Canadian Prime Minister Harper has been accused of firing Linda Keen just out of spite because he didn't like her conclusions about nuclear safety at the Chalk River Nuclear Lab. That was in 2007, when she was the President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The PM is characterized as being anti-science to the point of muzzling scientists that say anything that would hurt business. Other events are cited to bolster this conclusion but let’s look at this one first.
The Chalk River reactor makes the majority of the world's supply of medical radioisotopes that are essential for nuclear medicine. There are 4 others in the world that create the balance of them, but they cannot meet the demand. It was shut down for routine maintenance and found to be fully operational and safe. However although it had 2 failsafe power supplies to provide continued cooling in the case of an accident, it was scheduled to be equipped with a third that would be earthquake resistant. It was about 1 year beyond the scheduled timeframe for this to be done.
So, the reactor was deemed to be just as safe as it had always been for decades but not as safe as it could be. Ms. Keen wanted to keep the reactor off-line until the upgrades were done. No one doubted her science or questioned that this upgrade would be beneficial. However, the shortage of radioisotopes was beginning to be felt and it was a fair certainty that necessary treatments would be impossible for some people if the reactor remained off line. The decision made by Parliament (remember too that the Conservatives had a minority gov't and so the other parties could have stopped this if they had wanted to) was that the lives that were 100% sure to be in danger if the reactor stayed off-line were to be considered as higher risk than the lives that might be impacted by an earthquake that might happen and might take the other power supplies off-line. Emergency legislation was passed to restart the reactor in opposition to Ms. Keen and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Parliament cited the safety of citizens requiring essential nuclear medicine to be of higher priority than the reactor upgrade.
Ms. Keen refused to obey the legislation and would not allow the reactor to be re-started. She was fired for that choice and NOT because of her opinion that the reactor should be upgraded. Everyone agreed that it should be upgraded, just not immediately. A plan to upgrade the reactor without the loss to the medical community is what was needed.
So, did the Prime Minister act in a way that showed contempt for science or human safety or the democratic process? I don't see how any of that can be said about this event.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Capitalism and Illegal Immigrants
Why does the US have such a problem with Illegal Immigrants? I think it works this way.
So as a result, the businesses need a large pool of abject poor who will work for next to nothing. At first they had slaves, which is the cheapest labour available. Then they lost those and tried to keep them as tenet farmers who were little better than slaves.
Then they slowly lost that social stratum and the unthinkable happened. A Socialistic policy was put in place, called minimum wage. This is designed to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor. The justification is that the rich are treating the poor unfairly and the need to have laws to force them to be fair.
The way it works is that the companies will now have to pay more for labour and so the price of food and other commodities will go up. The rich will have to spend more on these basics so they will have less money for other things and so their standard of living will dip slightly. The poor on the other hand will also have to pay more for things but they will receive quite a bit more in wages and so will actually be able to afford more than they could before, so their standard of living will go up.
So, how can a company defend itself against this? They need to find another large pool of abject poor to take advantage of. Enter the illegal immigrants.
People may say they want to crack down on illegal immigrants who steal US jobs, but they don’t really. If they did, the results would be:
The greed of a nation requires these people be here to work for next to nothing. And no one wants to allow them to stay legally because then they would have to get minimum wage and that would defeat the purpose of having them here illegally in the first place. All the bluster against them is just politics. People even sooth their conscience by saying that they are creating jobs and that these people are glad to have the work.
I predict that they will always be here because that’s the way people want it to be.
· Capitalism is controlled by competition so that businesses are always looking for ways to be cheaper and must do so in order to guard their market share
· Rich people encourage this by wanting cheap products so that they can have even more
So as a result, the businesses need a large pool of abject poor who will work for next to nothing. At first they had slaves, which is the cheapest labour available. Then they lost those and tried to keep them as tenet farmers who were little better than slaves.
Then they slowly lost that social stratum and the unthinkable happened. A Socialistic policy was put in place, called minimum wage. This is designed to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor. The justification is that the rich are treating the poor unfairly and the need to have laws to force them to be fair.
