Sprout:
: I hardly would say you have advocated considering known evidance and weighing tradeoffs when you call Nutrasweet "poison" and cliam it would be better to weigh 400 lbs. then to drink it or to die of starvation tan eat at McDonald's. If the choice was between McDonald's and starvation, I'd be first through the drive thru. EC:
I said no such thing! You would be the second one through the drive thru, behind me. You missed the point entirely. It is better to eat a healthy diet, and nutrasweet (and pop) is NOT "part of a balanced diet." I also never said it was better to die of starvation than to eat at mcdonalds, I said your suypport of nutrasweet is likened to advocating this! Re-read it, and see if you can figure it out.
Sprout:
: The overwelming evidance remains that nutrasweat is perfectly harmful. Witness the quick removal from the market of phen-fen after questions were raised about its safety. You are so quick ot dismiss anything said by a corporation as untrue, but accept as gosphel anything said against them on a web site (note to EC-there is a lot of misinformation on the web).
EC:
At least you agree (now) that it is harmful. And yes, there is a lot of misinformation on the web, and even more since you got on line! I don't automatically disbelieve anything out of the mouth of a corporation, (corporations don't have mouths, they hire them!), but I do know that the current system fosters an environment of lying, cheating, and misinforming for profit, with the corporate image placed high above the need for truth. Can you deny this?
Sprout:
: Would you rather have government subsidize arenas with taxpayer dollars than have Corpoate sponsers put their names on them?
EC:
I would rather all citizens had a voice in the matter, by way of vote. Is a hockey arena worth building in our community? I don't know, let's vote! Instead, people are blackmailed into it.
Sprout:
Afterall, wouldn't that be corporate welfare your so against for the "greedy" owners, like the Ontario Teachers union pension fund, who owns a big chunk of the leafs.
EC:
The current state of affairs is corporate welfare. Corporations are given big handouts. People voting democratically whether or not to build any kind of community-owned structure is not corporate welfare!
And since you keep bringing it up, the teachers pension fund thing is getting tiresome. I guess I'll have to address it:
First of all, those without a union of any sort own the least of anything. The fact that some of the strongest unions have helped to procure better wages, benefits, and "ownership" of things PROVES beyond the shadow of a doubt that organizing improves things for those who organize.
Secondly, the goal of the IWW and other democratic unions is to organize ALL, so that there are no wealthy masters calling all the shots, whether they be corporate fat-cats or union fat-cats. The IWW was formed in response to AF of L style union with high paid union bosses who herd labor for the boss, and the "everyman for himself" attitude of exclusive unions, like the player's association etc. It is true that they have received larger (much larger) crumbs of the pie, but the pie is still hoarded.
Sprout:
: As you obviously don't understand the role of currency markets, I won't get into your comment on the US dollar ruling the world,
EC:
I don't understand the currency market? That is a laugh, sprout. If only you knew...
It is no different than any other "market" within the context of the capitalist system. It is entirely based on might. This is another subject, one that I would be delighted to eat you alive on, when time permits.
Sprout:
but would ask how this caused Minnesota and Hartford to relocate, as well as numerous NFL and MLB teams. It's a small market problem not a Canadian problem.
EC:
That would seem true enough, except that your "markets" continue to shrink, and your largest city can barely "afford" a team of left overs and prospects. You yourself have talked about the canadian dollar vs the us dollar, and I bet THAT's considered a canadian problem by you, instead of a capitalism problem. Am I right? If you wont the US to turn canada into a third world country, then keep on supporting capitalism, because eventually, the handful of global conglomerates will own everthing, and you can either work for them or starve.
As far as this "small market" thing within US cities, it is a lie. Hartford is a bigger "market" than greensborough north carolina! (Bigger crowds, too.) And Minneapolis/St Paul is plent big enough to support a hockey team. Cleveland lost one of the oldest and most revered franchises in NFL history when the browns vacated to a city that not long ago lost their old franchise.
The common thread in each of these cases was the willingness of local politicians offering HUGE monetary incentives to the owners of these franchises, with new arenas that had LUXURY BOXES for the corporate elite. This is not a canadian problem, an american problem, a mexican problem, a hartford problem, a hamilton problem, a winnipeg problem, it is a CAPITALIST problem, and the only way to fix it is to pull the plug on the system.
Hunger, despair, second class citizenry, lack of voice in important decisions. These are not just by-products of the capitalist system, they ARE the capitalist system.
Mike, The Everett Citizen
None.
