babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
For fucks sake. SOLIDARITY FOLKS! I'm not a union member either but lost a job when I refused to let management take advantage of my number crunching to try and crush a union. My brothers won but the company went under less than 5 years after I left. We had a good arrangement, the union and I. We worked together to find ways to keep their workload respectable and increase production through innovation and planning. However, management wanted me to take it further.
The single family owner sold it off through nefarious practice and the new investors went under. It smelled real fishy. Likely laundering of money. (eta:I think they showed up in the States later) Yes, it's easy to see where you can get more value out of your employees. Where does the opportunity cost and success collide?
I'll probably never make as much money again as I did then. I'm better for it. I increased production and dropped the costs. That wasn't enough. They wanted more blood from the stone. My numbers proved it was possible. Only problem was, when I started there, I had to make extra money by working in the hole with the workers on Friday nights, Saturday nights and Sunday.
These guys, much my elder were happy to work with me to improve our production. We cheered it. Felt good for the company. Guys always asked me how we did. Then, management decided it wasn't enough. So no, they weren't getting my help anymore.
So, yeah, I don't get political science and books and stuff but I numbers are my thing. An incremental increase to the NDP would be huge. Once we move past that we can discuss parties further left to the centre. (How does left-wing even remain in the vernacular?) A shift has to happen first.
I implore you all to vote NDP, Bloc, Green or IND or further left to send a message. We will not be ignored. No staying home, no rejected ballots, no spoiled ballots, no strategic voting. The NDP has no chance here in Aurora but I'm going to volunteer, hang a sign and vote for them.
Change will not come on it's own.
As I guess I established here -- I have contact with more than one union. One thing I can say is they are very different. Not saying one is better than the other, but very different.
I think it is better to try to avoid generalizations as much as possible.
I can also say that unions do some very important and relevant work. Like any organization they can fall in and out of touch and are subject to whatever leadership and management they have-- to rise up or to fall down.
There are a few things you can say though:
I believe their motivations are good; they are more trustworthy than most other organizations; they tend to be more democratic than most; they believe and fight for justice; and they represent working people better than any other organizations.
Yes they are at times out of touch, and yes they make awful mistakes but I'd rather stand with them than any other type of organization.
I think it is this sentiment that you see from time to time here.
RP - solidarity doesn't equal blind loyalty or not questioning things, even things your allies do, for CAP LOCKS SAKE. Though, as Kim Campbell said, an election is no time to talk about the issues (I'm not being sarcastic - it's a fair enough strategic point, though it obviously wasn't a strategically smart thing to say). Moot point, I basically agree.
Unionist - hmm, maybe it is a generalization seeing as I'm speaking about a local I belonged to previously and another one I belong to now. That said, it seems to be a common problem in other especially private sector unions, like unionized grocery stores and unionized car plants (though the local I'm talking about is actually in the public sector!).
Anyways, enough thread drift for now.
Wow that verification every time is going to slow down and discourage posts. Can't it wave through the people who have been on this site for years and only spam filter those who just got here in the last couple weeks?
Why punish everyone?
If they are planning to just keep it up for the election period they could add custom code into the module to check the user id and only lauch the spam check if the user id is above a certain level. It's an easy three line code addition. The problem is that such code hacks are very difficult to keep track of. And with development, staging, and production environments and code repositories it's not just a case of changing those lines...it's a case of making sure that other changes in progress don't get accidentally added, etc.
User permissions in drupal are role-based, meaning they can turn off spam filtering for users with a particular role. That's how the module is designed to work. I'm sure mods aren't getting the spam filter come up, because they have the moderator role which is likely set to skip the filtering.
If there were a "trusted user" role for long time babblers, it would be trivial to waive spam filtering with trusted users. While babble would ideally have such a role defined, it's unlikely the devs would be willing to add that role quickly just to make it more convenient for us over the next five weeks--because it's throwaway work. While it would be of benefit to add such a role, they'd want to think about how it would work, ie. how to determine whether someone is eligible for the trusted user role and how that role will get auto-added to each user.
So the module is designed to be enabled by role, and roles don't currently exist for "long time babblers". Don't hold your breath.
Devs if you are reading this just patch the module with a small hack, if ($user->uid > 20000) { to enable spam filtering, and then take it out in five weeks when the election is over. We're dyin here.
