# Freedom is in danger in Quebec!



## myaskovsky2002

Law 78 provokes a scandal.

Learned A few hours that at least someone was fined for wearing the red because square that it "incited violence" and is out of it. It has lost a battle for freedom of expression, especially that of political opinions. 

I'm starting to understand the comment by Padmé in Star Wars when she said "So, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause". It is now to the application of Act 78, which frankly reminds me the famous "order 66" commissioned by the Emperor and designed to eliminate all the Jedi... May need to do like them and hiding or exile (when's the next shuttle to Dagobah?)


When I think I left Argentina because we didn't have freedom...

Comments will be welcome

Worried.





Martin


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

So there's a rule that people can't wear red squares?


----------



## Ukko

Huilunsoittaja said:


> So there's a rule that people can't wear red squares?


I don't get it either.


----------



## Moira

<Sigh> We are experiencing similar problems in South Africa. Having won our freedoms and the most liberal constitution in the world at a high price we were proud of it.

Just 18 years down the line there is already a "secrecy bill' gagging the media in some respects. Tomorrow there is a court hearing to determine whether an art work depicting the president as having a huge ***** hanging outside his suit of clothes will be allowed to remain on display at the gallery or whether it is to be removed from the exhibition. The president has requested that it be destroyed, which I don't think will happen. But I suppose it could, if the judge was one of Zuma's many cronies.

Every freedom is precious.


----------



## Ukko

I hope that art work is titled "Of Two Minds".


----------



## Moira

No, Hilltroll, it is entitled "The Spear". 

Seriously. Zuma is Zulu.


----------



## Ukko

Moira said:


> No, Hilltroll, it is entitled "The Spear".
> 
> Seriously. Zuma is Zulu.


Zulu - Matabele - Xhosa, I like my title better. Not a _lot_ better... .


----------



## Moira

Here is a link to one of the articles reporting on it, together with a photograph. Please do not click on it if you don't want to see what is under the coy asterisks of this website.

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-17-anc-irate-over-spear-of-the-nation-artwork


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Moira said:


> Here is a link to one of the articles reporting on it, together with a photograph. Please do not click on it if you don't want to see what is under the coy asterisks of this website.
> 
> http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-17-anc-irate-over-spear-of-the-nation-artwork


I find that picture very degrading, pretty much libel. It's not art, or an issue of "freedom of expression." It's about slandering someone with images rather than words, and slander is a true crime.

To put in perspective, how would we feel is that was Obama in that picture instead?


----------



## Moira

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I find that picture very degrading, pretty much libel. It's not art, or an issue of "freedom of expression." It's about slandering someone with images rather than words, and slander is a true crime.
> 
> To put in perspective, how would we feel is that was Obama in that picture instead?


A lot of people agree with your assessment, Huilunsoittaja. Those who feel, as I do, that it is a valid, if somewhat graphic, depiction of what our current president actually is, are in the minority.

As to putting Obama or other world leaders in that picture, one of the writers who has commented points out that the Canadian premier, as well as Obamba, have both been depicted nude by artists. http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/mike-van-graan-on-the-spear-1.1301114

It will be interesting to see what the court rules. Personally, I hope they rule that it is art and not libellous. After all Zuma's behaviour over the years certainly makes it a valid commentary in my opinion.


----------



## Chrythes

Even though I don't know of Zuma's actions, I agree with Moira.
To an outsider it might look offensive and rude, but you might as well try and understand why he's depicted in that certain way. 
It's almost like a "rude" caricature that you can find in almost every paper that writes about politics and at the same time tries to "playfully" criticise.


----------



## emiellucifuge

How can nudity constitute libel? What kind of society is that?


----------



## Moira

Chrythes said:


> Even though I don't know of Zuma's actions, I agree with Moira.
> To an outsider it might look offensive and rude, but you might as well try and understand why he's depicted in that certain way.
> It's almost like a "rude" caricature that you can find in almost every paper that writes about politics and at the same time tries to "playfully" criticise.


Zuma started out before his election with the following strikes against him:

1. Allegations of corruption, and a court hearing which somehow got squashed. His cronies were jailed.
2. A rape case against him, which he won. He did admit having unprotected sex with her in her father's house. Her father was a friend of Zumas.
3. When the question of HIV was raised he said that he was ok because he showered after sex. This earned him a showerhead over his head in all drawings by one political cartoonist.
4. He sued the political cartoonist.

After his election -

5. There was a scandal about the Chief Justice he wanted to and did appoint. 
6. He sued the political cartoonist for drawing a political cartoon showing "The rape of justice".
7. He is polygamous and has married twice in the last three years. He has five wives now, plus two ex-wives.
8. He has introduced a secrecy bill limiting the reporting of corruption.
9. He has released his cronies from prison by simply releasing thousands of prisoners for "Freedom Day".
10. He is busy overturning various other aspects of our constitution and interfering in the judicial process.

That is a list of some of the things, not necessarily in exact circumstances (I'm not politically aware and may have misinterpreted some of the details in one way or another). The gist of that list is, however, probably substantially correct.


----------



## Guest

What if, say, someone were to make a painting of a female head of state - like Angela Merkel - fully nude? Or taking it a step further and depicting the leader in a sexual act? What if someone were to make an artistic rendition of the popular sentiment in many countries that citizens get screwed by their politicians? No, I have to agree here that freedom of expression is not limitless. Your rights end where mine begin - and I don't see any argument where the right of a citizen to express a symbolic political statement outweighs the rights of the individual they are depicting in a degrading manner. If it was done with the consent of the subject, that is one thing.

I had to look up Bill 78 - I don't know what the red patches have to do with anything, other than I saw some news pictures depicting individuals with various red patches on their clothing in confrontations with police. From what I read, it seems to be a bill that makes it illegal to assemble without prior police authorization and it limits the ability of university professors and instructors to strike - it was in response to protests against increases in tuition, meant to assist law enforcement in restoring order. Correct me if I have read it wrong - I had to go to Wikipedia.

At face value, it seems like a dangerous bill - restricting the rights of citizens to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances seems a dangerous thing to institute. That being said, the right to assemble is also not absolute - your rights end where another's begins. I gleaned from what I read that there has been mischief at these protests - including the throwing of Molotov cocktails. People should have a right to PEACEFULLY assemble, not assemble to foment riots and cause violence. I don't know how carefully the bill is worded - if it simply restricts assembly, that would be bad. I also don't like the notion that you can assemble, but only if you have the permission first of the police - that seems like a provision that could easily be abused. I know it would be a pain in the butt for police, but I think the default should be that people can assemble - with the understanding that if they overstep their rights, violate the rights of others, or start riots, that the police are fully authorized to intervene and take appropriate measures to restore civil order and protect the rights and personal safety of other citizens.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> How can nudity constitute libel? What kind of society is that?


