow..TGIF..let er fly.

It's a bit of another seguay, but the Oval should be used as a " we -need- head's -on- platters" example of what is wrong and what needs to be fixed in the democratic accountability system.

I have a relative within the inner circle of Speed Skating Canada...and discussed this with them. The Oval is built at or below sea level and will have major humidity concerns...Speed Skating ice is of far more exacting standards. The ONLY reason Richmond got this Oval was due to its guarantee to VANOC to build it and absorb any/all cost overruns, which sounds nice till one interprets this further as the taxpayer is on the hook. The Oval's gross cost "so far" is almost equal to the City's entire yearly budget.

Richmond let more of it's REAL agenda slip, the Olympic Oval is being sold more to "post-Olympic" anchor surrounding re-development, with major residential densification planned around the Oval as it is currently drafting a new OCP. This will displace the existing industrial/commercial base. RAV is also connected to all this .

WHY??? to print money $$$$ and bypass the Royal Canadian Mint...to have a fall back plan to do a massive cash grab from permits,... from DCC's and finally more property taxes etc. Local Gov'ts are normally not allowed to run a deficit,and can only borrow via voter approval via referendum....this is all crookeder than a dog's hind leg. The City itself has to find over $100 million to pay for this Oval ego trip.

The best it will likley do is break even, so the whole exercise is a waste of time and far too risky. In the end, Richmond will be far more densified than it normally would have been if the City hadn't acquired the Oval...but the City needed this expeditious densification to pay for the Oval.

Surrey, it was reported yesterday, is also concerned with a simlar conversion of commercial/industrial to residential.

It's all interconnected, but not really all that hard to figure out. However, haste makes waste...but the shite is already hitting the fan sooner than later, and why the homeless have every right and a major reason to protest, as this is all coming full circle.

Christy Clark for mayor???

OMFG (google that one maestro! :-).

I've heard her try to fill in on CKNW for Bill Good. She is quite possibly the best poster-child for the Peter Principle ever born of this earth.

I think it is interesting to note that the homeless issue is raging in all Canadian major cities. This would indicate a much greater problem than just vancouver being involved. The increases coincide nicely with the election of neo-con leaders who (like Gordo) cut welfare rates and/or make accessing services next to impossible. The recent announcements of increasing the shelter portion of welfare cheques will certainly make the renters happy as they can now raise the rents for welfare receipients. There also is a very suspicious linking between homelessness, addictions and our mental health system. The jails are full and incarcerationg the homeless in jails can't be done. However, reopening mental institutions like Riverview would serve nicely to house the homeless and addicts thus, providing a "cleaner" appearence for the olympics. The best way to fight addictions is not to lock people up as addicts only quite drugging when they get fed up with the effects of their addictions. No one would agrue that many street people have mental health issues and providing proper supports for them is the answer but, I fear the new plan is institionalize the homeless under the guises of mental health. Addictions have been switched into the mental health financial pool on the provincial level.

One question: Do Richmond councillors have to wear boxers?

as soon as these 'activists' start ranting against capitalism anyone that really matters stops listening anyway. get a job or move to cuba you bunch of freak-fools.

And thus spake Gordon Campbell!

snert:

prevent the provision of housing for the poor!

What are you talking about?

Doncha know that only maestro is permitted to make such little sense on this website.

If I recall, COPE were concerned that Vancouver would see a repeat of the evictions during Expo. Kick out the poor so the sleezy bunch of landlords would make more money. I understood that COPE was setting up bylaws to prevent the landlords from evicting the poor. The Liberal/Socred/ Conservatives now in power in BC have lots of money for lots of things but housing the poor. Forget it. A society that can't look after the marginalized simply isn't a well rounded society. The mayor may show little piles of pennies as a visual. Vancouver is a big city and should have a lot of clout in Victoria and even Ottawa. DO they do anything with that clout? apparently non much/

Grumpy:

Re: Councillors wearing Boxers....I don't want to know .....nor do I personally want to find out.

I leave those sorts of tasks to my subordinates Alci and Stump who are on- call 24/7, albiet while still under probation.

Stump pleads ignorance...while Alci lives it..... right boys and/or girls ??? But then again, they both do NOT get it..right ??? so the fall back position is maintain the same frozen cave- man "shite -eating grin" others interpret as actually something to say, much like a "one foot in pre-emeritus status " tenured professor.

Again...TGIF

CapitalismDid you see how quick WalMart came back with an environmentally sustainable plan when they were rejected the first time? In other words every Big Box store is chomping at the bit to get some action in Vancouver, and a socially conscious council can get ALL businesses to sing a different tune. "Tourism,Olympics and City Planning". So homeless people are good for tourism? hhhmmm. Can't wait to see the cameras roll worldwide on that one in 3 years. As for the Olympics - I don't see what this has to do capitalism. It has more to do with a cabal of businessmen (read realtors) conspiring against the public interest if I may paraphrase Adam Smith. And City Planning? Why did Sullivan cut the social housing quota in the Southeast False Creek development? The previous council took 50 million out of a billion dollar property endowment fund to provide a higher percentage of non market housing which Sullivan promptly axed. So much for his powerlessness to house the poor.
This model IS NOT the only path to a successful market economy. To call people like myself "a commie" is like me call you "a capitalist". Logic dictates that we either pay for services or else pay for prisons and personal security costs to protect our property. So what's it going to be?

Maybe it was but COPE, like its NDP partner, is not very good at winning elections.

It is kind of important to win elections if you want to implement your platform the last time I checked.

Bpither1

FTR: Can you further define social housing ?

I have various examples of what may be referred to as " social housing " in my own neighbourhood, but they each serve an individual niche' in the broader overall social - housing spectrum.

Simple declarative sentences. Simple declarative sentences.

"Stump pleads ignorance"

If you mean I have no idea what you're talking about, you're right.

What are you on about Maestro?

When you started posting on this site, you made some sense, now it seems like it's all just rambling nonsense and non-sequiters.

At this point I'm afraid you'll start taking my side in these debates! Please, please don't.

"It is kind of important to win elections if you want to implement your platform the last time I checked."

Jack Layton on Line One for you Working Man.

And now...for something completely INdifferent etc....

Stump!!!!!....., dude!!!!....I took your advice!!!!...I Googled, but I looked up STUMP.

There is STUMP Robomoderation Program ....."a powerful and flexible auto-moderation program which allows Usenet news group moderators to partly or completely automate their tasks" .

Hmmm!

The coup de grace was THESTUMPONLINE
...in the top 10 Google searches.
Check it out!!!!!

Click "Enter"...then
Click "Mugshots"

You will all see the photo of "STUMP's library " and of where STUMP gets his wisdom (?)and insight(???)...and where he bobbed "for whatever" on Hallowe-en.

Enjoy !.......but advise you do it after lunch .

PS Now go back under your bridge Stump,while the tide is out... remember you and Alci are still under probation.

Cappy, is this list indicative of your policy priorities? Does this mean that “noise and sound by-laws” is number 4? Even ahead of “attracting business?

This is the problem – all you people see is corporate welfare and wealth creation. There is poverty, addictions, mental health issues, lack of affordable housing, a marginalized aboriginal, elderly, and disabled population, etc. NPA and Sullivan failed miserably in all of these areas. Methinks cappy, that you need to remove you head out of……before making any statements about social policy issues because, and as you’ve claimed, you have no interest in specifics.

Alcibiades, Gwest - In case you feel I've been neglecting you recently, here is my totally tangential provocation for the week. Happy Friday ;-)

Putting the human back into humanism
The real threat to humanism today does not come from religious cranks and creationists, but from an army of secular misanthropes.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2044

Maestro The city has been involved in social housing for 50 years, primarily in providing sites. For the past 30 years the City has leased sites for non-market housing and today 37% of social housing units are on City-owned land. At the same time housing policy is getting little impetus from the Feds or this provincial government other than quack announcements of intent to placate a meeting of mayors in Kelowna, or some other policy enthusiastically endorsed by the Premier who after all exacerbated the problem by cutting back welfare rates and bringing in draconian legislation to cut people off the dole (Our last mayor said this would probably throw 6000 people on the streets - so many caveats and exceptions were added to make this LESS so...but it's still happening). As if I would forget that! The federal government ceased funding new social housing in 1993, and the Province brought in its Homes BC programs in 1994. Since 1995 the City has been partnering with the Province (BC Housing) in providing social housing in Vancouver. The Province has provided funding for 3,800 units in Vancouver since then but much of that was decided on BEFORE the Liberals were elected in Victoria. The Charter doesn't allow the city to own their own housing corporation to provide decent living quarters for low income people who are getting squeezed by a hot property market. The Federal government recently (June) handed over the management of thousands of units to the provincial government. The Liberals maintain that NIMBYism and regulation - the number of car stalls (!?) in each building for instance - make it difficult for new construction (at least so Rick Coleman, a former realtor I should add, says). I think the objective of housing policy should be to guarantee all people the right of good housing in an ecologically sustainable environment. That's exactly what the L.E.E.D. (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) mandate entailed for the south east False Creek development. There was to be one third non market, a third market and a third upscale housing with equal access to community services such as libraries, day care (obviously the poor would be subsidized) and gardens ("grow your own" plots). It was a healthy mix which Sullivan canned by lowering the non market ratio. He then shrugs his shoulder exclaiming his hands are tied to change the new status quo or to change the terms of our relationship with the province. What we need is a mayor with fire in his belly to really effect changes in the charter. Only then will Victoria listen!

Alcibiades:

You're words.

Unfortunately there is no one reason that explains why people are homeless. Mental health, drug/alcohol burnout and spousal abuse are just some of the more common reasons.

Do these people require temporary or permanent accommodation? What kind of follow up will be carried out to ensure the accommodations are kept in a condition that meets health standards?

How many millions of $ are we prepared to spend to watch these places turn into slums. How many millions of dollars must be spent to avoid having this happen. Can throwing money at the problem even make it go away.

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to just how many of these people would really be helped by new housing instead of just forcing them to stay at the bottom of the pile with no hope of ever improving their status?

How much blame can we attach to other priorities on spending without actually coming up with a useful solution?

And the final question would be; can you lead a horse to water and make it drink?

Oh, I lied. Is there anywhere in the world where this problem has actually been solved? I'm sure there must be.

Wow snert. Are we to just give up on the homeless because governments in the western world (particularly in N America) haven't had balls to actually implement constructive solutions. The city of Vancouver actually has a by-law to ensure minimum standards in SROs. Unfortunately, these by-laws are never enforced - presumably because there is a lack of resources to do so, but also because there is a lack of political will to do so.

I'm willing to bet all of them. part of the problem snert are the vocal NIMBYs such as yourself who bitch and scream anytime a gov't tries to allocate some of their limited resources to address homelessness and all its constituent issues: addictions, mental health, etc.

The Coquihalla Hwy =
a) makes - $30 million per annum
b) Tolls - $40 million per annum
c) Mtc ----$10 million per annum

The money from this project can pay for the homeless.

Any comments about money?

"Can throwing money at the problem even make it go away."

If it's a good enough response to traffic congestion, which requires a change in attitude far more than additional roads, then I would think it's the least we can do for people.

"Clutching a microphone with both hands,..."-Tom Barrett
"Sam should stop with the wheelchair mayor and start just being a mayor."-Bob Rennie
"Sam the 'Unwise' will do nothing but play the poor little wheelchair boy, as he does so well, but the public will tire of this as will other disabled people!"-Grumpy microphone

what's with all the gimp bashing? We pretend we are so egalitarian with all the handwringing over Spector's misogynistic rantings. Yet the nasty little digs slip out when real argument fails us.

Sam's visual prop got a lot more attention than mouthing '8% of tax dollars are available to the city'. The media would have missed it because they smell blood. Keep underestimating him. And keep the mean-spirited digs coming. Sam can handle it.

snert
you still haven't explained what 'sociological complications' means.

In my opinion what you've described and the obscure and nonsensical label you've applied to it have no connection.

Those are YOUR words and I think they mean nothing in this context.

bpither1

Many thanks...

Your in-depth blog adds much meat to bones of the discussion. Its always "the devil is in the details".

Sullivan...or even the most Leftie mayor, is often up against a spider web of issues etc. but left catching all the bullets.