The way it works is that the companies will now have to pay more for labour and so the price of food and other commodities will go up. The rich will have to spend more on these basics so they will have less money for other things and so their standard of living will dip slightly. The poor on the other hand will also have to pay more for things but they will receive quite a bit more in wages and so will actually be able to afford more than they could before, so their standard of living will go up.
So, how can a company defend itself against this? They need to find another large pool of abject poor to take advantage of. Enter the illegal immigrants.
· They do not need to be given minimum wage or benefits since they have no legal recourse.
· They have it worse in their home country so they are willing to work for next to nothing.
· They have now become this generation’s slaves.
People may say they want to crack down on illegal immigrants who steal US jobs, but they don’t really. If they did, the results would be:
· They would be forced to pay more for labour and the cost of commodities would rise
· Everyone would see their standard of living decrease as a result
The greed of a nation requires these people be here to work for next to nothing. And no one wants to allow them to stay legally because then they would have to get minimum wage and that would defeat the purpose of having them here illegally in the first place. All the bluster against them is just politics. People even sooth their conscience by saying that they are creating jobs and that these people are glad to have the work.
I predict that they will always be here because that’s the way people want it to be.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Economics and the Bible
So does the Bible advocate Capitalism or Socialism? This is a huge question for many people and one that I believe we stumble over. Socialism is a system in which the community is supposed to take care of the needs of everyone in it. Whereas Capitalism is a system in which each person is supposed to take care of themselves. Given that focus, I would say that God would prefer Socialism. When He asked Cain where Able was, Cain asked if he was his brother's keeper. God sidestepped the question somewhat but still made it clear that, "Yes, we are our brother's keepers." But even so, I when I read my Bible it talks about each person working and gaining personal benefit from their own labour. It never condems the rich just because they are rich nor does it attempt to share resources equally between all people. In the Law in Levitcus it openly acknowledges that people may become poor and does not provide any social system to make them rich again. So why, if God loves us all and wants us to take care of each other, does the Bible appear to be mostly Capitalistic.
I think there are many reasons.
1) Because of our selfishness:
To start with, God is against both laziness and greed. But he is also realistic. He made us after all and he knows what we are like. He knew that we were going to be selfish and therefore would tend to fall into either laziness or greed. But a Socialistic system would colapse under laziness, so it cannot be sustained. Therefore, because of the hardness of men's hearts I believe God gave us a more capitalistic system and then encouraged us to be generous to each other.
2) To teach us:
God takes each of us through a different journey. Some are poor and need to learn to trust in Him to provide. Others are rich and need to learn that they still need God and that they need to help their fellow man. Many of us go through phases in life where we get to learn both lessons.
3) Inspite of the Bible supporting a more capitalistic view, it has several key socialistic laws to control the greed of man.
- the poor where allowed to glean in the fields of the rich and take food for free
- poor people could not be charged interest on loans
- food could not be sold at a profit so that everyone would be able to afford to eat
- merchants were not suppossed to create scarcity in order to drive up prices.
- all debts had to be forgiven in the year of jubilee
These were major socialistic constraints put in place to protect the poor from the greed of an uncontrolled capitalistic system. So I believe that God DID NOT give us a totally free market guidline for living. He gave us a workable form of Capitalism with a sprinkling of Socialistic common sense.
In the USA (arguably the most Capitalistic nation that has ever been) there are still socialistic overtones.
- unions
- minimum wage
- medicare
- medicade
- foodstamps (now called SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
- Anti-trust laws (prohibiting monolopies)
People are on both sides as to whether these programs and others go too far or don't go far enough. That is a question open for fair debate. However, the question of whether or not there should be Socialistic controls on a Capitalistic society for me at least is clear. Biblically we are given the model that we DO NEED laws to control the greed of man. The Bible is in favour of a hybrid solution, tipped, perhaps heavily, to the Capitalistic side.
I think there are many reasons.
1) Because of our selfishness:
To start with, God is against both laziness and greed. But he is also realistic. He made us after all and he knows what we are like. He knew that we were going to be selfish and therefore would tend to fall into either laziness or greed. But a Socialistic system would colapse under laziness, so it cannot be sustained. Therefore, because of the hardness of men's hearts I believe God gave us a more capitalistic system and then encouraged us to be generous to each other.