A person's body is theirs and theirs alone - if a person chooses to be nude in public, then clearly they have no problem with the issue. But what if, rather than a painting, it was a picture taken of the individual in their private residence? You can take a person to court for photographing you naked without your consent if you are in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, if you go and sunbathe on a nude beach, then there is no expectation of privacy, and if someone takes a picture of you naked, well, that was the risk you assumed by engaging in that activity. If, however, you are in your own private residence, and someone, without your knowledge, takes a picture of you, that is criminal. Both instances involve the same thing - a picture of a nude person. But without consent, then it is a violation of that person's rights. There is no right to be able to depict another person nude without their consent. Political speech does not require permission to do whatever you feel like.

What if someone you worked with painted a depiction of you fully nude and posted it where you worked? Would you see nothing wrong with that? Should it be allowed as long as the subject of the painting is a political official? What kind of society is that?


----------



## Moira

DrMike said:


> What if someone you worked with painted a depiction of you fully nude and posted it where you worked? Would you see nothing wrong with that? Should it be allowed as long as the subject of the painting is a political official? What kind of society is that?


There is nobody who has ever been in a position of authority, however minor, who has not made decisions which annoy others. How people respond to that often depends on how the person behaves. My considered opinion is that if my behaviour warranted a cruel depiction, I would try and learn from that depiction.


----------



## Guest

Moira said:


> There is nobody who has ever been in a position of authority, however minor, who has not made decisions which annoy others. How people respond to that often depends on how the person behaves. My considered opinion is that if my behaviour warranted a cruel depiction, I would try and learn from that depiction.


Yes, but let's be realistic here - that image was not created as a means of trying to help Zuma "learn." It was meant to insult - and you are 9 times out of 10 never going to make progress in a positive direction when your intention is to insult. I don't care how wrong I am - human nature is such that, if you come out with harsh personal criticism of me, I am going to fight back. That is not how civil, advanced societies work. We are supposed to be above such things - we oppose politicians at the ballot box and through speaking out - not through childish depictions of your political enemy (literally) with their pants down.


----------



## Moira

DrMike said:


> Yes, but let's be realistic here - that image was not created as a means of trying to help Zuma "learn." It was meant to insult - and you are 9 times out of 10 never going to make progress in a positive direction when your intention is to insult. I don't care how wrong I am - human nature is such that, if you come out with harsh personal criticism of me, I am going to fight back. That is not how civil, advanced societies work. We are supposed to be above such things - we oppose politicians at the ballot box and through speaking out - not through childish depictions of your political enemy (literally) with their pants down.


After Zuma's statement about having a shower after unsafe sex (whether or not that was rape as alleged but never proven) a cartoonist, Zapiro, started drawing Zuma with a shower head over his head. He attempted to sue Zapiro, withdrawing that and reinstituting that when Zapiro drew him in a cartoon entitled "Rape of Justice". Those were both learning exercises for him. Zuma doesn't seem to learn though. His behaviour continues to be contrary to that which one associates with respected leaders.

In addition, cruel depictions are not designed as 'lessons' but as satire. But people can still learn from them.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> How can nudity constitute libel? What kind of society is that?


It occurs to me that you might mean the strict legal definition of libel - in which case I would have to agree with you. Libel has a very definite meaning, and I don't believe it applies here. I don't know whether the legal definition varies from country to country, though. I'm not sure what would be the technical term for what we are discussing here, though.


----------



## Chrythes

DrMike said:


> Yes, but let's be realistic here - that image was not created as a means of trying to help Zuma "learn." It was meant to insult - and you are 9 times out of 10 never going to make progress in a positive direction when your intention is to insult. I don't care how wrong I am - human nature is such that, if you come out with harsh personal criticism of me, I am going to fight back. That is not how civil, advanced societies work. We are supposed to be above such things - we oppose politicians at the ballot box and through speaking out - not through childish depictions of your political enemy (literally) with their pants down.


I don't believe the intention of this image was to make Zuma learn. It was to provoke (apart from insulting) thought about his actions among the people. If the points that Moira presented are true, then Zuma's actions can be perceived as insulting as well. 
If your leader is cutting down the constitution according to his own personal motives, wins a rape case and then presents a bill limiting the reporting of corruption then he's insulting the people.
And I doubt the only means of protesting against his actions is painting him with his pants down.


----------



## Guest

Moira said:


> After Zuma's statement about having a shower after unsafe sex (whether or not that was rape as alleged but never proven) a cartoonist, Zapiro, started drawing Zuma with a shower head over his head. He attempted to sue Zapiro, withdrawing that and reinstituting that when Zapiro drew him in a cartoon entitled "Rape of Justice". Those were both learning exercises for him. Zuma doesn't seem to learn though. His behaviour continues to be contrary to that which one associates with respected leaders.
> 
> In addition, cruel depictions are not designed as 'lessons' but as satire. But people can still learn from them.


Oh, definitely, people can still learn from them. But, based on your description of Zuma, I don't think there is any reasonable expectation that any kind of satire will sway him in a positive direction.

I wouldn't think that depicting him with a shower head over his head would be bad. I agree that he sounds like a pretty despicable character. That doesn't justify changing the rules. After all, that is the criticism of him, isn't it? That he is attempting to subvert various rules because it is politically expedient for him? And I might also ask whether all of these things about him came out before or after he was elected?


----------



## Guest

Back to the original topic:
I actually looked up, and read, the original Bill 78 to get a better idea of just what is going on.

The first part stipulates that colleges and universities within Quebec will resume by specified dates if they were disrupted. I am guessing that protests and strikes have disrupted the regular schedule. It seems here that the outrage is over the fact that, presumably, any teacher that was striking would be ordered back to work by the specified date - effectively ending their strike, regardless of whether they were able to negotiate their demands.

The next part seems to deal with demonstrations. It states that any and all demonstrations of more than 10 people have to be declared to the police no later than 8 hours prior to the demonstration - date, time, route of the demonstration, and how individuals will be transported to the site. Police are given the discretion to change the route if they deem it necessary. Violations, particularly those that impede the ability of students to attend their normal classes, will be met with suspension of involved school groups, and/or fines.

This actually doesn't sound as bad as I thought. If students have paid tuition to receive an education, and they are unable to receive services for which they paid, then I don't think it is out of line to punish those who are violating their right to the education they paid for. A group can assemble, but they cannot prevent others, if they so choose, from attending their classes. And if a teacher is contractually obligated to teach a class, then they should be required to do so. 

Unless there is an aspect to this that I am not getting, I don't particularly see this as a danger to freedom in Quebec.


----------



## Moira

DrMike said:


> Oh, definitely, people can still learn from them. But, based on your description of Zuma, I don't think there is any reasonable expectation that any kind of satire will sway him in a positive direction.
> 
> I wouldn't think that depicting him with a shower head over his head would be bad. I agree that he sounds like a pretty despicable character. That doesn't justify changing the rules. After all, that is the criticism of him, isn't it? That he is attempting to subvert various rules because it is politically expedient for him? And I might also ask whether all of these things about him came out before or after he was elected?