The Vancouver Charter, as you state is unique and has its own idiosyncracies.

Re: Liberals claim of NIMBY-ism and car stalls....well that's a sub class of one- size -fits- all cold hearted bureaucratic rules. Then again....some lower income parties will (and rightfully )claim they are being discrimated against because they need a car, but can't park it, due to the zoning relaxation allowance for the poor. Catch 22 . That's only one of the myriad issues that come up in these types of attempts at solutions to these types of problems .

I think the leadership, and hence the solution must come/start from the Federal level..the homeless ARE Canadians, not just Vancouver's problem...nor Surrey's ...or....

Otherwise, what happens is one city takes the initiative, but then others don't and the poor will often migrate to the more benevolent city, and that cities voters will resent it.

Personally, I think Sullivan is fighting a future Nimby issue...the False Creek agenda is to attract a high -end clientele, ....and social housing in the area will scare of those potential buyers, and those in surrounding "future gentrification" areas.

Time to go back to the drawing board...and perhaps look at what has worked in the past as well.

Alcibiades:

Your words:

Seems all you have is opinions. Have you ever had on original thought?

Alci:

Re:" Sociological complications "

I think snert has adequately explained it...upon request.

You are intelligent Alci...(BTW I read you resume' on Wikipedia )....but it appears you are just simply jerking snerts' chain, much like a child poking sticks.

" Sociological complications" ...it ain't that difficult to hazard an educated guess , in the context of this topic , is it ???

Think outside the box-gulag.

Since when is 19 seats winning? I rest my case.

Maestro
Simple short sentences, use words in the appropriate context and avoid ambiguous meanings.

'Sociological complications' hung alone on a tree, as snert used it, is meaningless.

Sorry.

Those who want to make a point need to do it directly and succinctly.

If you want information about Alcibiades, you'd be better off reading Plato.

Building apartments on free land is not nearly as expensive as city hall claims it is. There have been recent articles quoting city developers saying that it costs 500 - 600 per square foot to build a place. ($50,000 for 100 sf dorms, $200,000 for 340 sf apartments) I don't know if the city actually believes that shit, or if they are trying to con us.

http://www.bdconsultants.com/bc_cost.asp

It does, however, give them an excuse to do nothing.

Here is a suggestion. The city has a bunch of free land sitting waiting for a builder, right? CMHC likes 0% down mortgages, right? Every housing co-op in the city has a long list of people waiting to invest their grand or 2, right? VanCity is into community banking, right?

Put it all together, and viola!

The City donates the land to this Housing2010 coop project. CMHC donates it's insurance package. VanCity kicks in with low rate 20 year mortages. Done. Very low risk, very low cost. ($50,000 for your 340 sf place)

Just for good measure, get the building unions to kick in a quality supply of guaranted labour.

I know construction companies that build good stuff, not the best but good, in the area of $230 per square foot. That is in concrete so you know it is going to last and you won't hear the neighbour snore. Anyone who says it cost any more just a stinkin' lyin' developer a la Bob Rennie.

As far as I am concerned, co-ops are really the way to go for family housing.

This council is in the hip pockets of the developers. So was the last one and since I am in the construction industry, I would know.

This is another of those times which come round once in a while where I agree with working man.

The problem here is the WILL. There are plenty of time-proven WAYS to begin solving this problem.

Sullivan should take his 100 pennies and give them to the guy with his hand out on the corner and start all over with a few less excuses for doing nothing.

Alci:

Waddya want???...Dr Seuss "cut and pasted " ? ... be more specific.

Are you under contract to the TYEE as some anal - retentive English Lit teacher ?

Because this is not a 'blog' where the nominal 'owner' of the place is free to expound ad nauseum about whatever he pleases, here there is some virtue and value in give and take...in other words a virtual conversation.

The discussion comes a cropper if someone comes along who refuses to make a point. Like a guy in the corner chair with two or more fingers in his mouth saying DUB DUB it is just an annoyance.

In short, maestro, you mumble, you procrastinate and you piss people off.

snert does the same thing by posting short-circuited phrases with no connection to a full thought or a complete and cogent idea.

If you have something to say, just say it and forget the baffle-gab. As Stump noted, you do make sense (not that I necessarily agree with you) when you seem to want to. The rest of the time, you don't.

I hadn’t realized you were such a Newbie until you posted that question about ROFLMAO.

Remember, you asked!

Alcibiades:

And you don't?

snert

Not for the same kind of thing you seem determined to specialize in.

Alcibiades

Well at least my speciality is not verbal thuggery.

Hi Working Man:

My point re: Layton was that being in power doesn't always mean you call the shots. See below.

--------

Harper folds to pressure on environment
UPDATED: 2006-11-02 01:12:28 MST

By SUN MEDIA

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper bought some time for his minority government yesterday by bowing to NDP demands to radically re-write the Conservative green plan.

Harper agreed to send the Clean Air Act to a special committee, where it will see an overhaul by MPs from pro-Kyoto opposition parties before heading to a vote in the House of Commons.

By making the unusual concession, the PM dodged a potential election bullet threatened by NDP Leader Jack Layton by way of a non-confidence motion.

Layton's plan calls for more aggressive targets. The Tory plan aims to reduce emissions 45% to 65% by 2050, while the NDP wants 80% reductions by 2050

Really snert.

From what you've been posting I'd say that's precisely what your specialty is.

Alcibiades

Forgive me Master. This grasshopper will try even harder to equal your achievements in this speciality.

Work on your spelling while you're at it.

Realist, I think you hit the nail on the head. It doesn't seem to matter how many people die from their ideologically based policies, these politicians just can't make the leap into the real world. They must maintain the lie that all people who aren't like them must be just lazy or greedy. Keep the deaths out of the papers, though. It's real hard to swallow that people would lazy themselves to actual death.

Unable to prove that falsehood, watching the evidence that they're just wrong about this pile up and up, they are clearly about to declare that the poor must be insane. They cannot admit that their wealth is based on their refusal to step up to their own civic duties like every generation has had to do since democracy was first tried.

Deinstitutionalization was a good idea, not a "failed experiment". Community inclusion would have been the other half, if anybody had ever really tried it.

The idea was to help the poor and the damaged come back among us by steps, and helping them find a way to build themselves homes was the biggest of the steps. How better to give somebody hope than to give them a chance to accomplish something for themselves, something that would then nourish and protect them and their families, and give them equity in their own lives? A place of their own in their own communities.

If Campbell is allowed to say that the poor whose mere existence prove his ideology wrong are really crazy, then he will be able to imprison them in Riverview. Out of sight out of mind. He hasn't been able to manage to talk a judge into imprisoning them in a regular jail.

I define a prison as anyplace where the doors are locked and you can't leave whenever you want.

There's real evil at work here. The real thing. Not simple corruption and incompetence. There have been billions in taxes paid to accomplish this work. Where did that money go?

Just as an aside, how mant times have snert and alcibides had this same conversation? Any guesses?

C'mon boys. Play nice. The rest of us don't want to listen. It works like this. I make a point. You make a point. I argue my point, you argue yours. Offer what evidence and reason you can muster.

For interpersonal byplay, get a room.

Bailey,
Point taken. You look after it next time!

I didn't say that. Smilin' Jack brought the Martin government down and gave us Herr Harper.

This time is different. Smilin' Jack does not hold the balance of power this time.

Do the math.

You totally missed Stump's point wm.

What he's saying is that you don't have to have POWER in the sense you mean it to have an influence on policy and government action.

Layton's just proved it again!

Forgive me Bailey, I feel I have to respond to nightbloom's note from earlier today. I will soon be out of the way so you and snert can tango.

nightbloom
Thanks, I actually enjoyed the Brendan O'Neill article: 'The left has been infected by the disease of intolerance' more.

It was so much fun coming up with instances of the troglodyte neocon right - which is the sine qua non of intolerance in North America these days - for each of the citations given relative to the left.
I do have to say that David Horowitz's and Daniel Pipes's names came to mind more than once - also a few guys from the University of Calgary.

cynic said: "The money can always be found for the projects the elite want. It's not "sociological complications", it's straight thumb-on-your-neck elite rule."

huh? only "elitists" want to watch olympic events on TV? last time i checked, canadians of all socioeconomic strata were enjoying all the action from torino.
before resorting to name-calling next time you disagree with something, cynic, perhaps you could instead think of ways in which all (cynics excepted) could be made happy.
in a country as wealthy as canada, there is no real reason why the 2010 games can't be the best ever AND everyone can go to sleep warm, dry, safe, healthy and with a full belly.
all it takes is some thought and some willingness to listen - but not useless namecalling.

jrb
I think you're far too tough on cynic.

You need to look at the poster who actually used the words in quotation marks - Cynic was responding to someone else and his words must be evaluated in that context.

As for the games and homelessness being unrelated, I think the lesson of Expo 86 tells us that there is at least a prima facie case for suggesting there is a connection between costly public spectacles (financed by the public purse) and the worsening plight of the homeless in Vancouver.

Alcibiades

Spellings fine. Just to be sire I checked.

Bailey

Awwww geee and Alcibiades was having so much fun. To the best of my knowledge I have not made unprovoked abusive remarks. I can't speak for others, however.

sire = sure.Typos however are rampant.

And in 2010, many would be very happy to watch the olympics being played in ANY other country, than Canada!
Surely people will watch, the objection is to sacrifice everything so Gordo can have something to brag about!

Lefties likes labelz n' pijjin - holin'.

It maykes der liife eazy-err, and dens they canz shoots youse down via spellink errorz when dey r losink argumentz(reduhndant ).

Mao and Muscle -ini musta wons Spellin Beez in their native dungz.

Duh rest is hiz-Tory.

Wish I had more time this morning to spend on this subject. Perhaps later.

But suffice it to say, for now, alongside on an equal footing with the need for a powerful anti-war movement in this country, and concern for the survival of the country itself, its resources and natural systems of water and air etc, against the internal and external forces of treachery who seek to give it up to a US Empire dominant North Amerikan Union, there is no more important issue than this one of the growing poverty across a large swath of our people. We all need to embrace it as our own, in order for it not to continue to creep into more of our homes.

And it is the front line of the class war, have no doubt, between the gangsterism and greed of the neoconservative ruling class system and the needs of the mass of ordinary citizenry. And what some brave activists and poor themselves have been doing of recent, occupying these vacant buildings in Vancouver, points the way to the development of the kind of challenging and militant tactics which are going to need to evolve, if there is going to ever be a turn around in the prospects of the poorer working class.

It needs to grow in breadth and depth, and be taken up by more and more people.

Instead of reliance on political bureaucracies and the "agencies" of The State, the poor and people generally are going to have to create and fight for their own "community based" and social movement solutions. The ruling class is preoccupied elsewhere, in the paper markets of the world, counting their dividends, and will only look up from their calculators and money piles, when "the great unwashed" and "lunch buckets" of our communities are a whole lot more threatening than what they are currently, including the trade union movement.

There is too much passivity and quiet acceptance about. It is such folks as these, taking matters into their own hands and occupying vacant buildings who, in my opinion, are pointing in the direction things need to evolve.

I am in awe of their courage. It is time to build community, develop our own strategies for caring and even feeding each other, and for engaging in conflict with the status quo system.

Study Oaxaca, learn its lessons, and apply and adapt what is useful there to our own situations.

I'd say this,

is a sufficient provocation snert. Why not look back at that post again?