Well, no. The Liberals had 15 years to do something progressive and what did it result in? Gay marriage. Anything else? Nope, just a litany of slashed programs, financial cuts, bleeding of the progressive tax system (social justice? WTF) and the situation we're in now where every program is in some sort of crisis mode, losing confidence with the public by the day.
Yeah, there are a lot of partisan shills on here for both the Libs and the New Dems. I'll tell ya, I'm happy to vote Liberal, Green, NDP, hell I'd even vote Conservative if they were progressive. I don't give a fig about the colours or the labels. But only one of those parties are right now.
And that's one of the reasons why the Libs are in a funk. Part of it is the corruption scandal, but part of it is that they're finding out that it's hard to convince voters to vote for the people who put us in this spot in the first place if there isn't confidence that those poeple is really going to do something to fix it.
If the Libs want to win votes based on being progressive, they should just become more progressive and I think you'd see a pretty walloping defection of New Dems right across the board. I'm game. But they're not.
Do you really think that by denying people an option on their voting cards we're going to get a more progressive government? When people have fewer choices, when the system even represents less of their views, the more people get turned off, and when people don't vote guess what we get - Conservative governments.
That is what Harper is counting on, not voters voting NDP in no-hope ridings - because anyone who cared enough to be strategic would be voting strategically already!!!
Well, if we have to avoid the horrors of an old Conservative government, and the horrors of an old Liberal government, it sort of sounds like you're saying "Go vote NDP!"
Correct? Or else how will holding my nose and voting Liberal help me ensure no repeats of the Campbell government??
Iggy and the leading light liberals even voted againts their own private member bills, most of which where progressive. Well wait they didn't attend or abstained, which in essenence is a vote against.
Looking at the Liberals' record and the Conservatives' just underscores the difference. Yes, the Liberals were bad, and yes, the Conservatives are worse, and yes, it can still get much worse. Well some of us have lived through NDP governments that had many years to be truly progressive and didn't live up to their promises. There is actually a lot to be proud of about BC's NDP years - relatively speaking - but before the NDP government cut welfare payments and alienated their base the Green party, whatever you think of them, did not exist as a real political force in this province. Voting is almost always a lesser of evils question anyway and even though the Liberals were not really that much better than the Conservatives, I'm not inclined to believe a federal NDP government would be that much better either, especially since they have seemingly all but abandonned their proud anti-war history. It would be better, it would be a start, but there is nothing exciting or life-changing for most people in the platform. So I am voting strategically for the NDP because their candidate has a realistic shot at getting elected and there is nobody who is promising real systemic change who does have a realistic shot.
Speaking of a party member/candidate bolting to another party - here's Canada's creme de la creme case of same.
BC's riding of South Surrey-White Rock is represented by the infamous, useless, right-wing, so-con - Russ Hiebert, who claimed the highest MP expenses in Canada one year ago. His riding association and local Con party members are now split - and how split they are in terms of local candidates:
Con: Russ Hiebert
Lib: Hardy Staub (former 3-term White Rock mayor who was part of the local Con executive)
Green: Larry Colero (local Con member who has never been an environmentalist)
Christian Heritage Party: Mike Schouten (local Con member who despises Hiebert)
Ind: Aart Looye (local Con member and part of executive who despises Heibert)
So we have 5 Con party members now running for different parties and four of them are running in order to defeat disgraced Hiebert.
And the only REAL opposition candidate in the riding is progressive New Democrat Susan Keeping who has won the YWCA's Women of Distinction Award!
I believe the correct term is "class traitor."
Just like Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove (TM).
Yes, good solid term. But I think you mean "party traitor".
I think a better use of "class traitor" would be (say) for premiers who are swept into provincial government riding on the hopes, dreams, organizational work, and donations of workers - and once elected, turn on their benefactors, tear up their collective agreements, and ban their strikes.
I won't bother providing a list, unless anyone really can't think of the names. Just as a hint, though, Malcolm's province is still in the lead.
Terms I think apply
not trustworthy
diletante
cavalier
fool
Hargrove is an Jack Hole. Lewenza Is OK but basil has always been a goof. I was here when he should have been giving support to Jack Layton in Windsor. Instead he gave support to Martin in an NDP riding. What is strategic about asking NDP to vote liberal in a riding the ndp already had? Sell out.
I've stopped listening to everything Hargrove has to say. He's a living oxymoron.