Some came out before he was elected and some after he was elected. Remember that South Africa has a very politically naive electorate. The first time the majority of people voted was in 1994 and most of them don't realise that simply voting for the ANC again and again is not necessarily the answer. But now we're veering into the specifics of politics and that's probably not a good idea on any non-political forum.


----------



## Philip

http://imgur.com/E5NLN


----------



## cwarchc

This started off with a political slant.

The concerns are how to juggle the "rights" of the few against the majority.
It's a fine line, there are many historical examples of how not too do it.

Its's very easy for those in power to see things as Lenin

"When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state."

and fall into this

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed."


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

DrMike said:


> What if someone you worked with painted a depiction of you fully nude and posted it where you worked? Would you see nothing wrong with that? Should it be allowed as long as the subject of the painting is a political official? What kind of society is that?
> 
> 
> Moira said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nobody who has ever been in a position of authority, however minor, who has not made decisions which annoy others. How people respond to that often depends on how the person behaves. My considered opinion is that if my behaviour warranted a cruel depiction, I would try and learn from that depiction.
Click to expand...

In the workplace-circles in which I've perambulated, such an action against you wouldn't be considered an annoyance, it would be grounds for an actionable judgement of "hostile work environment" and "sexual harrassment." Furthermore, the law would make no distinction concerning whether such activity was "warranted" or not. [As if anything under the sun could ever be characterized as "warranting" such a display.]

I think that I can speak for a lot of people who have wives, daughters, female loved ones-- if anyone pulled that stunt on some woman _I_ cared about, "actionable judgement" could well be the least of the worries of the offender-in-question, if I were ever to attach a name and face to the deed.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Here is the actual situation in Montreal

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/21/montreal-protesters-clash-with-police

Violence and more violence from the Police! This is awful! Canada was always considered as a pacific country...Well, until now.

Martin, angry

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/After Bill 78, two nights of violence in Montreal streets/6651270/story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/18/bill-78-quebec-protests-war-measures-act_n_1528309.html

Explanation of this bill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_78

Martin









Martin



Huilunsoittaja said:


> So there's a rule that people can't wear red squares?


Of course, the law is not about the square itself but for what it represents...Please read in wikipedia the whole article, is not that long...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_78

O course you can wear a square with Mickey Mouse on it!

:lol:

*Politics *are becoming forbidden here...
I feel like with Georg W. Bush!

Martin


----------



## Guest

I was going to feel sorry for the students, until I read that this whole thing was sparked by a proposed increase of tuition over 5 years from an average of $2,168/year to $3,793/year, and still leave Quebec with some of the lowest tuition rates in all of Canada.

Is it just me, or has the whole world gone insane with unrealistic expectations of just how much the government should provide them? In Greece, the economy is going down the sewer fast, and Greeks don't seem to want to have to face any kind of economic reality to save their country from financial ruin. They liked having one of the earliest retirement ages and all the lavish government entitlement programs that come with that retirement, and don't think that such programs should suffer at all simply because their country is going bankrupt. With the worldwide economy in turmoil, French were upset by a president suggesting they should work a few more hours a week. Now I understand that this Bill 78 is making a lot of people mad, and I sympathize with that. But the protests have been going on long before now, and over what? Less than $2000/year? I WISH my tuition was less than $4000/year back when I was going to college.

Have we all become so dependent on the government subsidizing our every whim that we have to engage in what is essentially an adult temper tantrum whenever we are expected to give a little more, or sacrifice a little more out of necessity to rescue failing economies?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> I was going to feel sorry for the students, until I read that this whole thing was sparked by a proposed increase of tuition over 5 years from an average of $2,168/year to $3,793/year, and still leave Quebec with some of the lowest tuition rates in all of Canada.
> 
> Is it just me, or has the whole world gone insane with unrealistic expectations of just how much the government should provide them? In Greece, the economy is going down the sewer fast, and Greeks don't seem to want to have to face any kind of economic reality to save their country from financial ruin. They liked having one of the earliest retirement ages and all the lavish government entitlement programs that come with that retirement, and don't think that such programs should suffer at all simply because their country is going bankrupt. With the worldwide economy in turmoil, French were upset by a president suggesting they should work a few more hours a week. Now I understand that this Bill 78 is making a lot of people mad, and I sympathize with that. But the protests have been going on long before now, and over what? Less than $2000/year? I WISH my tuition was less than $4000/year back when I was going to college.
> 
> Have we all become so dependent on the government subsidizing our every whim that we have to engage in what is essentially an adult temper tantrum whenever we are expected to give a little more, or sacrifice a little more out of necessity to rescue failing economies?


I think you are speaking too fast. In Quebec the taxes are the highest in North America...Enough for having a wonderful health system (it is a ****) and Free studies (they are not). Anyhow, even if you accept the increase...why accepting VIOLENCE????? In many countries, studies are free. In Argentina, for example, in France (now they are going to change this) and in many countries.

U.S. is far to be a model for many things, Healt is a real sh.. Also education! U.S is nice when you are rich, otherwise it could be a nightmare. It is easy to speak when you are part of the rich people. I am not poor, but I think *everybody has the right to study and to work*...Maybe you don't (?).



DrMike said:


> Back to the original topic:
> I actually looked up, and read, the original Bill 78 to get a better idea of just what is going on.
> 
> The first part stipulates that colleges and universities within Quebec will resume by specified dates if they were disrupted. I am guessing that protests and strikes have disrupted the regular schedule. It seems here that the outrage is over the fact that, presumably, any teacher that was striking would be ordered back to work by the specified date - effectively ending their strike, regardless of whether they were able to negotiate their demands.
> 
> The next part seems to deal with demonstrations. It states that any and all demonstrations of more than 10 people have to be declared to the police no later than 8 hours prior to the demonstration - date, time, route of the demonstration, and how individuals will be transported to the site. Police are given the discretion to change the route if they deem it necessary. Violations, particularly those that impede the ability of students to attend their normal classes, will be met with suspension of involved school groups, and/or fines.
> 
> This actually doesn't sound as bad as I thought. If students have paid tuition to receive an education, and they are unable to receive services for which they paid, then I don't think it is out of line to punish those who are violating their right to the education they paid for. A group can assemble, but they cannot prevent others, if they so choose, from attending their classes. And if a teacher is contractually obligated to teach a class, then they should be required to do so.
> 
> Unless there is an aspect to this that I am not getting, I don't particularly see this as a danger to freedom in Quebec.


Police are hurting people! Causing some deaths and many many injured. Is not just a question of money any more...