Tomorrow's election in Nicaragua is also worthy of note, about which I'll post more later,

Firstly, I have attended numerous council meetings and have learned first hand that Sam Sullivan cannot lead this city or for that matter cannot competently chair a council meeting. The man is not a leader but a follower.
I also attended the protest on Cambie and while there I asked a police women why the VPD was there and she replied to protect the protesters. This was proven to be untrue as the blueshirts moved in the next day. I find it appalling that the VPD used the Swat to move these peaceful protestor out of the building. To the VPD and Jamie Graham I say use your officers downtown to fight the pimps, drug dealers, murderers, smugglers, molesters, criminal gangs and leave peacefull protester alone.
Now to the homeless question. I have sent a ten point recommendation to the mayor and council as to solutions for the homeless problem. These include:
1. Open the building on Cambie where the protest was to homeless people and have the city workers prepare the building for this use.
2. Prepare all empty city owned buildings for the homeless.
3. Purchase one hotel per year as promised.
4. Call a meeting with the premier and the pm and demand funding for to 2500 studio styled apartments to be build over the nest three years and funded by their huge surpluses.
5. Call on all churches, community centres and ethic centres to open their doors for homeless in the evenings.
5.Call a meeting with the wealthy in this city ie Peter Wall, Jimmy Pattison, Peter Brown to gain a funding committment from them to help fund buildings for the homeless.
6. Set a conference on this issue and make solving this problem a city priority and set up an Action Team to plan and implement these recommendations and others.
7.Order the clean up of the ghetto hotels in the Downtwon East Side and in the event these slums lords do not comply, send in city crews to do the work and bill the slum lords.
8. Set a minimum standard of food, shelter and clothing supply for all people in Vancouver and set 2010 as the target date for success.
9. Declare the Mayor and Council champions of the homeless and not their enemies.
10. Work collectively as a council on this problem and end the political infighting on this issue.
Needless to say the homeless in this city deserve and have the basic right to shelter and housing. Vancouver is becoming known as the best place in the world in which to live if you are wealthy or a criminal.
Lastly, I challenge others, including Jim Green and Vision and COPE to table their solutions to this problem.

In Nicaragua, the rewards of neocon economics have been trickling down to the 80% of the people there who live (if it can be called living) on less than $2 per day for the past 15 years. If Daniel Ortega wins the presidency on Sunday it will just be another example of the awakening of the people in Latin America to the need for radical change. Viva Sandino!

We should be so lucky in this country.

Is this the same James Green whose presence on the ballot in the last Civic Election gave the city the current mayor?

james green, no government should for one second tolerate an illegal action by a mob. That was the mistake COPE made at Woodwards. If you are not happy with the government, vote it out.

The problem the left has is that its policies and antics make it unelectable to the majority of voter.

Altering those polices might be useful.

You can't put forward your agenda if you don't hold office.

It is pretty simple, really.

working man
Just a question, I don't want to start a fight, but, how do you see the 'rule of law' as being meaningful if the access to the legal system is fundamentally inequitable?

Isn't it just a trite phrase if the only people with the ability to use its provisions are folks with a lot of money or the power of the state behind them.

I think it's a worthless fiction and that's why protesters have to 'break' the law.

Looks like Ortega's the new Pres, G.West. What a guy! Remember, that's the subject of the next Glavin 'dissent' column, eh.

If we followed all bad laws women would still be non persons, blacks couldn't go to school and so on.
Sending swats in to stop peaceful protest is sad and wrong. As to the "problem with the left" comment is also, sad as homelessness and cures for this problem is not a question of left vesus right. It is a question of humans helping humans. And to the guy sho asked if I am the JAmes Green who blah, blah blah. Get a life. Jim Green defeated himself and when I run in 2008 without Jim Green on the ballotand win you will realize this. As to "I can't put forward my agenda unless I hold office-WRONG" All citizens have the right to put forth their agendas and ideas at any time. Who are you to limit my democratic rights. Lastly. comment on my strategies and stop the crap and idealogy, please. Who are you people anyways, airheads? Shit get with the program!!!!!!!!!!!

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

so james green, do you deny that the votes you 'pulled' in the last election denied JIM GREEN the Mayor's chair?

I don't know about all that nonsense about you being a sullivan plant, but, if you think the poor and the homeless are better off now than they'd have been with JIM GREEN as mayor, well, I think anyone who believes that and sees himself as a credible candidate in the next civic election has a lot to learn before that time.

You're the one who needs to get with the program man, you're a spoiler, nothing more.

Nothing very unique about the policies - good luck with Jimmy by the way.

Maestro:

Another rant full of hot air, not worth the time it takes to read never mind type? Taking old grudges from old dead threads onto new ones, running people down... is this really the best way you can think of to spend Saturday mornings?

Since you brought up left and right, let me educate you with a little chunk of history.

The right was born out of the need for the individual to question what is best for the individual to prosper. To that end, the right was born with an agenda that went something along the lines of "individuals first". Governments came second after all, since they were comprised of "individuals" to begin with in the mind of the political right and should cater to individuals to that end.

Politically charged individuals became organized into groups with the common cause of individual freedoms wherever they could find it, and so was born, the political right. And if the individual will is to empower corporate will that is interpreted to be an "individual" entity, to make individuals a lot of money, so be it, so says today’s political right. They call it, "luck". (Bush and Cheney are war profiteers from their corporate defense "interests" raking it in with a U.S. occupied Iraq based on a lie, and the Republicans call it "lucky")

The political left was born out of the need to protect the masses from individuals who horded power for themselves, individuals who undemocratically pursued power to imprison the will of others for the price of the individual’s own selfish wants. Often, the expenses have been tragic, leading to loss of life through starvation and war. At times, however, especially throughout history, it has been individuals within the left that has strayed from protecting the masses and instead, towards controlling them to horde power for themselves...

Nevertheless, what is ideological to the followers of the left is the goal of what is best for the whole, be it a nation, race, gender, creed, age, you name it. And since the health of the individual is dependent on the health of the whole...

Whatever the size of pie, be it a municipality/county, province/state, or world/universe, the left was born out of the need to do what was best for the macro, the big picture, the whole, however larger or smaller this pie might be. In other words, "it has to function."

It is obvious through history, that extremes of both left and right have had devastating consequences...

The left extreme does what is best for the whole at the sacrifice to the individual, (sometimes not even fulfilling or allowing the individual to fulfill the individuals basic needs) and since individuals comprise the whole, the ability and potential for the individual to serve the whole grows atrophed at best. The best example of the worst extreme, is Communist Russia.

Cont.

Maestro: (cont)
The right extreme does what is best for the individual at the sacrifice of the health of the whole. Without regulations, laws that protect human rights and the environment, justice and penal systems that embrace sanctions that are just as extreme to offenders of laws prioritized by individual will, exclusivity of essential services comes to replace the inclusivity that is needed and commonplace in a healthy functional society. So, the extreme right is pro deregulation in terms of anything that could economically deter business, even at the expense to the environment, while toughening regulations and laws on individuals or groups of individuals that are considered "inferior" to "puritan" values.

In other words, it isn't what’s best for the individual or "individual's first", but what is best for "the wealthy individual" or "the individual with the most power, first." The best example of right extremism is found today, with the Republican party and GWB. Among the standout of the best of the worst in terms of older examples, would be the Nazi party during and prior to WWII.

And what is it that we are supposed to be looking for? What is that utopian system that we all want? What’s that non fattening cake we are all looking for, not the plastic wedding cake, but the one we can all sink our teeth into, that system we desire?

Its not the system so much as it is the common goal we must all collectively strive for, one that has to be shared by everyone to succeed... a system that wants the health of the whole to best serve the individual. Lets call it... the Christian right's "God perspective".

And with this "God's view of his children’s perfect paradigm, the perfect system, the health of the whole to serve the individual, the right feels more "evolved". Yes, far more "evolved" than those democrats who like to mother and know what is best for everyone else at all times...

What we are now seeing in terms of left and right, is a glaring change and contrast with historical examples of left and right in politics. The Republican right wants to do away with the individual's right to secrecy, trying to introduce bills which would allow spying without cause on any and all of its citizens, a clear violation of individual rights, counter to the origins of its own political existence.

GWB's various freedom acts and terrorist bills and schemes to turn old age pensions into stock portfolio's, do nothing to increase individual free will and human rights. It could be argued that he has done the opposite, limiting personal freedoms. Should I go there with the 3 trillion the Bush administration has run up on debt, driving inflation to match it and setting the stage for a lower U.S. dollar and recession which will negatively impact all individual americans? At the same time, the right offers no transparency in the white house and congress, other than its promotion of its own propaganda.

The left, on the other end, is now crying for transparency of policy on all respects, trying to create an informed electorate instead of otherwise, trying to protect individual rights

Maestro: (cont)

from corporations who disregard more and more, such individual rights except in the courts where they, the corporation, is percieved as being an individual entity.

So its like this. It has always been about control and motive. Both left and right have had mass failures not so much so because of being ideologically polarized, but because both left and right have had individuals that didn't care for or respect the rights and free will of others, whether it was macro or micro.

Power corrupts! People who were well meaning, change with tests to weaknesses to which individuals are frail. Weak to the opportunity to get rich, famous, weak to greed and pride... and the left and right are both full of them. And power attracts those who want power for themselves, pure and simple, like light to the psychopathic moth.

So I'm trying to say this as politely as I can. Since to err' is human, and since humans are easily corruptible by opportunity alone... I find it hard to believe that someone, anyone could cheerlead as you do, Maestro, bashing one group as hopelessly flawed and praising the other as puritan and holier than holy itself, when in reality, both left and right are made up of human beings that will always be far from perfect. But then, so it seems, reality isn’t something you are looking for until it suits you.

To cheerlead in such a way, reeks of intellectual prestige and conceit. It gets boring to hear your opinions of the intelligence of others to only later put them down to further build yourself up.

Freedom is found not just in mere words such as constitutions, or in institutions and systems designed to protect and instill them... Freedom is squarely based on the full practice of respecting and enshrining human and life rights, not just the systems we devise to instill and protect rights after human and life rights have already been violated, i.e. institutions of justice. And throughout history, there have been many flawed leaders from both left and right who have selfishly served themselves at the expense of all others.

It comes down to people you can trust. All the words, all the PR and hype about right being puritan and left being moral, all the crap both sides ask us to swallow, again, it comes down to who we can trust.

Can you trust governments that make plans to radically change the sovereignty, security, military power, intelligence, trade and currency of all of North America without breathing any hint of it to the public in any of the three nations and nation of nations, and still trust them? In short, with all of your boastful, pompous, proud arrogance, is there a hope in hell for any of us to trust you and your self serving motives?

Your posts are barely worth glazing over until you learn what it takes to be a man. Try “gentle” before it and you might stand a chance. Until then… you’re just another pigsty in an increasingly offensive world.

G West, not to start a fight, but I know that Jim and Sam were bad choices. Before the election Jim hadn't talked to Dera for 13 months. He is know as a bully in the DownTown Eastside. He is a developer and works for developers so stop the idea that Jim reps the poor, he does not.
Let me see your solution and not your bitterness because Jim Green loslt the election himself. For the LAst time loser, anyone who respects his right to vote and has limited commitment to voing can tell and would have been sure to know the difference between James Green and Jim Green Vision Vancouver. Jim Green and Vision spent over a million dollars and sent glossy flyers to every home in Vancouver. I campaigned my ass off and now you call me a spoiler. Your name calling merely illustrates your lack of intelligence. Attack my homeless strategy and present your stratey. If you want to confront me call me G West call me James Green at 778-329-3216. Dare you to call and have a civilized talk my friend

I must not call names. it is hards to read Gwest and his bitterness at me. My calling him a loser is uncalled for. I am sorry. However, G West may call me and we can discuss this like gentlemen

Hey Mister x where is your answer. Not so fast to comment when you are challenged eh buddy.

james green
I had no horse in the race.

I don't live in Vancouver or vote there.

I was not involved at Tyee at the time...but I do call 'em as I see 'em.

You had no chance to win.

Jim Green would have won if your name hadn't been on the ballot.

That's the truth as I see it.

If you wanted to work your butt off and establish your political bona fides, you should have been running for alderman - you might even have won. My view.

Sorry if it doesn't reflect your vision of the world.

You WERE a spoiler, in my view them's the facts. Further, as every passing week illustrates, Sullivan is a disaster.

The stuff between you and Truman - know nothing about it, sorry.

I'll keep your phone number and if I see some interesting policy initiatives I might call you. We have a very compromised mayor where I do live.

For the moment, I think you need to provide a better explanation of your actions than you have to this point.

In all friendliness and without an angry or rude word.

Ciao.

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

As for backing down and not rising to a challenge.

I think you need to look around a little bit and ask some others around here about me before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Gwest
Pleae pose your questions here and now. I have run a successful campaign before and never run for mayor with the idea of losing. You really need to get this ideas about me off your chest. I have spent my entire life helping others, from teaching for 20 years, to being a school trustee, to being a father and husband and now I am very involved in this community as I have been for many years. Please let me hear your ideas for solving homelessnes in Vancouver and thank you for you last comments

GWest
Why will you not respond to what I write and continue to stay with the mayoralty race of 2005?