2) To teach us:
God takes each of us through a different journey. Some are poor and need to learn to trust in Him to provide. Others are rich and need to learn that they still need God and that they need to help their fellow man. Many of us go through phases in life where we get to learn both lessons.
3) Inspite of the Bible supporting a more capitalistic view, it has several key socialistic laws to control the greed of man.
- the poor where allowed to glean in the fields of the rich and take food for free
- poor people could not be charged interest on loans
- food could not be sold at a profit so that everyone would be able to afford to eat
- merchants were not suppossed to create scarcity in order to drive up prices.
- all debts had to be forgiven in the year of jubilee
These were major socialistic constraints put in place to protect the poor from the greed of an uncontrolled capitalistic system. So I believe that God DID NOT give us a totally free market guidline for living. He gave us a workable form of Capitalism with a sprinkling of Socialistic common sense.
In the USA (arguably the most Capitalistic nation that has ever been) there are still socialistic overtones.
- unions
- minimum wage
- medicare
- medicade
- foodstamps (now called SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
- Anti-trust laws (prohibiting monolopies)
People are on both sides as to whether these programs and others go too far or don't go far enough. That is a question open for fair debate. However, the question of whether or not there should be Socialistic controls on a Capitalistic society for me at least is clear. Biblically we are given the model that we DO NEED laws to control the greed of man. The Bible is in favour of a hybrid solution, tipped, perhaps heavily, to the Capitalistic side.
Monday, November 29, 2010
WikiLeaks
I do not believe that leaking sensitive material indiscriminately is a noble thing to do or in the best interest of the public so this is NOT to justify wikileaks. On the other hand, why did the government think that they would be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else?
Lk 12:2-3 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system of private ownership and management of production for private profit. It uses a free market where the state has no economic intervention or regulation of prices.
This is seen by many to be the only workable system. It has good goal that most people would agree with:
- everyone should have the opportunity to make profit and be allowed to keep what they have worked hard to produce
- business will control what is produced based on what the market will buy, so there will always be enough for everyone
- any shortages that may happen will produce more jobs in order to fill them
- everyone can give 100% and thereby provide for themselves what they need.
This system seems to be able to continue indefinately, but does it have a dark side?
I still believe that people are basically selfish. So how does that manifest in a Capitalistic system?
Capitalism works because it is a greed based system that appeals to our dark side and uses our greed instead of being destroyed by it. Socialism hopes that all people will be altruistic and it fails as it hits our lazy tendancies. But Capitalism assumes that we are selfish and it uses that to strengthen the system.
- Because I am greedy I will give 100% if I can keep all the profits
- Because I am greedy I will produce what people want because they will pay the most for it and I will make better margines
- Because I am greedy I will try to undercut my competition by being as efficient as I can and that will drive prices down which benefits our customers
The system works well because it understands our nature. But does that have a down side? Sure it does.
To increase my margines I need cheap labour and for that I need a large labour force that is unemployed and desperate for work. Then they will work for next to nothing.
Capitalism will alway seek a large pool of extremely poor people to feed the system cheap labour and thereby increase the margines for the rich.
This is the fundamental flaw of Capitalism. It would work great if everyone was more concerned about their neighbour than they were about themselves but they are not.
This is seen by many to be the only workable system. It has good goal that most people would agree with:
- everyone should have the opportunity to make profit and be allowed to keep what they have worked hard to produce
- business will control what is produced based on what the market will buy, so there will always be enough for everyone
- any shortages that may happen will produce more jobs in order to fill them
- everyone can give 100% and thereby provide for themselves what they need.
This system seems to be able to continue indefinately, but does it have a dark side?
I still believe that people are basically selfish. So how does that manifest in a Capitalistic system?
Capitalism works because it is a greed based system that appeals to our dark side and uses our greed instead of being destroyed by it. Socialism hopes that all people will be altruistic and it fails as it hits our lazy tendancies. But Capitalism assumes that we are selfish and it uses that to strengthen the system.