Surprised that even Unionist would launch a personal attack against Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd - and all to defend the greatest quisling of thhem all, Prominent Liberal Party Hack Basil Hargrove (TM).
And then we had the "class traitor" turned "party traitor" in a certain province that starts with the letter "O".
In any case in Elgin-Middlesex-London a reasonable argument can be made that the only way to defeat a Reformatory is to combine votes on the centre/left. Here are the past election results from Wikipedia.
Many folks on the left of the spectrum view the Harper government as fundamentally dangerous to this country. The Liberals are simply disgusting.
So if you have a choice between a government that is dangerous and a government that is disgusting but will have to rely on generally good folks in the NDP and BQ, I think I like the second choice better.
In fact I saw a poll come out that said that if we ended up in a coaltion situation that 59% of folks would prefer that Layton became prime minister instead of Iggy.
Now I don't agree with Ryan Dolby's actions in this situation but I'm not going to denounce him. This is obviously someone who has spent his life defending the working class in an area that's turning into a rust belt.
And whatever the results of this election I think we're going to need to have some long term discussions on the future of partisan politics in Canada.
I think it's fair to say that about 60% of the electorate holds centre to left-wing views. How do we make sure that Canada's government represents those views instead of the views of the minority 40%?
The Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens are not going to merge, nor are they going to go away as distinct and separate parties. But given our FPTP electoral system, there is going to have to be some form of electoral cooperation in future or else we're going to have a very dangerous government in power with some very authoritarian tendencies.
How that happens I don't pretend to have all of the answers. But it could be that in certain constituencies the parties agree to a "truce" of sorts and come behind a single candidate. In other areas they compete.
This is the kind of discussion that would be interesting to have on a forum like babble.
Okay, so we have Iggy who prior to finding "campaign from the left religion", the liberal party policies are not different from the Conservatives, and in which Hebert in the TorStar stated upfront. And all the things they are presently, again campaigning on are bullshit that they trot out each election. Iggy knows that most people will vote for this false thing and oh, it's not about them getting into power but ensuring they can fight another day and the NDP lose here.
This is so classic liberal I can't believe that people on rabble are believing it. They have trotted out the same meme forever. So yeah vote liberal for Iggy who enabled Bush in torture. So no, the liberals are not progressive in anyway but right vote for the empirer who has no clothes because you want to play Mr. Dressup! geez
Hey janfromthebruce, did you leave Ryan Dolby that message yet? If so, any reply?
And inspite of 5 cons running against a con, watch the infamous, useless, right wing, so-con Russ Hiebert win again. That riding mainly comprises rich and/or old and we all know how those people vote. The local media is not doing too bad of a job tho
http://www.thenownewspaper.com/Surrey+Hiebert+under+fire+doing+nothing+help+Afghan/4538811/story.html
our only option to save Canada. Vote NDP, Vote Bloc, if in Quebec, Vote Liberal. Any thing But Conservative or Green!
So as it lay's the probability and how many feel this is the particular May 2, 2011 election
is the tipping point that is going to decide Canada's ultimate Direction.
below is a statement more aimed at the greens but resonates to all
http://www.flatustheflower.org/?p=491
This seems like kind of a gutsy move on Layton's part and really takes the bull by the horns on this incident! what do others think?
"On Monday Mr. Layton said he will make an important announcement about retirement security. He also takes his campaign bus to the riding of Elgin-Middlesex-London where last week his candidate Ryan Dolby quit and gave his support to the Liberals to mount a greater attack against Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
Mr. Layton will hold a rally with his new candidate, Fred Sinclair, the former riding association president who stepped in to fill the vacancy."
Elgin-Middlesex-London sticks with the NDP
Right on Jack! Gutsy for sure and I like it - that's why he's the leader and I'm Stickin with the NPD!
Fred Sinclair is a better candidate than Ryan Dolby.
Please remove Ryan Dolby's name from the riding's donation page: https://secure.ndp.ca/riding/index.php?riding=35020&language=e
Not to disparage Fred Sinclair, but an old battered Teddy Ruxpin would be a better candidate than Ryan Dolby.
Check this out!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-gamb...
"It was a bit of gamble for NDP Leader Jack Layton to hold a rally in the southwestern Ontario riding where one of his candidates defected just days into the election campaign to throw his support behind the Liberals....In the end, it was a gamble that seemed to pay off. An exuberant crowd of 400 filled the hall."