And I dare you to do the same. Calling people losers so happens to be uncivilized and confrontational.

For what its worth, your first post had points I fully agree with. And for what its worth, its not about who gets credit to follow such sound policies, its to see these policies become adopted for the benefit of the public under which public servants are supposed to serve.

Nevertheless, you serve no one by bashing friends of mine such as Truman or G. If you, too, are going to "man up", try being gentle. And if that doesn't work, try the truth. Be honest and loving. And if there is no window to be a gentleman of truth, THEN WAIT!!! We don't bang our heads and hearts against walls, here, for not. All it does is gives us head and heart aches! If you hope someday to serve office, remember this advice...

IMPECCABILITY cannot be faked! The majority of voters know the difference.

I thought I did:

and:

Remember?

Oh, and finally:

Vancouver has a 'weak mayor' system.

A potential reformer who isn't part of a cohesive party is not going to get much done in the way of real substantive reform. Even if he manages (which seems unlikely) to get elected.

The last half of Larry Campbell's reign proved that pretty conclusively.

Get connected with an existing party, learn how to work with others, learn give and take, adopt compromise as a strategy and stop yelling - my advice. And start out as an alderman.

Bye

The Brain
You are right and i do apologize. I believe that my strategies should expaned and adopted and will work. Advice is taken and thank you.

James:

Apology accepted. :-) And I also believe in your well noted points. But as far as Truman goes, what can I say? We all come from two, and the two come from one. We are all related in ways that are beyond genetics, related through experience through common denominators... goals, will, plans...

And for what its worth, all life is interconnected whether we are disconnected from this truth by naivety, ignorance, false ideology or just plain lies believed...

When someone calls you a brother and the last name is the same, it can be easily percieved as a mere coincidence and perhaps more easily so, a compliment? After reading his posts this past year, getting to know Truman as I have, I would certainly percieve it as such. For Truman to say that you are not a "brother" of his, can much more easily be percieved as one who is his "foe".

For some, there is no grey, only black and white, for or against, and my jest of Truman is that he is such a man and so am I... a brother to the same view(s). For most will see shades of grey on the whole of a person or picture (with its colors, I hope) but make no mistake. Those shades of grey are made clearly of black or white.

And one last thing, James. Who in their first attempts gets it right? Did Da Vinci paint masterpieces and brilliant ideology in his first attempts? Did Einstein wow the crowd in high school with his genius? Did Eddy Van Halen play flawless chords and leads in his first time on a guitar? Did Mozart create timeless works as a child? We so mock the origins of it all without realizing the potency of the simple beginnings of "evolution".

Who learns to walk before they crawl, run before they walk? There is a sequence to evolution that must be encouraged and appreciated in all of its stages, from infancy to elder. For those who do not know or appreciate this truth, is to not know why people and teams come back from seemingly insurmountable odds to triumph towards happy endings. And in life, there are no guarantee's but one. When we've done the best we could as leaders and followers alike, and have left are all in terms of effort on the playgrounds and battlefields of life, there will be no shame.

I wish you the best in your endevours and to that end, its time to sign off for the weekend and pursue my own. Good luck to you.

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Alcibiades

perhaps equals NIMBY?

The law and order arguments for shutting down squat protests are invalid. What is happening is akin to self-defense. The underlying and much more serious crime as that there is a growing number of people in our wealthy society who cannot find decent shelter. The actions of the police merely underscore our determination to elevate the protection of property over the protection of basic human rights.

In Victoria the building so protected has been vacant for decades. The city should force the owner to develop or sell this empty eyesore.

Geez Brain;

The synaptic gap is firing on all cylinders...

My compliments comrade

Off to do some social work...

Truman:

Sorry,comrade, but I don't believe you.
I think you ARE related to Jim.

You have the same last name...therefore case closed.

PS See...I tried to keep it simple for ya.

( No charge )

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Coyote wrote , "Study Oaxaca, learn its lessons, and apply and adapt what is useful there to our own situations."

Right on the bit as usual, Coyote!

The brothers do not exist. What it is =
the same person with a different handle to get another comment on this story.

* That is how it works.

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Jim Green has not been 'of DERA" for years. Get it right. Also, I was not convinced to change my name to James.
This was my idea and the election people have no right to tell anyone to change their names on the ballot or any place else. You are surprising me as once you based what you put forward on facts and research not on your animosity and stories in the Vancouver Sun. The Sun said I had a string of bankruptcies as well which is not true and they retracted this. I suppose you believed this as well. All for now, what is your strategy for solving the homeless problem. Mine is above.

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

This is getting too sureal.

All I can say is James, for someone aspiring for political office, it's too bad that this fued is happening in such a public space. Not the kind of person I'd like in city hall!

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Truman and James Green:
Cease with your personal exchange at once. You are abusing the purpose of this forum.
David Beers, Editor

Good idea, editor!

Truman, I know we've had our disagreements about various points here at Tyee over the months, but I want to let you know I respect your integrity and your honesty.

This must have been a difficult day for you and I want to just reach out and say that I'm sorry.

I wish I could do more.

Be strong, brother. I think there are a lot of people out there who feel the same and would like to reach out too.

Cheers.

I think a consultant should be hired to find out why we have so many homeless people in BC. The Gov't talks about the shortage of Doctors, trades people, etc. There should be a way of putting a portion of these people to work so they can support themselves.

* What is the source of the problem. When that is answered then we can try and solve it.

Truman,

I am not sure what "this" is all about, but I need to let you know that because of who you are, I believe you, and I support you. We have had a lot of fun and interesting times here on the Tyee...Thank you for this, and I look forward to many more of them. You are such a good spirit T, and you are always quick and willing to be the voice of those without a voice. Amongst those on this list would include the creatures that we share the Earth with. You care so deeply, and I love that. So whatever "this" is, it pales in comparison to the good person you are, so keep your head above it, as you are waaay more important than “this” bro.

"Tolerance" is an interesting word, as it is so often used, and so seldom practiced. I think those who judge you, such as the Tyee Editor, need to consider this word, and put it to use right here... but either way, know this my friend, you are supported and appreciated by many...

Peace and love bro,

-Bear

Truman:
Alcibiades is right, it is time to reach out to remind you that you are a much respected commentor here. This incident never happened (thank you editor), and your good reputation is intact because we know what is in your heart. Simple as that.

Be at peace, Truman, with so many supporting you.

Pure:

Bang on comment.

The poor and the homeless are the umbrella definition...but what IS the actual breakdown ?

How many are First Nations....how many are mentally ill....or have roots in childhood abuse....or victims of bankruptcy...or substance abuse etc. etc.

Much like the 100's of reasons "WHY" some are NOT homeless, or perhaps once were and are no longer.

If the roots of the problem are different the solutions are different.

That's why many of these TYEE comments end up going into the "pro-activeness undermining" oblivion. The Leftie Ltd. element often likes the one -size -fits all , whether it be (i) FOR those they claim they support and presume to speak for ....or (ii) one-size-fits-all for those they rant/rave and rail AGAINST.

Its NEVER that simple.

Yeh, maestro, that's an excellent idea - turn the homeless into doctors: maybe Gordon Campbell could set up education savings funds for them too.

Set up another study, but don't actually get down to work and build some decent integrated and subsidized housing. That's just too simple. Too one-size fits all.

As to who subscribes to simplemindedness on the issue of generational poverty, I haven't seen you serving soup in the church basement where I spend Saturday mornings.

Simple declarative sentences.

Tyee Editor,

I appreciate your deletions of James Green and Truman's "visit", as there is no need for its record. As ohmygawd said, "it never happened". In this, I stand corrected, as your "tolerance" was demonstrated prior to my last post...

Peace,

-Bear

I appreciate your deletions of James Green and Truman's "visit", as there is no need for it's record. As ohmygawd said, "it never happened". In this, I stand corrected, as your "tolorence" was demonstrated prior to my last post...

Peace,

-Bear

Sorry for the error on my last post...

-Bear

It isn't simple. People aren't simple. But the approach can take into account the common elements.

People who come to homelessness are first and foremost powerless. They cannot act effectively in the world. Of course they protest in obtrusive and extralegal ways. The authorities otherwise ignore them and deny them the right to be heard. Everybody else has that right.

I have found that when people act out they are always trying to tell you something. If somebody tells you something about himself, you should listen.

Even if you think he's wrong, when people talk about themselves, they are telling some version of truth.

These people say loud and clear that they are in trouble. They need help. They need to feel worth helping. To do something about that we have to first understand that they ARE worth helping.

If we can't manage that, then we must face the possibility that we also need help. Basic human decency forbids throwing people out in dumpsters. As long as people in this country have to live behind dumpsters, we have no right to claim we are decent people.

I would argue Maestro that it is The Righty Inc. that prefers the "one size fits all" categorization of the homeless. Also, we've had many studies done in recent years regarding homelessness and all of the root causes have been addressed. Even the provincial government (under the BC Liberals) has done studies that point to causes stemming from their own policies that they implemented when they first came to power. Go to stophomelessness.ca and click on research - lots written about the causes of homelessness but unfortunately not too many practical solutions.

There's so much more that the city of Vancovuer could be doing. In their own study they identify 87 different actions against homelessness. Almost all defer action at the provincial and federal level. While I agree that something needs to be done at the senior levels, the city could and should be enforcing their own by-laws aimed at protecting the housing stock - for example, like ensuring that SROs are adequately maintained, or that the conversion of SROs into high priced condos is stopped.

Also Maestro, before you put the balm on, PIVOT legal society has a great study called cracks in the foundation (http://www.pivotlegal.org/pdfs/CracksinFoundation.pdf). Give it a glace and please come back with a thoughful post instead of a mish/mash of incoherency that's become the norm for you lately.

.

Well, G West, you have outdone yourself. Canada has one of the highest standards of living in the world. The lefties like to snivel but that remains a fact.

The great majority of Canadians live very, very well.

If you think Ortega is so great, go live there and see how much you like him.

G West:

Please...up the self medication( = ?) and try hard not to drag a reference(new education fund) we sparred over on another topic.

Give the Leftie enough rhetoric and they hang themselves often enough , not that the past oxygen deficiency can make things any worse.

Soup in church basement kitchens ?
well good for you...at least it's not all rhetoric, but then again, please don't insult the rest of us that we don't do our own works of charity , of which there are many and that thou hast a monopoly on virtue......" cast the first stone ... " . ( How about the rest of you armchair Mother Theresa's ? )

Literally and figuratively speaking, ya Lefties don't have the only church and the only soup kitchen in town...yet often think you do. Again, that's the problem.

You really are dull stuff working man. I figured even you would understand I was talking about the need for radical (look it up) change in this country.

The fact we have such a high standard of living AND there is still a persistent and generally ignored problem with homelessness, child poverty and third world conditions in hundreds of First Nations communities is enough of a disconnect for most sensible people without having to have it spelled out for them,

Sorry, I'll try to be more explicit in the future.

maestro- post something worthwhile and I will respond.

Ubiquitous:

Maybe you should be more careful yourself , take the more diplomatic tact, and encourage ALL to read the link, versus the biased assumption they actually have...or that perhaps I haven't .

You , like many on this topic, simply add more support to my own premise of the intellectualization of poverty, and we could most certainly expand this discussion into a far far greater " cause and effect" debate. I simply expanded on what another put up as food for thought. Also, some of your points I have already stated previously , ie it should start as a Federal initiative in the context of practical solutions.

I too have found when one even tries to get to the genesis of something, many still want to prefer the "Big Lie" Ltd. version as it applies to the given issue.

Even the preamble portions of the PIVOT link you generously provided refer to things as being unique as to their particular circumstances, legal or otherwise.

Enforcement of Bylaws is always a very gray area, often when things are pushed to the wall the given bandaid bylaw can fold like a cheap tent. Surely you know that..do you?

As I mentioned before, are the homeless our own BC poor, or are they from out of province? maybe even out of country ? How does this skew the solution?

I vividly recall one of the first homeless persons who became well known in our community (because it was so rare). The person appeared very physically fit...apparently he had lost his family in some tragedy...but he chose to be nomadic /homeless as a means to deal with his circumstances...perhaps call it his own unique way of dealing with it...personal choice. Is THAT OK ???