Martin, outraged


----------



## cwarchc

Martin
I've just the article and posts on the Toronto Sun website.
It appears to be getting very heavy handed.
What seemed to start off as a peaceful protest, looks like it has deterioated on both sides with damage and violence.
It's sad to see the "official" response, emergency laws that restrict basic rights.
However I can also see the other side, with the authorities struggling to control a volatile situation.
I can't profess to come up with a sensible solution
I hope you are ok? and that the situation settles down soon.
It's not something we see occuring in Canada very often.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Of course, the law is not about the square itself but for what it represents...Please read in wikipedia the whole article, is not that long...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_78
> 
> O course you can wear a square with Mickey Mouse on it!
> 
> :lol:
> 
> *Politics *are becoming forbidden here...
> I feel like with Georg W. Bush!
> 
> Martin


Thanks for the clarification. I see why this is an issue. I also see why the law has upset so many young people. Recently there has been a similar bill that went through US Congress on tuition increase. I believe it wasn't passed though. The education tuition rates here in America are insane, some places making their students pay 40,000$ a year.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> I was going to feel sorry for the students, until I read that this whole thing was sparked by a proposed increase of tuition over 5 years from an average of $2,168/year to $3,793/year, and still leave Quebec with some of the lowest tuition rates in all of Canada.
> 
> Is it just me, or has the whole world gone insane with unrealistic expectations of just how much the government should provide them? In Greece, the economy is going down the sewer fast, and Greeks don't seem to want to have to face any kind of economic reality to save their country from financial ruin. They liked having one of the earliest retirement ages and all the lavish government entitlement programs that come with that retirement, and don't think that such programs should suffer at all simply because their country is going bankrupt. With the worldwide economy in turmoil, French were upset by a president suggesting they should work a few more hours a week. Now I understand that this Bill 78 is making a lot of people mad, and I sympathize with that. But the protests have been going on long before now, and over what? Less than $2000/year? I WISH my tuition was less than $4000/year back when I was going to college.
> 
> Have we all become so dependent on the government subsidizing our every whim that we have to engage in what is essentially an adult temper tantrum whenever we are expected to give a little more, or sacrifice a little more out of necessity to rescue failing economies?


Never thought I'd like one of your posts, but Quebec's tuition rates are absurdly low:


----------



## Praeludium

DrMike :

The fees of the Ecole Normale Alfred Cortot are between 2000 and 2700€ per years. It's a private school, in the center of Paris, and very prestigious one. How come, if I understood right, that all the public schools would be asking roughly that much ? That's ridiculous. How expensive are private schools in the US ?
Just an example...


Anyway, education should be free. In Europe in most places it's a few hundred € per year, and it's already too much.
Btw, it's not because you paid a lot to study that students today should pay as much or even more.

edit : Are Quebec tuition fees really low or are the tuitions fees of the whole North America absurdly expensive ?


----------



## Couchie

Praeludium said:


> Anyway, education should be free. In Europe in most places it's a few hundred € per year, and it's already too much.


And giving stuff out for "free" they can't afford has caused Europe no financial problems whatsoever...


----------



## Fsharpmajor

The basic problem is that, in the four western provinces, which currently generate approximately half of the country's wealth, while having roughly a quarter of the population, university tuition fees are already much higher than those in Quebec--and yet we're being asked to subsidize--even more than we already did before--Quebecois tuition fees.

This is an unreasonable situation, in our opinion, and if Quebec wants to continue to subsidize its higher education system, it needs to do it by raising taxes. It's as simple as that.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> I was going to feel sorry for the students, until I read that this whole thing was sparked by a proposed increase of tuition over 5 years from an average of $2,168/year to $3,793/year, and still leave Quebec with some of the lowest tuition rates in all of Canada.
> 
> Is it just me, or has the whole world gone insane with unrealistic expectations of just how much the government should provide them? In Greece, the economy is going down the sewer fast, and Greeks don't seem to want to have to face any kind of economic reality to save their country from financial ruin. They liked having one of the earliest retirement ages and all the lavish government entitlement programs that come with that retirement, and don't think that such programs should suffer at all simply because their country is going bankrupt. With the worldwide economy in turmoil, French were upset by a president suggesting they should work a few more hours a week. Now I understand that this Bill 78 is making a lot of people mad, and I sympathize with that. But the protests have been going on long before now, and over what? Less than $2000/year? I WISH my tuition was less than $4000/year back when I was going to college.
> 
> Have we all become so dependent on the government subsidizing our every whim that we have to engage in what is essentially an adult temper tantrum whenever we are expected to give a little more, or sacrifice a little more out of necessity to rescue failing economies?


I'm pretty sure you speak French...Then this is for you!

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/q...es-fonds-publics-coulent-a-flots-au-mapaq.php

Showers for the Ministery of agriculture cost 10,000 $ each!!!!!! If they have this kind of money...why Studies cannot be free!
The same for the roads and streets...Lot of work everywhere. I met a guy working for a Construction company, when he said his price to the Government, they asked him to ask for more!!!!! It is a shame! and I am sure is more or less the same in the States.

Martin, sad


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I'm pretty sure you speak French...Then this is for you!
> 
> http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/q...es-fonds-publics-coulent-a-flots-au-mapaq.php
> 
> Showers for the Ministery of agriculture cost 10,000 $ each!!!!!! If they have this kind of money...why Studies cannot be free!
> The same for the roads and streets...Lot of work everywhere. I met a guy working for a Construction company, when he said his price to the Government, they asked him to ask for more!!!!! It is a shame! and I am sure is more or less the same in the States.
> 
> Martin, sad


No, I only speak English and German. But just because one government agency is screwing taxpayers over is no reason for others to. The fact is that the entire world is coming to the realization that you cannot promise "free" things to people indefinitely. Eventually you no longer have the money to pay for it all. Adults understand that sometimes you have to do without when you cannot afford something.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> Adults understand that sometimes you have to do without when you cannot afford something.


I'm not sure what's worst about your statement: are those who disagree with you on this not responsible adults? or should higher education not be accessible to everyone?

I think i'll side with the actual Montrealer on this one... and pass on the conservative Americanism which seems to have little appeal to the people of Québec.


----------



## TresPicos

DrMike said:


> The fact is that the entire world is coming to the realization that you cannot promise "free" things to people indefinitely. Eventually you no longer have the money to pay for it all. Adults understand that sometimes you have to do without when you cannot afford something.


Still, it all depends on _what _you can't afford, and _why_. If you can't afford education because you're poor, why should you accept that you have to do without, especially if you're told that you live in a "land of opportunity"?


----------



## samurai

And it has been the *adult* administrations of both Bush and Obama who have managed to have us in--not one, but count 'em--Two unfunded Wars at the same time! How come we can *afford* these, while continuing tax cuts for the wealthy? The true answer is , we really can't, but we chose to engage in them anyway--with, as is always the case--the middle and lower classes shouldering the lion's share, both in treasure and blood. Shared sacrifice, anybody? :scold:


----------



## Guest

It should also be stated that there is no such thing as free education. Unless the teachers are doing it all pro bono, what you and the students really mean is that you want other people to continue to pay for most of your education, and you shouldn't have to pay that much for it. Everything has a cost. The only question is who should have to pay it.

As to me and my education, I paid for it with scholarships, student loans (which I am still paying off), and working while in college. I agree that here in the USA college tuition is rising too quickly. But it seems that there in Quebec, it is artificially and unrealistically low, and the only way you can pull that off is by forcing others to shoulder your costs.


