[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I'm flabbergasted at such a condescending, sexist comment. Does that mean that hard-nosed, less "pretty" women are not good journalists?

How pathetic, even for you, to stoop to such a level of fake outrage over me complimenting Hilary. In no way did I say her looks are conducive to her journalistic success, nor did I even claim she was a good journalist.

And if you must degenerate this conversation with such a stupid question: you, of all ideologues, should have at least a few crumbs of a clue left about the attractive women on FOX News.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That presumes that nobody will ever work to improve themselves, to get ahead; that it is the role of govt to be the heavy hand that brings everyone to equal levels of misery. That is wrong.

Socialism doesn't destroy motivation; it permits social mobility to more people so they may compete for higher earnings. You seem to be unable to see past your obsession with communism. No one is advocating that we abandon democracy and capitalism. We need capitalism to fuel our social programmes, which are necessary for providing the economy with a baseline of middle-class consumers, upon which growth is achieved via the private sector.

Poor people aren't going to be getting rich off the government.
(That's something large corporations and banks often get away with.)

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is absurd. If I were to do a new development on Young Avenue or Inglis Street, it is foolish to expect that someone on minimum wage should aspire to live in such a location.

Gentrification often results in more sprawl, especially if every region of the city that gets a few high-rises is suddenly 'too good' for minimum wage slaves.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The poor will always be with us. Nothing govt can do about that.

If the elimination of all poverty was a thought that was rocking back and forth in your head, then perhaps you do have more empathy than the average neocon.

The poor will always be with us; however, if poverty is the majority it is going to hinder our economic growth because many of our industries obviously aren't going to have enough consumer support. Government has a role in protecting our system of capitalism from this stagnation.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Warren is a nattering left-wing harpie who is the epitome of the Massachusetts champagne socialist. Only in a place like that would she get elected over a solid middle of the road type like Scott Brown.

Scott Brown is barely a moderate in an American political context. Through the lens of Canada's political spectrum, Scott Brown is totally out to lunch, and you're buying.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Uniacke Square is a fine example of what you describe. A low rent area close to downtown. Not sure we need more of those. Those minimum wage workers that work downtown can take the bus.

We need to encourage a culture of walking in order to handle vehicular traffic congestion. Minimum wage earners have become today's middle-class, considering youth unemployment across most of the country is over 20%. This is a lot of people that we must consider if we want to be as sustainable as possible through our urban planning policies. We cannot address our traffic issues if we're going to constantly be pushing people outward. It would be more reasonable to try retaining a portion of lower-class people as peninsular neighbours are gentrified.

We are going to require much more public transit if we are going to be forcing out massive amounts of people to the edges of the HRM. And just who in the hell is going to pay for these transit upgrades?

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Nonsense. It is a matter of choice. You can educate yourself, take appropriate training, and get a good-paying new economy job. Or you can do nothing and clean toilets all your life.

Canadians don't get a choice as to where corporations invest. We can educate ourselves and prepare to engage these jobs -- but ultimately these jobs may not come to fruition.

The 'New Economy' is in China, in India, in Brazil.

And I have personally known custodians all my life, since my middle-class family did not discriminate against people who clean toilets all their lives. These people had families, too, and certainly *did* something. A university degree isn't affordable for everyone. A science degree doesn't guarantee you employment in your field (but it'll certainly help you find a minimum wage job, which have been the most commonly created jobs in Canada).

Today's job market is gentrifying Canadians who've never gone to college.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Unless you wish to recreate East Germany there will always be affluent areas and less affluent areas in our society. They are not life sentences. The policy option should not be to attempt to fix the ills of society through artificial land use planning policies. The key is education and breaking the mindset in ghettoized areas that the way out is through drug dealing and crime, or that the only thing the future holds is dependence upon the govt dole. That is a culture that is much tougher to fix, but is the only way to solve the long-term problem. Unfortunately people like Ms. Beaumont, the good Rev. Britton and others prefer to ignorantly decry the ills of improving neighborhoods in order to perpetuate the poverty cycle.

The affluent and less affluent areas need to be hybridised slightly. You're advocating for segregation.

A strong, public education system is just as important as a strong, public healthcare system for helping people in ghettos...but, ultimately it goes much further than that. Drug policies need to be reformed. Safe injection sites are needed. Ghettos often came about not because the people within are lazy and dependent on government -- but because they were refugees or are the descendants of refugees, former slaves, or because they are slaves in today's Canada (i.e.: minimum wage earners). And life is hard -- and drugs can be an escape, not just in terms of getting high, but also in terms of cash.

There's not much point in debating with you further, considering you believe that a job exists in this country for every job seeker. Even if Canadian students could be perfectly educated to a field related to their strengths, in a market where there would be demand for labour by the time of graduation, there would still be a job shortage relative to the number of grads we produce.

And we are making our employment and wage prospects even weaker with temporary foreign workers in jobs that should be done by Canadians (but that 15% reduction on the minimum wage is just too tempting).