Ubiquitous:....Do you understand what I am saying...??? is that clear enough...?

The sad thing is that while I understand what most of the TYEE commentators are saying, and with the Leftie crowd its same old same old, and ends up best distilled as a somewhat cathartic class warfare rant....with views that anybody that is not poor and homeless is a " $#@* SOB " type of rant.

That's what often turns many off, and certainly doesn't help the poor and homeless...because the lefties create a perception with the general public that the poor have allied themselves with these leftie types and all the radicalism that goes with it.

Do you seriously think every logging road blockader was a true blue sincere enviro....some of them are just shite disturbers there for a shite disturbing excuse-party.

Otherwise,...Ubi....At least have the guts to blatantly call me a liar over the internet, SVP.

(Please advise ASAP )

G West:

Hmmmm .....how about this , based on an amalgam of past comments on this topic....etc. etc.

The previous discussion WM and others talked about..(are you sitting down???),....the ACTUAL REAL WORLD (oooh nooo!!! ) ie determine costs of construction,(A BUDGET!!!) after the free (or low cost or city -owned )land someone else(again not me) mentioned is first acquired....in conjunction with someone else (again not me)commented waaay back about the Vancouver Charter which either defines or limits the City's ability to build this type of housing(one of those minor "devil is in the details"

Perhaps negotiate with the City a trade-off...ratios of what is reasonably defined as social housing vs. market-value housing.

Get socially conscious Van-City etc. to lend the funding...perhaps also attach an apprenticeship program to assist tradesmen as a collateral benefit...with perhaps a % of homeless included who can be given a 2nd chance IF they choose to make the all important first step FIRST in the road to recovery and getting back on their feet..

Do we build (i)a massive one shot project(and risk ghetto) or (ii)do we try to disperse this initiative throughout the City via many mini -projects ???

Will the City relax current bylaws, or refuse to...hence affecting the best bang for the buck... and unfortunately perhaps cancelling some projects that may have gone ahead otherwise.

Is it best to locate these along the Skytrain routes....back to my "concentrate or diversify" the physical locales' premise.

Will the GVRD feel this is or should be within its bailiwick , and tell its member Local Gov'ts they must each build their pro-rata share social housing so that one or only a few member do not bear all the cost. Maybe this is worth looking into...its called PLANNING.

Oh yeah ,...one more thing ,...and based on pragmatism ( and NOT at all sarcasm...) which one of YOU will volunteer to have this type of pioneering venture built next or near your house and in your neighbourhood???...aka the NIMBY factor.

(Maybe WM can comment on the practicality of this given their life and professional experience).

I've done my part in proposing a "Big Picture" solution, though I don't really think its anything that hasn't been discussed before.

Others are welcome to add to it... as the dialogue is encouraged and opened further.

Maestro, I've read many of your posts in the past several weeks and I believe that you have a lot to offer to the debates that occur on the Tyee. I'll apologize and admit, I haven't read all of your posts on this thread; I got too caught up the in Green family feud. Anyway, anecdotal evidence doesn't do too much. I've got my own re: homelessness; like the guy I offered a bowl of soup to when he asked me for money for food, who then promptly declined my offer saying that he'd prefer the money. That annoyed me to no end but I certainly cannot believe that is the norm.

What I take issue with, I guess, is that many of your posts are not addressing the issues; they merely seem to be sarcastic diatribes against the great lefty conspiracy to usurp authority over social policy. Anyway to address some of your other accusations:

I don’t believe I made the so called biased assumption that everyone’s read the links that I’ve provided – and know that you mention it, I do encourage everyone to have a look.

That’s the kind of response I expect from Working Man or Capitalism, or even Ron Erwin. Showing sympathy for the marginalized and the forgotten and demanding some action from our policy makers does not mean that the rest of society can go to hell. That’s just deflecting from the issues instead of addressing them.

Actually no, I think that there are professional anarchists who understand not what they fight for. This, however, does not make the issues illegitimate, try though, the MSM will to make it so.

I don’t think you’re a liar. I just think that at times, you’re insincere.

I just read your latest post Maestro: I think you've offered some real practical solutions. Cheers!

maestro
I think if you'll read carefully what I wrote in relation to working man’s accurate estimate of construction costs in the REAL world that I was in complete agreement with him.

Cost and financing is not the problem.

People who pretend that this kind of integrated social housing (which is the method that has been working well in Seattle, Chicago and parts of New York) requires the expenditure of 5-800 dollars per square foot are simply making excuses for continuing to sit on their hands. It is not that costly and it can be integrated with other programs and mixed use occupancies that will assist in making a more effective attack upon the endemic problems in East Vancouver.

As to location, again, not a problem - there are enough derelict buildings and SRO occupancies in violation of city health ordinances now to provide all the necessary land. Intelligently designed mixed-use occupancies (commercial and retail at street level) with residences on the upper floors - integrated with the kind of social services that are currently lacking in the DES - are the best way to begin solving this problem.

Read about what Earls, Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush have learned about addressing these problems. This is not rocket science. Engaging the residents of the community is a vital key to success as well.

Big pictures get painted the same way little ones do - one brush stroke at a time.

It is interesting to note that the increases in homelessness closely followed the rise of the neo-cons. We can argue all we want but the evidence points to the neo-con ideology as the cause of this trouble. The cost savings of cutting the welfarte roles will now sky rocket as it will cost untold amounts to rehabilitate those who have been shoved into homelessness. Addictions and mental illness will set new standards of required funding to fix if it can be fixed at all. The only reason we are seeing any action out of politicians is that their followers are losing money due to loss of business related to crime and panhandling. In effect the neo-cons have done this to themselves. This is a straight example of just how wrong the neo-con ideology has become. They have effectively shot themselves in the foot. Congrats guys and gals. Next time listen to those who understand the human condition and maybe even you can reap the rewards of having a social conscience!!

As some of you may remember from posts I made a while back, I have a cousin who is addicted to heroin and crack and living on the streets. She phoned me and my mother two weeks before Thanksgiving. Purely by accident (she happened to be standing in front of a methodone clinic as a counsellor came back from lunch), she was able to get on a methodone program. A very kind man gave her a place to live and put her on his medical and dental plans while asking for nothing in return but her friendship. With his help, she was receiving welfare and had made a deal with him (he'd get her teeth fixed if she quit crack too). I offered to help out this man with money to help my cousin but he would have none of it. My cousin said that I was a single mom and should save my money lol. Why is it that a faceless stranger has done more to help my cousin than any government agency??

As an aside ... the conversation between my cousin and I was, I thought, very supportive of her. I told her repeatedly how proud I was of her, how proud she should be of herself, and how grateful I was to this man. I thought she was dead (hadn't heard from her for over a year before this) and was surprised that she was willing to come to Thanksgiving dinner. Unfortunately, something in the conversation set her off and she's disappeared again. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a government agency to help my cousin. I just keep phoning this stranger in the hopes that he has found her again. I offered him money and he politely refused. I wish there were more people like him in this world. Or maybe ... any of you named Alfie???

sorry, and glad, I guess to hear from you again spedteacher - having connected with your cousin again must have been a relief even if, sadly , shortlived.

I hope she'll surface soon again.

CHeers.

I see "Maui" Fred is back in town and on the air. Could it be that the premier is calling up all his old cronies for the next end run around the electorate?

Re: Costs of building.

A good friend of mine in Project Engineer for one of the big local condo builders. He told me a couple of months ago that construction costs run ~$200/ft^2. That doesn't include land, marketing, etc... but clearly $500/$600 is ridiculous.

Its obvious that the developers run local government.

Thanks for posting the link to the Pivotal report. Its excellent.

Ubiquitous:

No Problem:

However,as an aside, I have no allusions to ever seek a formal elected office, mostly because I have had plenty of experience in dealing with Gov't to realize the method to the madness, and how it ultimately " really works" . I believe G West would agree.

However, if one wants to be at least "up to snuff" and aware of issues, if not actively pro-active with respect to them, at minimum one should have an open mind and perhaps also do some due dilignce on an issue that attracts one's attention. ie Pick and choose the battles.

My first TYEE attempt a few months ago was, to say the least interesting, it was both enlightening yet also corroborated other personal theories of the public mindset...though I will grant the TYEE commentators, as a NON sarcastic compliment to them, do stand out from the general public, at least they take the time to engage in debate and dialogue.

Some TYEE commentators unfortunately start the hair -splittng stick -poking....the "softer, kinder, gentler" version of sarcasm or shite disturbing ,...like some immature child ...then cry when someone bites back. Seems quite formulaic at times on the TYEE.

I've been in similar life experience situations with others, in person, in meetings...it becomes frustrating re: the objective vs. the mind -numbing comments and the lack of due -diligence all rolled up as "saintly dumb blonde" package. A posse' of these is often the case and also rather scary in action.

Sorta like Ex Prez Clinton's ' what "IS" is ? ' classic question .

My main premise on the homeless is that it's in everyones' best interest to deal with the problem, they are human beings no more no less than any of us,... ie EQUALS...but "for the grace of God" we could also be there tomorrow, but in my own Big Picture view there is a compounding sequence of lost opportunities, but it is the non Left side of the political spectrum that is vilified using a lot of Big Lie "logic".

Get their own act together, provide a plan of action that the public can be sold on...thats what life is all about...is that too much to ask ? Major disconnect? or , as is my further suspicion, there are other issues less public that lurk in the backrooms.

I think many of these issues best be dealt with placing oneself in the shoes of the various stakeholders. The public may view this issue as a quasi In - Site situation, harm reduction vs cure or prevention...perhaps attract more demand that might not occur otherwise. Also, Gov'ts are notorious for bells and whistles Taj Mahal's which add to costs and hence less bang for the targetted buck. Those sorts of theoretical possibilites open up the debate.

Any way , seen it before , will most certainly see it again...and will respond accordingly.

That's both their right, .....and mine.

Have a good one.

Again, even with folks of generally "noble" , do gooder intent, there is the persistent tendency to blame both the victim poor themselves, and the conditions of far off societies long burned out of natural resources, de-treed, or because of long histories of "White Man's Burden" colonialism, locked in various states of arrested evolutionary development in the past. The reality is, in the current world, poverty at home like imperialism and colonialism is a product of the natural functioning of capitalism-, the inequalitites of its internal class war at home, and having reached stages of population and economic development, in the instances of imperialism, where the imperial state, like Amerika, has outgrown its own natural resource land base. In which instance drives the current Empire to increase the impoverishment of greater numbers of its own working class strata, to meet the greed expectations of their own ruling class, and to engage these strata as fodder in the military and otherwise theft of other land's resources.

People with special economic, social and personal vulnerabilities are, of course, those who tend first to fall under the grinding wheel of poverty, but it is certainly through no special faults of their own overall, but the innate, built-in "greed" and "excess" qualities of the capitalist economic system itself, and its drive for profit/ money wealth, gleaned from exploitation of both the resources of the land base and people. The consequences of which we are beginning to see all around us in the forms of people sleeping in doorways, and in the stripping of the seas and forests of their previous life sustaining bounty.

Whatever form the "paper manipulation" takes, all money and goods wealth forms can first only be secured in material form and transformed into money form, from first the resources of nature itself, thereafter transformed into "saleable" goods by the labour processes of "the economy", and in the subsequent "market exchange" into "money wealth". During which transaction another form of "theft" takes place of course, whereby the "labour" share, within the system norms, is paid less than the actual value for which the product that labour produces is sold. This share the individual "capitalist" pockets as his profit share. (And the greater the price differential the market will bear, the greater the extent of the labour share theft.)

The degree of relative poverty that occurs amongst the working class of course, is contingent upon first the extent of the share paid to labour and the degree of "profit extraction" insisted upon (as dividends, interest, etc. etc.) by "Capital", or more particularly the ruling class of capitalist society. And in that exchange there is only one real way the capitalist, though it occurs in many guises, can increase his individual "wealth" share, and that is through increasing the theft of "labour's share", through "increased productivity" , (more production per unit of labour input), or by such more common punitive measures as increasing work time and intensity, and/or reducing/holding down wages, fringe benefit costs etc. that are paid to labour.

Continued next post...

From previous post...