----------



## PetrB

Moira said:


> Here is a link to one of the articles reporting on it, together with a photograph. Please do not click on it if you don't want to see what is under the coy asterisks of this website.
> 
> http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-17-anc-irate-over-spear-of-the-nation-artwork


With or without the genitalia visible, this is hardly worth the materials it took to make it - it says .... nothing except someone has learned, a bit, to make 'graphic art,' and that they have limited ideas and an even more limited ability to convey them.

The huge mistake? _Making any kind of fuss over it at all!_ If this had gone without the press around it, it may or may not have been purchased, and would have had a very brief life before it was utterly forgotten.

Someone could buy it and make a public deal of burning it - that is also the 'right of free speech.' Perhaps the president could, as a private citizen, do exactly that


----------



## PetrB

The OP bears little sense without further explanation of what 'red squares' are, what they supposedly represent, etc.

I don't think one should post and then assume people must research the topic to understand the point of the post.


----------



## samurai

DrMike said:


> It should also be stated that there is no such thing as free education. Unless the teachers are doing it all pro bono, what you and the students really mean is that you want other people to continue to pay for most of your education, and you shouldn't have to pay that much for it. Everything has a cost. The only question is who should have to pay it.
> 
> As to me and my education, I paid for it with scholarships, student loans (which I am still paying off), and working while in college. I agree that here in the USA college tuition is rising too quickly. But it seems that there in Quebec, it is artificially and unrealistically low, and the only way you can pull that off is by forcing others to shoulder your costs.


Would this also apply to the trillions of dollars {to date} we have spent on these two wars?


----------



## Sid James

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Of course, the law is not about the square itself but for what it represents...Please read in wikipedia the whole article, is not that long...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_78
> 
> O course you can wear a square with Mickey Mouse on it!
> 
> :lol:
> ...*Politics *are becoming forbidden here...
> I feel like with Georg W. Bush!


I had a skim-read of that article. It seems similar to what a former leader of Australian state of Queensland did decades ago. Joh Bjelke Petersen banned public assembly, or at least had a veto on who could protest and who can't. Depended if they were on his side of politics or not.

This sort of thing is maybe okay in Communist China, a dictatorship, but not okay in a democracy. So thumbs down to people who bring in these types of laws. In Quebec, it's aimed at students. In Queensland I think it was less clear than that, just aimed scattergun approach at anyone who didn't agree with Joh.

As for wearing a colour, banning that, we've had that before. In Ireland, when it was fully ruled by the English, you could not 'wear the green,' which was a symbol of Irish independence. It was banned from being worn in Ireland and I think the rest of the British Empire.


----------



## Philip

samurai said:


> Would this also apply to the trillions of dollars {to date} we have spent on these two wars?


Exactly, they shell out the big bucks for wars but when it's time to educate your people, let them pay for it. DrMike seems to think that everyone here is an idiot for thinking education should be "free of cost"... we know it's tax money, Doctor, thanks anyway.

It's a matter of priority, and we can see that the USA's priority is certainly not the health or education of its people, but rather the size of its military p/nis.

Perhaps we should realize that this is a debate of values and society, not economy alone. Saying that students aren't entitled to protest because their tuition is so low is complete nonsense, considering that tuition is low _as a result of_ past student protests and investment from the government (ie. higher taxes).


----------



## Vaneyes

Between Chicago and Montreal, the anarchists are busy this week.


----------



## Praeludium

Couchie said:


> And giving stuff out for "free" they can't afford has caused Europe no financial problems whatsoever...


The finances of the USA and the North America being currently much, much better, we can perfectly say that this is the cause.

Btw, if you see "giving out" education, for instance, as an useless expense which will has no reward, I think you totally miss the point. 
A state must finance the education of its citizens. Moreover, I can't see how having more people with an excellent and high-level education could be a burden for a nation. _Except in some places._


----------



## Moira

PetrB said:


> With or without the genitalia visible, this is hardly worth the materials it took to make it - it says .... nothing except someone has learned, a bit, to make 'graphic art,' and that they have limited ideas and an even more limited ability to convey them.
> 
> The huge mistake? _Making any kind of fuss over it at all!_ If this had gone without the press around it, it may or may not have been purchased, and would have had a very brief life before it was utterly forgotten.
> 
> Someone could buy it and make a public deal of burning it - that is also the 'right of free speech.' Perhaps the president could, as a private citizen, do exactly that


PetrB, actually the whole body of work of which this is one piece is cleverly thought out satire. The artist is generally very well regarded within art circles in South Africa. While I attend at some art exhibitions and report on them, I am not an expert on South African art by any sense of the word, and Brett Murray's work is well known to me. While I would most certainly not want this work hanging in my lounge, it is nevertheless "good" art, both clever in conception and well executed.

You are absolutely spot on about the right to free speech and even the right to purchase the work and publicly destroy it. You are also correct about the fuss that was made over it having brought it to national, and international, attention.

The hearing started an hour and a half ago. According to Twitter (not always a reliable source as everyone knows) Brett Murray's public statues are in danger, and one of South Africa's biggest churches has called for him to be stoned to death. I am waiting nervously to see whether South Africa's most liberal constitution in the world will be compromised by the political appointments made by Zuma to the judiciary.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I think the answer is easy. Educated people endanger the government when this one is too strong. As an example, we have Nicholas II and Lenin. Less educated people are easier they are to manipulate. Definitely, priorities are not in education...Canada was a great country when I arrived in 1983. Health was wonderful. BTW I'm paying 850$ every year for school taxes and my two sons finished their schools many many years ago...All my neighbours are paying the same amount. Isn't enough for making Education free? My answer would be yes. I posted an article in French about the showers they added in the ministery of Agricuture. 10,000$ each shower!!!!!! Money wasted for many many many things! Total project: 100,000$. Nice showers, I suppose! and a lot of money in suspicious pockets!

Martin, fed-up


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Couchie said:


> Never thought I'd like one of your posts, but Quebec's tuition rates are absurdly low:


As I said, the taxes are the HIGHEST!!!!! I'm paying 850$ a year for school taxes... education and my two sons ended their studies many years ago.
This amount could be applied to Colleges and Universities...

Then...I am already paying education, all my neighbours are also paying.
Other provinces are paying lower taxes. It is known that we have the highest taxes, not just in Canada but in North America!

Martin


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> Would this also apply to the trillions of dollars {to date} we have spent on these two wars?


Waging war is one of the things Congress is actually authorized to do by the U.S. constitution. Providing cheap education is not. My question for the countries where education (college level and above) is heavily subsidized or free - who chooses whether a person can go to college? Is it available to all, or only those deemed worthy?