- Because I am greedy I will give 100% if I can keep all the profits
- Because I am greedy I will produce what people want because they will pay the most for it and I will make better margines
- Because I am greedy I will try to undercut my competition by being as efficient as I can and that will drive prices down which benefits our customers
The system works well because it understands our nature. But does that have a down side? Sure it does.
To increase my margines I need cheap labour and for that I need a large labour force that is unemployed and desperate for work. Then they will work for next to nothing.
Capitalism will alway seek a large pool of extremely poor people to feed the system cheap labour and thereby increase the margines for the rich.
This is the fundamental flaw of Capitalism. It would work great if everyone was more concerned about their neighbour than they were about themselves but they are not.
Socialism
Socialism is an economic system of public ownership and management of production for the good of all citizens. It uses a controlled market where prices are set by the state.
If we could get past the negative emotional response to the term "Socialism" that many North Americans have, most people would agree that the goals of Socialism are good:
- it wants to make sure that all people have access to the basics of life, food, clothing, shelter, medical care
- it intends that no one would ever be out of work, since the state would control production, there would always be jobs for everyone
- it would control production to ensure that there was always enough of everything for everyone
- it would set up a system where everyone could give 100%
- it would set up a system where everyone could receive what they need
Socialism is a system that promises the poor that they will no longer be poor as everyone will work together and share together.
Historically, it has been a popular system in many places before it is tried, but it seems to have a very bad record in regard to how it works out. Instead of everyone being rich together, the result is that the common people becomes poorer together. Why?
I believe that people are NOT basically good. We are basically selfish and we all know it from experience even if we want to hope for something better. That does not mean that we cannot ever do good things, but if you take a group of people without controls, they will tend to drift downward.
Under Socialism our selfishness manifests itself as laziness. If everyone is supposed to work their hardest but then they all get the same share, it doesn't take long before the hardest workers notice that the person next to them aren't pulling their weight and yet they still get their share. So the hard workers slacken their pace too. "Why should I work hard and not get anything extra for it?" they think.
This is the fundamental flaw of Socialism. It would work great if the whole group of people were inspired to keep working, but it cannot motivate them and within a few years it starts to show cracks. Within a generation or two, it colapses completely.
If we could get past the negative emotional response to the term "Socialism" that many North Americans have, most people would agree that the goals of Socialism are good:
- it wants to make sure that all people have access to the basics of life, food, clothing, shelter, medical care
- it intends that no one would ever be out of work, since the state would control production, there would always be jobs for everyone
- it would control production to ensure that there was always enough of everything for everyone
- it would set up a system where everyone could give 100%
- it would set up a system where everyone could receive what they need
Socialism is a system that promises the poor that they will no longer be poor as everyone will work together and share together.
Historically, it has been a popular system in many places before it is tried, but it seems to have a very bad record in regard to how it works out. Instead of everyone being rich together, the result is that the common people becomes poorer together. Why?
I believe that people are NOT basically good. We are basically selfish and we all know it from experience even if we want to hope for something better. That does not mean that we cannot ever do good things, but if you take a group of people without controls, they will tend to drift downward.
Under Socialism our selfishness manifests itself as laziness. If everyone is supposed to work their hardest but then they all get the same share, it doesn't take long before the hardest workers notice that the person next to them aren't pulling their weight and yet they still get their share. So the hard workers slacken their pace too. "Why should I work hard and not get anything extra for it?" they think.
This is the fundamental flaw of Socialism. It would work great if the whole group of people were inspired to keep working, but it cannot motivate them and within a few years it starts to show cracks. Within a generation or two, it colapses completely.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
My Blog
I have resisted blogging for a long time but I thought that I would do it now because I wanted to share some poems that are dear to my heart.
I will likely also post some things I have written or random thoughts on current events, but I suspect that after an initial flurry of activity, this blog will not be updated more than once every week or 2.
If you enjoy my reflections, please check back occasionally for more.
I will likely also post some things I have written or random thoughts on current events, but I suspect that after an initial flurry of activity, this blog will not be updated more than once every week or 2.
If you enjoy my reflections, please check back occasionally for more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)