And the only way in which society, certainly "street" or "working class" society can visibly and materially know that this "natural exchange" built into the system is at work and being squeezed to the maximum and achieving its result, is by the actual visible presence of unemployment and the outright growth in the numbers of the poor. For when this "skimming" process of capital at the top is at work in the extreme, it will inevitably result in "human garbage" or "surpluc labour" at the bottom end of the economy. (Indeed, that poverty and/or surplus labour acts as a warning and a brake on the working class, tending to minimize its "share" demands. Which is why "the system" views it as "usefull" to always have "something" of a reservoir of "unemployed" within the economy-, as a kind of "efficiency enforcer".)

That's how it has worked since the time of the first Industrial Revolution in England, and continues to work today, for all that has otherwise changed in the surface appearance of things within capitalism. That's how capitalism fundamentally works. And poverty, like imperialism and colonialism, is as natural a product of capitalism under its "normal" conditions of operation, as is the greed driven drive for individual capitalist profit and wealth. The two phenomenon are inextricably locked together. They are two different but related manifestations of the same phenomena.

It is not the poor who create their own poverty, though the personal circumstances of their lives may make them relatively more vulnerable to it, one compared to another, for in the system dynamic at work, poverty is created and can't be but created regardless. It is as much the natural birth child of the class system of capitalism, as is profit and extreme ruling class wealth.

Realist is bang on.

It is the rise of this Neocon ideology amongst leading ruling class strata within capitalism everywhere, which signals that their preparedness to continue with the postwar "Social Contract" period with working people has ended. We are now back to capitalism as usual, as it was more typically from the previous time going back to the Industrial Revolution founding of capitalism.

They want, and we are apparently to have no choice, but to return to the period of Charles Dickens' Capitalism. Though in trasforming capitalism and society backwards in this way, know they it or not, it is at some risk to themselves and their precious "class system".

All of which is contingent on the working class reaction, of course, as this backward evolution rolls out and manifests itself. I would say though, that while the "class war" which this new, actually very old ideology and process is destined to create within status quo society is slow coming on yet, that it is both inevitable and certain, over time, to much sharpen.

And those who are ahead of the curve and understand what is occurring, already need to begin to prepare themselves.

maestro:
I happen to be busy for the day. Don't assume I agree with you about anything - certainly not housing policy for the homeless.

There was an interesting piece in the G&M by Gary Mason a few weeks ago, it talked mainly about New York and Philadelphia; it also mentioned - not so positively - Victoria and Vancouver:

A small quotation:

And there isn't a city that has been more forward-looking than New York.

In 1990, homelessness, not crime, was the No. 1 issue on the minds of most
New Yorkers. The homeless were everywhere. That year, the census bureau
estimated there were 12,000 people in homeless shelters on any given night
and another 10,000 in visible street and park locations.

The bureau would later concede that the estimates were likely low by four or
five thousand.

Six years later, you had a hard time even finding a homeless person in the
Big Apple. The number of those in shelters was down to 4,000 a night, and
the number on the street was estimated to be between 3,500 and 4,000. What
happened?

In a word, housing.

According to Dennis Culhane, a professor in the School of Social Policy and
Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, the city provided 21,000 units
of permanent housing for the down and out.

"That was the difference," said Prof. Culhane, one of the leading
authorities on homelessness in the world. "Unlike the flophouses of yore,
these places are run by not-for-profit organizations that compete for these
contracts so they haven't turned into our new slums.

"The organizations running the housing programs have a mission and a funding
stream and the whole idea is to provide a quality of life. The units are
maintained because there is a whole regime of discipline and connectedness."

G West:

My point was simply implying what appears to be a mutual skepticism/ cynicism by both of us towards seeking "formal elected office" as the ways and means for enacting change etc. .......regardless of our political philosophies.

P.S. If I am in err, when are your running ???

was the part I disagree with. I think we need 'radical' change - you seem to think it's sufficient to just understand the business and 'game' the system.

That's not my approach at all.

G West:

My compliments on the last contribution re NYC example :

However, why would you say I was against it ?

It was perhaps a more galvanized example of what I was alluding to.

PS ....and it was AMERICAN too!!! OHH NOOOO !!!

G West:

If you understand the nature of the beast, you understand the rules, the culture...the politics...the terrain, why things are OR aren't done......etc. etc.

This does not imply you necessarily play their game...you can simply create a new " game plan" . Often it starts with the undermining of the given "Big Lie" that very often either supports or protects the given "status - quo" that anyone or any group with valid concerns has issues with .

Why tread a beaten path wrought with past failure ?

PS That's why a "moose hunter" guide in Africa would go broke.

Playing the same old game is what always gets 'government' into trouble - both sides of the fence.

That's the problem and why we need radical (in the sense of back to the roots) change.

I don't think just understanding the game is enough because understanding the game means you accede to continuing to play it with Cappy's marked deck.

Too many people think it is fine as long as they win a pot every now and then - thar's not my approach.

G West;

Agreed...

Going in , YET without knowing how the game is played, means " the House wins ".

Sometimes you have to use the same deck as them ...and other times not.

I think there are flaws at both ends of this issue that both compete and complement each other, creating a sort of synergy of failure. They are both sort of designed to offer any solution that does not actually solve the problem.

On the supply side is the need for capital accumulations sufficient to carry out large projects and do expensive research and development on things that mostly fail. This is the theoretical purpose of the 'profit share' coyote points to above.

It's important that this share be controlled by diverse motives, to ensure that many influences are felt in the end results. It's a kind of practical democratic influence built in. It's also important that it carry it's own risk, to prevent any one nitwit from doing too much damage by seeing to it that each failure reduces his capacity.

This mechanism has been weakened by the removal of checks and balances on corporate power which transform corporations into virtual states. The managers of these multi-nationals take no more personal risk than any Soviet Commisar ever did. They can do an awful lot of failing without reducing their enormous paycheques.

On the other side, the welfare state mindset that offers help only to those who agree to submit themselves to a state of perpetual poverty. We might build them housing, but we'll never let them actually own it. Or accumulate equity from it. Or even make a little extra to get ahead or provide for their families.

The people who benefit from this housing remain homeless, because the housing on offer will never be home to anyone.

Unless the poor sap trapped in such housing suddenly starts making enough to free himself completely in one moment and can attain independence of the confiscation of earnings clause of the agreement he's had to sign, he's trapped forever.

Rereading my post above,I want to add that the reason the corporate structure bears on the problem of housing is that they have no sense of civic duty, nothing makes them want to solve society's problems.

Most of them don't really believe in society at all. For them it's just a game of preditors and prey.

They will never agree to build social housing while huge artificial profits can be made from the monopolization of real estate. No social mechanization exists any longer to require them.

...Whoa, nice post Coyote. Your batteries are full now brother...!! :- )

Peace man,

-Bear

Bailey:

One may often have to work from a premise that has existed throughout history that, unfortunately, there always will be poor in our or any society, the best we can do is to minimize it and the impacts on them.

Whose role it is to take the lead role in minimizing the number of poor and the impact on them is the starting point.

Am I pointing fingers at you?...or are you pointing fingers at me?...I don't believe either one of us is doing the former nor the latter.

I don't think the neo-con boogey man has a set agenda to create poor, they have their own job description/role in the big picture which doesn't include social housing, otherwise the problem its responsibility and ultimately its solution gets deflected.

Notice how it's the guys with privilege, or people who cop to it like the churches, who always spin that self defeating line ... maestro? ( I almost called you Cappy!)

That line: the poor will always be with us. … may have satisfied you, your buddy Donohue and Marlo Thomas...but it's crap.

That's why you have to look to the Gary Bettman theory of the economy, income redistribution and a level playing field for a real approach to the problem of an economy that has been playing a broken record for the rich since about 1975.

It isn’t that we don’t know how to change the record. It’s that Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover are sitting on the lid of the gramophone.

Careful G West...

You are apparently into soapbox, fist waving,lather and rant mode. aka possibility of no Christmas card this year.

Dammit,..I knew they shoulda brought Vladimir Lenin over to Science World to add to the Body Works collection...then you and some like -minded TYEE comrades could have genuflected.

Your continued E-X-T-R-E-M-E---I-S-T extrapolation of my comments would allow me equitable license to claim that you are a RACIST re: your diatribes against Jim Green, who was left with tars and feathers before he could even begin to explain to us his views and where he stands. Your mind was obviously made up re: him before he spoke.

Recall my kettle and pot comment.
If the shoe fits, wear it, if it doesn't fit ...talk to it,......either way Maestro doesn't give refunds.

BTW: re: Phil and Marlo ACTUALLY represent what
I find is wrong with the Left...you totally took that out of context.

PS I'll think about the card.

maestro.
I'm not going to get into this. You need to look back at what I actually wrote. ALL OF IT.

In my view, Phil and Marlo are not of the left. Some time ago you attributed the observation that you shouldn’t get too exercised about poverty an anecdote Phil Donohue told about what a clergyman had told him. He’s been using (as you are) the phrase as a salve to his conscience ever since – my opinion.

They are entertainers. They are, best description I can think of: Democrats. And not very entertaining either.

You implied that the poor are always with us and I think that's a cheap excuse for sitting on your hands. Always was, always will be.

I said about the 2005 Vancouver election exactly what I believe to be true. The man asked for my advice; I gave it to him.

The rest of that whole issue, if you have a compassionate bone in your body, you'll leave where it sits.

I won't mention it again, but if you ever accuse me of being a racist, I'm going to ask the editor to redact the post.

Dear maestro; As I read your response you ask a question:

It's a confusing question, in that it seems to both contain and demur it's own answer. On one hand you seem to concede that somebody must play that role, on the other you decline to accept it for yourself.

If not you, then who? Will you delegate? Poverty is a thing that needs definition, it's limits are not self evident. It's quite possible to live well with little money. If one has a home, a family, and isn't starving, one is probably not all that poor. Still, money seems to play a real part. What part is unclear. With money one is never poor, without it one may or may not be.

Circumstance, is that it? The poor are homeless because homes are so far out of reach most of us give up hope. Do you own any real estate?

The price of a home has traditionally been about 12 or 14 months salary of the person it's appropriate to. Pre 1960 (before repeal of the gold standard) A worker's house ran about $5000, a carpenter made $3500 to $6000. Now that same type workers house runs around $300,000, while a carpenter makes maybe $45,000 to $65,000.

4 or 5 years salary minimum. Even if you have one, you're forever in danger of losing it to taxes or foreclosure. It's worse than a credit card. Any slight wiggle in interest rates and families lose their homes.

You say neo-con bogey men haven't set this agenda. I say they clearly have. Quite purposely. And to compound it, they whine for 'tax relief' as though they have no duty to their society or community. So the mayor has to balance pennies.

They are your neighbours. My friends. Somebody's children. You owe this duty, and I do and everybody else who lives and does business here. We must do this thing collectively because it must be done and there is no other way.

If we want to call ourselves decent civilized people.

build social housing
and enjoy the benefits of
a caring community pays for itself

At this point I hope the following post won't be seen as being out of place and will add - since we're talking about people who are homeless - a little verisimilitude, a kind of benchmark according to which the claims of neocon economics should be measured. From tomorrow's New York Times.

It’s long – in two posts,

Last year, Barry Diller took home a pay package worth $469 million, making him the highest-paid chief executive in America.

His shareholders didn’t do so well. Stock in the main company he runs, IAC/Interactive, declined 7.7 percent last year. For the three years ending in December 2005, the stock was up just 11 percent — compared with 49 percent for the S. & P. 500.

Just think! If you’re capable of running a company only a little worse than the average C.E.O., then Mr. Diller thinks you’re worth almost half a billion dollars!

So I’m delighted to announce that Mr. Diller is this year’s winner of my Michael Eisner Award, given annually to commemorate the former Disney chairman’s pathbreaking achievements in corporate rapacity. The winner of the Eisner award receives a shower curtain — this year it’s a lovely pink floral model costing $5 — in honor of the $6,000 one that Tyco’s shareholders purchased for their former C.E.O.

There’s nothing wrong, in principle, with a big pay package. Baseball players, movie stars and investment bankers often get outrageous pay, but after arms-length negotiations. That is capitalism at work, and nobody is getting ripped off.

In contrast, as John Kenneth Galbraith once noted: “The salary of the chief executive of the large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself.”