For so many years, Europe allowed the United States to cover the lion's share of defense costs while they dumped so much money into social programs and entitlement programs. So yes, we did spend a lot on wars that Europe did not, and yet they still face economic peril. So how do you explain that? Maybe we do expect our citizens to pay for more of the things they want, but the tradeoff is that we are not quite at the same level of economic oblivion as them.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> Waging war is one of the things Congress is actually authorized to do by the U.S. constitution. Providing cheap education is not. My question for the countries where education (college level and above) is heavily subsidized or free - who chooses whether a person can go to college? Is it available to all, or only those deemed worthy?
> 
> For so many years, Europe allowed the United States to cover the lion's share of defense costs while they dumped so much money into social programs and entitlement programs. So yes, we did spend a lot on wars that Europe did not, and yet they still face economic peril. So how do you explain that? Maybe we do expect our citizens to pay for more of the things they want, but the tradeoff is that we are not quite at the same level of economic oblivion as them.


Do you mean stupid wars? As Vietnam and Irak? For absolutely nothing? Wars "perdues d'avance"? Il faut être con pour s'embarquer dans des guerres comme celles-ci. Just U.S....because Europe doesn't lke the "causes perdues d'avance" Vietnam is a shame! Irak is another shame! Executing Sadam Hussein the way they did it it is another shame. American people are too violent. Three factors are interesting for the USA and their citizens , *just three: Money, power and sex*.

Martin


----------



## Moira

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Three factors are interesting for the USA and their citizens , *just three: Money, power and sex*.
> 
> Martin


I do a sermon on the temptations of Christ under the title "Sensuality, Silver and Self". That sums up all our temptations. Same three that you identified.

Incidentally, the artwork "The Spear" by Brett Murray has now been defaced by two people throwing paint at it - an aside for those who might be interest. The hearing has been postponed to Thursday.


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I think the answer is easy. Educated people endanger the government when this one is too strong. As an example, we have Nicholas II and Lenin. Less educated people are easier they are to manipulate. Definitely, priorities are not in education...Canada was a great country when I arrived in 1983. Health was wonderful. BTW I'm paying 850$ every year for school taxes and my two sons finished their schools many many years ago...All my neighbours are paying the same amount. Isn't enough for making Education free? My answer would be yes. I posted an article in French about the showers they added in the ministery of Agricuture. 10,000$ each shower!!!!!! Money wasted for many many many things! Total project: 100,000$. Nice showers, I suppose! and a lot of money in suspicious pockets!
> 
> Martin, fed-up


I pay property taxes as well. It isn't a one to one relationship. Your dollars don't go into a fund just for your kids. And consider that the money already is being spread among both elementary and secondary education. It has to pay for teachers, administrators, facilities (utilities, maintenance, new construction), supplies. That all adds up. And those individuals don't work for free.

It sounds like Quebec is using more than just Quebecois taxes to finance their cheap education, and they realized they don't have enough to charge so little anymore. So unless they are willing to raise their own taxes to subsidize more of their education costs, why is it so wrong to ask them to bring their tuition more in line with other provinces?

I know it seems like you all care more than I do because you think government should provide even more to its citizens, but look to Europe and you can see what that kind of "caring" gets you.


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Do you mean stupid wars? As Vietnam and Irak? For absolutely nothing? Wars "perdues d'avance"? Il faut être con pour s'embarquer dans des guerres comme celles-ci. Just U.S....because Europe doesn't lke the "causes perdues d'avance" Vietnam is a shame! Irak is another shame! Executing Sadam Hussein the way they did it it is another shame. American people are too violent. Three factors are interesting for the USA and their citizens , *just three: Money, power and sex*.
> 
> Martin


I don't know what any of your French comments mean.

As to your comment on what Americans want - money, power, and sex - funny, that sounds like descriptions of such notable Europeans as Dominique Strauss-Kahn or Berlusconi.

Remember the US didn't execute Hussein. His own people did that to him. And as for violence, I think the historical record shows that more blood has been shed by Europeans and Asians than Americans. And that is just looking at the 20th century (two world wars, the purges of Stalin and Mao). True, Canada has been sheltered, but only because they have had the might of the British Empire and the United States as protection.


----------



## emiellucifuge

DrMike said:


> but look to Europe and you can see what that kind of "caring" gets you.


I think you're generalising greatly. In 2011 the US budget deficit was 9% of GDP, in the Netherlands it was 3.8%, yet in The Netherlands we have had universal healthcare, near to free education and many other benefits for many years.


----------



## Chrythes

Mike, you only provide one unsuccessful example of tuition-free secondary education in Greece, and you even say that it somehow caused Greece to collapse. Isn't it generalising a bit too much? 
What about Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, Belgium and other countries that provide free education?
Do you see them collapsing in the way Greece has because people "demand too much of their governments"? 
You should ask why these countries are able to provide it for free and still maintain a very stable economic situation, and not blame the people for having "unrealistic expectation".


----------



## Guest

Chrythes said:


> Mike, you only provide one unsuccessful example of tuition-free secondary education in Greece, and you even say that it somehow caused Greece to collapse. Isn't it generalising a bit too much?
> What about Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, Belgium and other countries that provide free education?
> Do you see them collapsing in the way Greece has because people "demand too much of their governments"?
> You should ask why these countries are able to provide it for free and still maintain a very stable economic situation, and not blame the people for having "unrealistic expectation".


Could you please enlighten me on what those countries spend, either separately or combined, on national defense? When you don't have to spend for such things, then you do have a lot of money to spend in other areas. Norway has also benefited greatly from oil - unless I am wrong, I believe they are one of the largest European suppliers of oil. If our government allowed us to exploit our oil resources the way that Norway does, I suspect we would also have significantly more money in our coffers.

Unfortunately, the US has not been able to nearly completely gut our defense spending. And I am not even talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. 3 times in one century we were asked to come and intervene in Europe to help Europeans out of conflicts of their own making (World War I, World War II, Bosnia).

I know that some will say we needlessly spend so much on defense - but keep in mind how little we were spending on national defense prior to both World Wars. We were not world military mights prior to both conflicts. We had sought to retreat back within our borders, or at the most only interesting ourselves in conflicts that occurred within our sphere of interest (the Americas). And we all know that the greatest lesson of the 20th century was that the best way to stay protected and remain out of conflicts is by to remain neutral and not invest in defense (just ask neutral Belgium how well that worked for BOTH world wars, or neutral Norway during WWII).


----------



## Guest

Chrythes said:


> Mike, you only provide one unsuccessful example of tuition-free secondary education in Greece, and you even say that it somehow caused Greece to collapse. Isn't it generalising a bit too much?
> What about Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, Belgium and other countries that provide free education?
> Do you see them collapsing in the way Greece has because people "demand too much of their governments"?
> You should ask why these countries are able to provide it for free and still maintain a very stable economic situation, and not blame the people for having "unrealistic expectation".


Oh, and I didn't mention Greece specifically. I didn't know that they provided education tuition-free. But I know there are other European countries that are also facing economic catastrophe - Spain, Ireland, Portugal. I believe the phenomenon is mainly in southern European nations. But since they are tied to other members of the EU, their fall will have repercussions for others as well, which is why countries like Germany, which is bearing a huge share of the costs of trying to bail Greece out, is demanding that Greece start to act responsibly regarding entitlement spending if they expect others to bail them out. I think there are parallels to Quebec - the other provinces are saying that if they expect money that is disproportionately coming from the Western provinces to fund things for them, then they should make some changes to do their part. That is the problem when you make others pay for what you want - nobody spends money as responsibly when it is not their money they are spending.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> I think you're generalising greatly. In 2011 the US budget deficit was 9% of GDP, in the Netherlands it was 3.8%, yet in The Netherlands we have had universal healthcare, near to free education and many other benefits for many years.