Consider Mr. Diller. As my Times colleague Geraldine Fabrikant noted in an article about his pay, he owns 2 percent of IAC but controls 56 percent of the voting stock. In effect, he chooses the board — and thus the members of the compensation committee who decide his pay.

There are different ways of valuing compensation. A research firm called the Corporate Library calculated Mr. Diller’s as $295 million from IAC (not counting another $174 million from Expedia, an IAC spinoff). Most of these sums were in options that had been granted much earlier but exercised last year.

here's the rest of it:

Another way to look at it is to focus not on the value to Mr. Diller but on the cost to the company. By that method — counting newly issued options but not the exercise of older ones — IAC paid him $85 million last year, according to a research firm called Glass Lewis & Company.

Each research firm said that by the method it used, Mr. Diller was the highest-paid chief executive last year.

“This is a grab fest,” said Jonathan Weil, managing director of Glass Lewis. “I don’t see any justification for this company paying him that.”

So how does the company justify it? In its proxy statement, IAC said that its aim was partly to align Mr. Diller’s interest with those of the shareholders. Funny alignment, since it meant that a sum equivalent to 9.8 percent of the company’s profits last year vanished into his pocket. In contrast, in the best-governed companies the chief executive takes home an amount equivalent to 0.2 percent of earnings.

IAC also said that the package was necessary to “motivate Mr. Diller for the future.” Goodness, this man needs a lot of motivation! He required about $150,000 every hour just to get motivated — suggesting that he may be the laziest man in America.

Mr. Diller spent 20 minutes trying to drum sense into me, but I’m not sure it was worth $50,000 worth of his time.

“It’s by any standard a great deal of money,” he said of his compensation, but he also advised that “it’s lazy and dumb” to focus on income from options that were issued years ago. His icy tone almost froze my telephone line.

As for the newly granted options, he noted that to be exercised the stock price must rise and he must stay with the company for five years. He initially insisted that they thus had no value, although he backed off when I cited Black-Scholes option pricing models that value his new options in the tens of millions of dollars.

Am I being mean to Mr. Diller? Perhaps. He is a giant in corporate America who has sometimes shown tremendous vision on behalf of shareholders (the same was true, early on, of Mr. Eisner).

But we have a broad problem in this country of C.E.O.’s reaching into the till and overpaying themselves at shareholders’ expense. The average C.E.O. earns 369 times as much as the average worker, compared with 36 times as much back in 1976.

Better governance and more transparency may encourage restraint, and so may a dash of ridicule. Let’s hope that Mr. Diller will shower behind his pink vinyl shower curtain and learn the concept of shame.

emphasis mine!

What is the shelter allowance in British Columbia?

$325.00 /month for a single adult.

Perhaps I should have emphasized one other short passage:

The average C.E.O. earns 369 times as much as the average worker, compared with 36 times as much back in 1976.

For anyone who thinks the lot of the average working man is getting better.

Or that Neocon economics has been lifting all boats.

I am sympathetic to the squatters and the larger issue they are fighting to bring to public attention. But I am frustrated by Tom Barrett's reporting -- especially given this story's subhead -- for not naming even one of these upset reporters. Weren't they speaking at a public event? Does Barrett not know their names?

These are not off-the-record sources, no matter how much they might be embarrassed back at the office if they were identified as having an emotion. The Tyee is selling this story on the basis of their "upset." So, name them.

Barrett can identify DERA director Kim Kerr at the back of the room but seemingly not his own colleagues in the scrum.

Who is Barrett refering to when he writes: "Reporters want to know what Sullivan's going to do about the squat down the street." Or: "One reporter compares the squatters to 1960s civil rights protesters in the U.S. Deep South." Or: "Others badger Sullivan to reveal the value of the contract council awarded..." etc.

Would Barrett report on a council meeting by writing: "one councillor moved that...." or "another councillor objected..."? Would The Tyee run that report? I hope not.

The homelessness issue deserves real coverage, not sloppy reporting masking do-gooder cheerleading for whomever The Tyee perceives as the underdog. I am all for advocacy journalism. Give Sam Sullivan and the NPA hell. But do it with rigour. As the saying goes: "Kick ass AND take names."

Just me
This is the Tyee remember! Don't expect too much. You'll find more whoop ass in the comments section.

Bailey:

FTR: I am NO fan of the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

At one end...The stereotypical CEO who makes a disproportional amount of remuneration , most of which is based on cashed in stock options etc. really contributes little to the overall benefit of society. Their methodolgy to create value is often immoral, corrupt and thus not worthy of their compensation, and I am glad this type of quasi -criminal activity masked in the past as white collar idiosyncracy is being pursued by the various justice systems. ( are you sitting down G West ?)

However, lets not forget the many pension funds ie union etc,( often representing a left of center philosophical bent )that tie their own self interest kart to this whorin' horse...they silently cheer on this mechanism...as long as the value of the stock increases, the silence is deafening.

My neo con analogy is directed more towards those in the lower rung of the neo-con "allegations" ...those whose focus is in keeping their companies etc. viable. which of course provides jobs, and all the ripple effects that go with that. My point , again, is not to dilute the issue with its the neo cons (?) fault. That is boogeyman-ish.

This problem existed under 9 years of the NDP. What does that imply...and in being generous to the NDP ,if they didn't create a solution, or at least set in motion a solution, does it in fact imply that there is NO solution?... or perhaps a problem so large it overwhelms the current stakeholder status -quo?.

If working models that address the homeless situation exist elsewhere yet
aren't employed here, Why?

I think we all have all had moments where we have waved our fists at the skies and rant and raved, but then realize the devil is in the details.

Obviously parties like G West have " big hearts" on these issues...and I think many of us do as well. However, illogical rants sort of diminish the value of the debate..."the poor will always be with us" is unfortunately the way it has always been....but so is every other pox/blight on society..ie alcoholism, murder, rape, drug addiction. G West interprets that as a defeatist attitude, whereas I simply say its a STARTING point...further extrapolated as we'll do our best with what we have. If we do that, we can continually improve on it.

That implies a PLAN that all stakeholders can support and leadership to impliment it.

ALSO I always find it interesting that as many TYEE discussions evolve, a quasi-showdown point occurs, and some parties (including yours truly) walk a tightrope of attempting to submit a practical solution,but few others do...they'd much rather engage ad nauseum in a further rant against neo cons, the so-called world order, Dubya, Haliburton,more boogeymen ...and the party line is again spewed sans technicolor. Hence my comment that poverty is continually intellectualized, and perhaps the poor used as simple pawns in class warfare agendas.

Without vision, the people perish which includes everyone, not just the poor. Navel gazing and ranting is not vision nor a plan.

Thats my point.

As always, masestro, you show up only for the coda. In a society which has moved from a relationship characterized by a 36:1 ratio to a 369:1 ratio (on average) in the past 30 years; doing what we can is clearly not enough.

Time for a little less baton waving and a little more whoop-ass.

When you have a vision, instead of a few pious platitudes, we'll let you know and get all the players tuned up for your next performance.

You really don't have a point do you. I have a feeling, had you lived during the the Roman era, you'd have been conducting Nero's fiddle playing.

Latest in from fly on the wall at Alcis' house:

" I sure showed that Maestro !!!! " .....now pick your nose and get back to the video games.

Chant " Viva la_____????? "

PS Hurry up...Kindergarten starts soon.

Howz de spellink ?...ok...ask Mommy

Bailey wrote,

And much agree with most of your other points above.

But then as to the question posed by maestro,

I would answer somewhat differently than Bailey.

It is clear, to me, that there is really only one social class party and one social development, short of the miraculous enlightenment of the corporate system and its ruling class, (save for this or that special individual within this privileged class), which I think unrealistic to expect, which can turn the current situation around for the working class at large, including "the poor".

And that is the working class and its poor, organized and in motion themselves, challenging the corporatist and individualist-centric system of capitalism. It is through their mobilized insistence upon the economy's democratization, bringing working class and broader people power into the management and direction equation of especially "major" economic enterprises, in which there is the only hope of a final resolution of the power and share imbalances built into current "individualist-centric" capitalism.

For the existence of poverty, both relative and absolute, between the class strata of capitalism, is first and foremost a manifestation of this "democratic" and "power" differential between the classes. (Which is why the CEO, to not even speak of the actual major shareholder differential yet, for which figures are not actually widely available, is some 300+ times greater than for the average citizen.) Until there is finally a social correction of this democratic and power imbalance within society and the economy, which leads to this gross share imbalance, poverty and the class war will ever be with human society.

And like I say, there is really only one class of folks, "In motion." who have the potential for the "will" and "mass power" necessary to force this democratic agenda through, and insist upon its priority. And it ain't the wealthy ruling class and its hired cadre of CEOs and other "management" elites, who benefit enormously from the current inequitable social and economic arrangement.

Now, whether this particular class of folks ever will finally get it together or not, is a question much still up in the air. It still awaits the answer of some future history.

I am personally convinced, however, that they will-, despite the frustration of the wait. 8-D LOL

the lack of housing in bc is bs. we have the land and resouces to provide housing for everyone. i waited for ever for Ocean Falls to be made available for housing, it never happened. if people on welfare then had been offered free housing to keep Ocean Falls viable half of the people moving would have been employed as soon as they move there,providing services to each other.Why weren t portable saw mills put in the burn of the 03 fires,all of the burnt houses and out building could have been replaced with a square timber building simular to a log house. social groups like churchs need to sponser people who need it 10 members to sponser one person or family when you buy swimming lessons for your kid buy some some for someone else,replace your couch? see if your family is ready for one.we have buildings that are empty every night down town . the homeless and poor are our responible at the personal and goverment levels. there is nothing wrong with tent cities if everyday people make an effort to visit them and see that there is garbage collection and other services.seeing some people living out in the rain must please us some how

Skumeek:

Interesting you mentioned Ocean falls... I had family live there for years after it effectively shut down. They have moved on...its all basically due to economics.

I think the problem is the small isolated town is a dying thing in BC ...ie like Prince Rupert.... NON- diversified economic base. Its being repeated all over as we speak. Ocean Falls is way too isolated.

Curious how many still up there...are you one of them? What are those that live there doing by and large?

Cheers.

Completely and totally right on posts by Coyote and the brain (thanks for the lesson in political science :)

Hope its okay to quote you in my Economics class.

Gawd I hope some of it rubs off!!

Coyote; We don't disagree. You seem to favor a classic revolutionary technique for producing the necessary and probably imminent changes society is facing.

I take a more historical view. I feel we've had all the revolution we require to accomplish the work. In our revolutionary/evolutionary phase we established rule of law. All the people really need to do now is insist that crime be exposed and punished.

Replace the checks and balances and auditors that have been stripped by illegitimate power in a transparent attempt to evade the consequences of their crimes.

If the people can simply enforce the laws that were in place before the law itself was co-opted by the crooks, that would just about be all we'd need.

Revolution is dangerous. They are always betrayed. We were lucky in ours.

We have all the power we need right now. All we lack is a way to expose the crimes, and bring the betrayers to book.

Here's a little possibility from the 'Reported Elsewhere' column on the homepage of this very Tyee. It reminds me of the potential for sites like this one, and like BC Mary's amazing site too.

http://slashdot.org/articles/06/11/05/1641258.shtml

BC Mary's site is getting some very wide exposure just now due to it's high quality and honesty. Let's just indulge in a little whatif.

What if some fed up insiders, decent honest citizens who are appalled by things they know about what's really going on in government started using her weblog as a platform for leading an investigation. Like Woodward and Bernstein's 'deep throat' during the Nixon crimewave in the States.

A way to bring about public awareness while remaining hidden enough to avoid being dealt with by those who don't want the public to be aware.

What if that? Do you think the people would have sufficient power to bring down a government, a party, or even all the parties?

If you think, under such circumstances, we could force an election and repair the damage to our body of laws, then you must agree we already have the power to make the changes necessary.

I don't know bailey. You know a little bit of the kind of thing we've been trying to do behind the scenes. I think we are making progress but without someone in the press taking a more active interest it is difficult to keep the ball rolling. Still, I feel better about the prospects than I did as little as 6 months ago.

We need to start talking about it and reaching out to more people - my view.

"Even reporters upset with mayor..."