Well it is a good thing that they are doing so well - pretty soon they will probably also have to contribute more to bail out those European economies that aren't doing so well. For all of the countries that are part of the EU, you have to look at them together. That is why the EU didn't make that much sense. If you had a union of the more successful economies - like Germany and France and other Northern European countries, then it would probably work great. But you have less robust economies, like Greece, that are dragging the rest of you down with them. They basically exploited the economic cover afforded to them by the EU in order to promise their citizens entitlements that they couldn't afford. And now that their house of cards is collapsing, they are demanding that the other countries continue to prop them up without requiring them to sacrifice any of their comforts. Germans should sacrifice more of their tax dollars so that Greeks can retire at ridiculously early ages and nurse at the EU government teat.


----------



## Guest

At any rate - back on topic.

Funny, the articles posted on here about the violence from police don't seem to report any such thing. In fact, one of the articles Myaskovsky posted talked about how the police actually exercised incredible restraint - a protest started without prior authorization from police, in violation of the new bill, and the police chose not to shut down the protest, even though they could have, until the protestors started lighting fires and there was a fear of destruction of property and further violence. This was after protestors had already been throwing chunks of concrete at the police. Protestors have also been throwing Molotov cocktails. Police are using non-lethal force. I read that there were 20 people injured, and 11 of them were police officers - more police are being injured than protestors. Regardless of whether the law is a just one (and I have already stated that I oppose the restriction of the right of people to peacably assemble), there is no justification of the violence that the demonstrators have initiated. The police actions, from everything I have read, appears to be in reaction to the violence of the protestors.

Again, this information is from the articles that Myaskovsky has posted on here. Nowhere have I seen, other than in inflammatory rhetoric from protestors and sympathetic faculty, and suggestion that someone would be arrested for wearing the red patch. The only people who are being arrested are those involved in protest riots. They aren't going and hunting down people wearing the patches - at least not that I have found in any of the articles submitted here for our consideration.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> I don't know what any of your French comments mean.
> 
> As to your comment on what Americans want - money, power, and sex - funny, that sounds like descriptions of such notable Europeans as Dominique Strauss-Kahn or Berlusconi.
> 
> Remember the US didn't execute Hussein. His own people did that to him. And as for violence, I think the historical record shows that more blood has been shed by Europeans and Asians than Americans. And that is just looking at the 20th century (two world wars, the purges of Stalin and Mao). True, Canada has been sheltered, but only because they have had the might of the British Empire and the United States as protection.


Sadam Husein was executed by The Iraq tribunal (not the people)...but manipulated by the U.S. He was awful anyways...I'm glad they did it. About the "three" things so much desirable...I should add a last one: BEER! Here the P.C.E.O. of Labat had a bonus this year: 16,000,000 Euros! An employee of Labat told me that. Here in Quebec the taxes are extremely high. Other the 35%-40% of your salary, you have to pay 15% tax on each single article except vegetables and meat. If a car costs 20,000$ you'll pay 23,000$ for it. New houses are also taxable. If you are willing to pay 300,000$...you will pay 345,000$ for it. Considered this, you don't think Quebec has enough money to establish free education? Instead of wasting money as they do buying 10,000$ showers for the Ministry of Agriculture? (see my other article).

I think (just I think) that being here mostly educated people, we should agree regarding free education. I am 60, but I feel young and I agree with young people...Not everybody is young in his/her mind? D'accord?

Politics and religion are the most difficult matters to discuss...I know that. I also have the feeling to fight against a wall, I also know that. Since I was a teenager I always was left-oriented and I didn't change, I haven't become "bourgeois" even if I had a good economical position. I always have been rebellious. I am against unfairness, waste, our government wastes our money. I had an acquantaince who works for a construction company, who wrote an invitation to tender. When the guy from the Government saw his price, he said "increase your price and we will accept you", not without a wink. We are living a real Mafia (mob).
How can I accept that!

Sincerely,

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> At any rate - back on topic.
> 
> Funny, the articles posted on here about the violence from police don't seem to report any such thing. In fact, one of the articles Myaskovsky posted talked about how the police actually exercised incredible restraint - a protest started without prior authorization from police, in violation of the new bill, and the police chose not to shut down the protest, even though they could have, until the protestors started lighting fires and there was a fear of destruction of property and further violence. This was after protestors had already been throwing chunks of concrete at the police. Protestors have also been throwing Molotov cocktails. Police are using non-lethal force. I read that there were 20 people injured, and 11 of them were police officers - more police are being injured than protestors. Regardless of whether the law is a just one (and I have already stated that I oppose the restriction of the right of people to peacably assemble), there is no justification of the violence that the demonstrators have initiated. The police actions, from everything I have read, appears to be in reaction to the violence of the protestors.
> 
> Again, this information is from the articles that Myaskovsky has posted on here. Nowhere have I seen, other than in inflammatory rhetoric from protestors and sympathetic faculty, and suggestion that someone would be arrested for wearing the red patch. The only people who are being arrested are those involved in protest riots. They aren't going and hunting down people wearing the patches - at least not that I have found in any of the articles submitted here for our consideration.


I agree. You always have "infiltrators" taking advantage for stealing, bombing, etc. It is true nevertheless that you can be arrested if you are wearing the red square.

Here you have an example...I would say people are quite pacific. Now, you have to give a notice to the police if more than 50 people are making a demonstration.






Where is freedom?

Anyhow...I don't ask people to have the same opinion than me. This would be utopic.

Martin, young and sad


----------



## myaskovsky2002

The only people who are being arrested are those involved in protest riots. They aren't going and hunting down people wearing the patches - at least not that I have found in any of the articles submitted here for our consideration

===================================================================
I live here, I can tell you that you can be arrested just for being there!
My son is a teacher at College Maisonneuve. I have enough information, I'm not speaking out of the blue.

Martin


----------



## Guest

I am all for reforming government waste - I think that the issue of the showers should be addressed. The fact of the matter is, though, that even if you cut that out, it is only a drop in the bucket. There is not enough money in the world to finance all the things that liberals/progressives think should be provided by government free of charge. 

I think that only a very limited number of things should be provided at no cost. People tend to abuse what they don't have to pay for. If they have skin in the game, they are much more likely to care how things are managed. Why are more people not upset about the kinds of government waste and fraud we hear about all the time? Because they have no investment in it. The people who complain most are those who are paying the taxes that are being wasted, while those who could care less are the ones who pay a much smaller share of the public tax burden, and more often than not receive a net revenue from the government - i.e. they receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes - and I'm not referring to common goods like roads and infrastructure, but rather entitlement programs.