Which reporters? It seems to me that reporters have it too sweet to get upset. That's why so many still work for non-papers like Canwest's stable of crap peddlers.

I wish reporters did get upset, AND GET SOME BALLS....

I went to an open house last night re: our 'berg's new OCP and vision for the future. Specifially the downtown core, or what will become a huge downtown core.

When the niche topic of AFFORDABLE housing came up....the City vision was presented.

Of the options presented,ie co-ops , mixed -income etc(normal ones) the toughest one to acheive was a subsidized one where housing would be provided at below market price. Analogized was someone who earned $20,000 a year.

The developers are often given the option of providing on -site incorporation of the social housing units into their own projects units...or cut a cheque towards a City social housing fund. So far the total is $7 Million.

City staff have done go rounds with numbers...and have concluded the numbers don't work to physically allot x units towards social housing, especialy the smaller projects....if they had to they couldn't create a viable project.

Ultimately, it appears that the solution is some fiscal contribution and the onus will be on Gov't to build these projects.

Only other possibilities were the liberalized use of suites in existing homes and actual allowances to build them in new construction in single family neighbourhoods..ie coach houses.

Why do you think the US experience has been more successful?

It's no mystery.

The housing units are integrated as to occupation and integrated as to use.

My understanding is that the city's finances are perilously close to being in deficit now.

Are you sure the $7M isn't just on paper?

should be 'integrated as to occupancy' - not occupation - meaning that the residents come from a mix of social and economic strata.

Coops are an excellent example of this...Vancouver, which is becoming very gentrified for a young city, is not.

Alci.....

Perhaps renew yer " shoot the messenger " permit...as the $7 Million was what the head City Planner quoted within 2o ft. of earshot.

The densification process true agenda has nothing to do with any general or niche' altruism , as I have stated before......if one read between the lines ....its simply quantum leap cash grabs, and all the collateral effects visited upon the various stakeholders.

Planners and politicians are the artistes, everyone else pays for the paints , the pallettes, and any other art supplies....aka they are often individually and collectively full o' shite. Often the very plans they draft are not what actually happens....thus one wonder why they even bother.

Sorry maestro,
I thought you were actually trying to contribute something positive - I now understand quite clearly that you don't play from THAT score very often. Carry on waving your hands!

Alci:

Adjust the programming.

Perhaps the SIMS video game Leftie Version 2006 ie social planning ....is on sale....2007 version due out for Xmas , but then again its the same old same old...yet they still charge more???

Bailey wrote,

Oh, I understand the nature of our differences very well, Bailey. :-) They too are classic ones, about as old as capitalism itself. :-) My old "Fabian" friend.

And I am prepared, and invite the mass of citizens to again, if they feel the necessity, to test your Social Democratic (NDP) theory of social change, yet one more final time.

Except, of course, I think that the history of the Labour Party in Great Britain and the NDP in this country, for two examples, (ditto Germany and many others) demonstrate the already proven inadequacy of your theory. The "class collaboration" or "cooperation" model which this political view advocates for, and to which trade union leadership even was and still is largely convinced, and was largely already secured in the immediate postwar "prosperity period", has in the new Neocon Period already broken down-, and shows no sign of being retrievable agaim. Unless, of course, one sees some merit in riding round and round forever upon this Merry-Go-Round, with history, the class war, and economics endlessly repeating itself in the same pattern of predicatable working class submission and capitalist class dominance behaviours.

I merely suggest stepping off the Merry-Go-Round and the status quo class arrangement of society and striking off on a "transformed" course of an actual democracy applied to the economy and all the other institutions of society. And I suggest that being done "democratically" through mass social movements of "the people", not with "force of arms", as should be there as an option for people if they "choose" so.

Though that said, I am also a realist, unlike the NDP view of the real class world, in my view, and expect some likely fairly serious resistance from those who benefit enormously from the current class (with sexes implications) arrangement of society. I would hope that it was not violent, of course, but that is really a decision the current ruling class will make for itself.

I much like and agree with yourself Bailey. Sincerely. It's just that I think around this issue of "power", what kind, and to what purpose-, yours and the NDP, co-opted trade union leadership view, has already been proven inadequate and wrong. You have all tried and failed already. That is the real lesson of this Neocon Period.

That said. I concede that there is still some history of this capitalist society and the NDP to run. :-) LOL

A good day to you, Bailey.

All the "Vanguardists" have failed, would be to put it more accurately even, I think. And the NDP is as much a "Vanguard Party", in my view, as was/is the old Communist Party-, just with a somewhat different political project in mind, both nonetheless directed towards putting and maintaining power in "a ruling class" and "bureaucracy" of one sort or another, rather than "power/real democracy" in the hands of the ordinary, working class citizenry.

Apathysux asks,

Well, I don't know how impressed your economics instructor might be-, at your attaching my name to anything I've said. :-) Probably not much.

That said, you steal away, develop and adapt to you own needs as you find fit, sister, anything I've said.

The truth be that the main ideas sets of most of us, including myself, are largely lifted from other folks and their analyses. :-) Even know we it not, or be prepared to admit. :-)

There is no copyright on ideas, certainly those used and developed for our purposes.

Take care, good woman.

Coyote; When I was writing my post to you above I edited out an idea I would like to resubmit.

To tell if my theory was working, one would need to see a large number of independent MLA's sitting.

Your analysis of the problems with all the 'ideolgical' gatekeepers is very insightful and pretty much on the nose, as far as I can tell.

The people do need to rise and make themselves heard before any of the vested interests will relinquish the power they thought they had successfully stolen.

Bailey wrote,

We are not soooo different Bailey, old friend. :-)

Sometimes its's just a matter of how we come at it, and often with our own way in which we use language, and the emphases we maybe put here and there.

Anyone who "wants" violence in the process of significant social change or transformation, has to be out of their tree. And one should do near everything one can to avoid it.

Still, if society is going to ever be truly transformed in the direction which I, even we perhaps advocate, "the people" are going to need to stand up to and assert themselves against "the thieves" of power and democracy, from whichever side they come. Which will be a risky time only because of how "the thieves" may react, like burglars come upon in one's home, in the middle of the night.

At which point, one has to decide whether to submit to the theft, especially if one's position is weak, or insist upon justice.

Still, the key is sufficient folks in motion to act as a deterrant, to be able to overwhelm the thief. In my view.

About which, of course, to here, I am only dreaming, I 'fess. :-)

To Brain:

Re your multi part lecture a few days back.

While it perhaps can be viewed as a view from a straddled fence....looking at both sides of the political spectrum with some degree of neutral objectivity, you apparently don't quite get my gist.

One reads all the TYEE comments, why does one leave with the view that many are best analogized as a dog chasing its tale and perhaps someone should be delegated to speak for the rest, ie resubmit the pre -packaged same old same old again?

Like forces of nature, balance to anything is required to keep other forces in check, I will be the first to agree a good healthy opposing force ,ie in politics " opposition" is crucial. Hence a group or party in power that is to the right of the spectrum needs a counter force to keep it in check,create balance etc.and vice versa.

However, in politics, some groups don't quite get what duty they owe the public, and their failure to fill this void so perhaps allows for an imbalance to occur...ie a quasi-political vacuum is created and consequently filled by something else.

I agree, extremism on either end of the spectrum is a major concern but then again they become indistiguishable in the end. = Bad !!!

Others have commented and lamented on this and other topics on the Left ,what has happened to it??? Well, in my view it is out of touch and getting left behind, and in politics that leads to the endangered list. It is seeing its own divisions internally,which is some ways is good on the diversity basis, but then again
indicts itself as simply a "has been" dinosaur with a generic platform based on protest and ideology sans pragmatism, which got rather fat and lazy in the past monopolization of the left=virtuous side of the political spectrum.

People get tuned out ....then turned off with the bad option = no option. The other side simply fills the voter void.

Your despcription of the collectivism and communalism (quasi left)vs individualism(quasi right) was good, but my interpretation is that in the past, this is simply a point in the progression of history and society.

As man and society advanced, the more independent individual/s within a free democratic society was more the predictable destiny, for a myriad of reasons. Within that same society is an acknowledgement of some left wing principles and their practical applications ....which is not a sole monopoly of the left, which often harkens to the past, but perhaps society is seeing the current left as a spent force, and perhaps leery based on past practice, and not willing to give it a chance again.

The Left really hasn't much to offer in a practical sense, and perhaps people are tired of the same rhetoric, the same ideology and lessons from the past.

Perhaps the current Left aka NDP etc. is in the midst of a purge /transition. Unless they evolve and fill their own void whisc they have created, they will be the most vivid example of history repeating itself.

My comments are a retort based on the TYEE comments which rail against the NON Left...vs a critique of their own great Left hope, and they don't realize their only choice , by default, is the reason the way things are, or they perceive them to be....hence they are simply a "chip off the old block", rant-filled ideologues, full of rhetoric, back full circle to the dog chasing its tail...and they deserve each other, the rest of us deserve better and choose /vote accordingly, and by default at times as well via no VIABLE option.

I agree with Coyote AND Maestro. The Labour unMovement comes up short, too. Only a few unions remain in the cooperative direction. Our municipalities are the worst. There are far too many afffable mayors who drink to excess and make correspondingly lousy, shallow decisions. This is why anarchy won't work. You can't have local rule when the locals tend to elect Village Idiots to Council. There is hardly a municpality with a wise, fair, current events-aware, sober and critical-thinking mayor in BC. How many mayors went to that fish-farmers' sponsored event in Norway? How do you think that influenced Their Worships? No, mayors don't rule, but they can expediate things for people who shouldn't get preferential treatment-- the bullies, the corporations, the rich and the Chamber of Horrors. Maybe even the Hells' Angels. Who knows? But mayors' decisions go against the interests of average citizens. Still, the average citizens persist in voting for these congenial drunks, or for their bosses or the local business gentry. So many think it's so small a government, it doesn't matter who gets in. But it does! The Union of BC Municipalities is hugely influential, and if it's full of the gullible Marketplace Faithful, then the citizens will suffer the consequences: closed hospitals, closed schools and closed arenas and pools. We have to 'sophisticate' our populace somehow, to get better people in public offices;) And better people have to run for public office, too.

Actually Mary, a really astute piece, I think. I enjoyed reading it.

And, as you say, if they weren't just such "affable", Chamber of Commerce beholden "drunks", probably most of them, they could at least be raising a whole hell of a lot more shitt and noise for municipalities and their citizens. Hell, the local "elites" of Revelstoke can't even get the goddamn roads and sidewalks cleared promptly and properly of snow after a major dump anymore-, and go along with it being but one more manifestation of the changed provincial Neocon times. (They blame everybody and everything but the friggin' Neocon Liberal government and its financial starving of rural towns and centres.)

Meanwhile seniors, kids and moms going to the store need to crawl their own way out on unsafe, slippery goat trail streets, in order to carry on the essential life movement of people communities and small business depend on.

AND, we need an engaged citizenry, at least, prepared to hold "officialdom's" feet to the coals, and make them speak up and act-, and to be less quickly impressed with their bafflegab.

For all the blame which we can rightly attach to prevailing politics and ideologies, and the "affable drunks" who, like you say, too often rule in our name, the real problem lies here, in that public disengagement from their own interests. Without that, the Chamber of Commerce movers and shakers couldn't get away with the shitt that they do. (And too many Unions and other public institutions keeping quiet and thus, enable it.)

Marysue:

Agreed...the system needs a major overhaul.Our local gov'ts need to be spanked hard and leashed in. A revolt here is looooong overdue.

I work from the premise the world IS becoming a global village, and that implies shifts to various economies of scale.

That creates displacement. Borders define jurisdictions, but much else is becoming seemless.

CEO's that make outrageous salaries and other compensation are a pox...but like citizens versus the politicians,if the shareholders don't revolt its business as usual. However, many cheer them on ,even the Union pension funds who invest in these companies, so do they sell their souls as well as long as the $$$ keep flowing in???.

Much like the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, when Rockefeller seized the opportunity to create a literal monopoly company who stats showed was almost 20 % of the US GDP at the time...it got to the point Gov't had to interevene...I see the same dynamics in play if and when the "global village" reaches a similar situation...its just its own different scale to reach the same critical mass.

The basic lesson is history repeats itself... it is its own check and balance.