The majority of people who clog up emergency rooms with trivial illnesses (you don't have to see the doctor every time you get the sniffles) are those who don't have to pay anything for their healthcare. In contrast, it costs me $30 every time my family or I needs to see the doctor, so we are more discerning as to when we need to see the doctor (we will monitor how long coughs persist, whether there is fever, rashes, etc.). I have been involved in distributing charity money through my church to people who are facing financial hardship, and one of the frustrating things I always found was that those we were helping would often only bring us their utility bills to pay after they were more than 2 months overdue and facing termination of services - we would then not only pay their bills, but also all of the late payment fees. On occasion, we would sometimes also have to pay a new deposit or service charge to get services started back up. All they had to do was bring in the bill as soon as they got it, and we would pay it. In contrast, I pay my own bills, and I pay them on time, since I don't want to spend more than I have to on late penalties and have to deal with termination of services and the additional fees that entails.

I knew kids in college that screwed around, would skip classes often, not study, and spent much longer than 4 years in college, and didn't really care, because their parents paid for it all - tuition, housing, food, car, etc. They had a 4+ year fully funded party, and in the end scrambled for some kind of degree. In contrast, those friends of mine who had to work or take out student loans to finance their education graduated quickly and were dilligent in their studies. They also were more interested in degrees that would actually give them marketable skills when they graduated.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

This time I agree plenty with you.

I would gladly pay 30$ in order to see a doctor. The system doesnt allow me to do so...
I also agree that you have eternal students, this is ridiculous. When I went to Soviet Union in 1970 and 1971, I understood that Studies were for free. BUT...BUT you had the right of two (2) failures. More than that, you could not study any more! You go to work to a plant! This seems fair to me.

Martin


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I agree. You always have "infiltrators" taking advantage for stealing, bombing, etc. It is true nevertheless that you can be arrested if you are wearing the red square.
> 
> Here you have an example...I would say people are quite pacific. Now, you have to give a notice to the police if more than 50 people are making a demonstration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is freedom?
> 
> Anyhow...I don't ask people to have the same opinion than me. This would be utopic.
> 
> Martin, young and sad


Yes, you are right, in that video the protestors are being quite peaceful, and I would see no problem whatsoever in this kind of a protest. But I also noticed that the police are also being peaceful. I saw only police vehicles following the protestors - I could guess that they were mainly there to ensure that traffic stayed back while people were marching through - you often see this kind of police involvement also around parades and marathons, protecting pedestrians by redirecting traffic. Noticably absent was any signs of police arresting or assaulting anyone, nobody wearing a red patch was detained. I didn't say that all of the protestors were being violent, and the police are not arresting everyone. I have read that there are thousands involved in these protests, and only a small fraction are actually being arrested. Not exactly like the riots following the elections in Iran, where police were gunning down protestors.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> Yes, you are right, in that video the protestors are being quite peaceful, and I would see no problem whatsoever in this kind of a protest. But I also noticed that the police are also being peaceful. I saw only police vehicles following the protestors - I could guess that they were mainly there to ensure that traffic stayed back while people were marching through - you often see this kind of police involvement also around parades and marathons, protecting pedestrians by redirecting traffic. Noticably absent was any signs of police arresting or assaulting anyone, nobody wearing a red patch was detained. I didn't say that all of the protestors were being violent, and the police are not arresting everyone. I have read that there are thousands involved in these protests, and only a small fraction are actually being arrested. Not exactly like the riots following the elections in Iran, where police were gunning down protestors.


Well...Nobody is perfectly "clean", they have detected a "hit and run" by a policeman with a pedestrian!

You have some other images....about the police...they are not saints...exactly.





Brutality!






This is our life actually in Quebec! Can you believe it? I am lucky to live in the suburbs...where people try to ignore everything and just mind their own bussiness. i.e. "I have a job, my house is quiet...I have nothing to worry about, I don't want to get involved!"

Martin, disgusted and concerned.


----------



## Guest

Clearly we are going to disagree on this issue. I don't pass judgment on the police based on out of context video phone clips that begin in the middle of an event and are clearly biased by those filming (you can hear those filming calling the cops "fascists" and repeatedly yelling F*** you).

Again, I think the students are being absurd in their original protests - less than $300 increase/year over the next 5 years is worth all of this? They are still getting a quality education that will put them in good standing to make a lot of money over their lifetime - all for ~$12,000 for a 4-year degree. Most people spend more than that on their first car, and that won't be as valuable over time as a college degree. Do I think that the government over-reacted with the bill? Probably. Do I think the students and other fomentors of riots are abusing their right to assemble to prevent others from attending school and causing mischief (throwing rocks and concrete at police, throwing Molotov cocktails, setting fires in the streets)? Probably. I don't think it was entirely by coincidence that the first video you inserted in your last post took place on May Day of all days.

Why should education be free? Yes, I agree that it is very important in this day and age. But there are many things that are more essential that are not free. Food is vital to all - should it be free? Shelter is vital to all. Should we hand out free housing? What about water? Sewer? Garbage removal? Clothing? Which of those things is less important to our very survival than is education? Why shouldn't they all be freely provided by government? Why just healthcare and education? Why should anybody have to pay for anything that is deemed essential? Ah, you see, you have to charge for something, otherwise government would have no way of generating any revenues - and they simply wouldn't make enough off of taxes on luxury items. Why, we can always just make those rich people pay more. Except most rich people get rich off of providing the necessities - and if those necessities are then provided at no cost, they probably won't be as much of money-makers. So then you won't have as many wealthy people, so where then do you get your revenue to pay for all of the entitlements? Or what if the companies decide to move elsewhere to places that will pay them better for their goods?

Canada is free to act as they see fit. I think they should run themselves differently, but have no objection to them doing as they wish. In contrast, I demand that my political officials act within the framework of our constitution. But I just think that there is a bigger problem here than the tempest in a teapot of these protests over rises in tuition. This will die down soon. One side or the other will cave - most likely the politicians, because they don't like to look bad. They won't raise tuition, and someone else will get stuck with the costs of education that these students didn't feel they should have to pay. But the bigger issue is whether or not you will have riots everytime the people are worried that they just might have to contribute a little more to providing for their own essential needs. Since when is anybody entitled to something for the price they think they should pay? Hell, I don't like paying $1.50 for a 12-oz. bottle of diet Coke, but I am not going to go riot to get it back down to $1.00. An imperfect comparison, to be sure, as diet Coke is not an essential, but the problem is that it never stops with the essentials. People who have become used to things being provided to them free of cost begin to expect more to be provided. Entitlements breed dependence and an ever increasing sense of entitlement. We see it now in Europe where Greeks feel they are entitled to the hard-earned wages of Germans.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> Clearly we are going to disagree on this issue. I don't pass judgment on the police based on out of context video phone clips that begin in the middle of an event and are clearly biased by those filming (you can hear those filming calling the cops "fascists" and repeatedly yelling F*** you).
> 
> Again, I think the students are being absurd in their original protests - less than $300 increase/year over the next 5 years is worth all of this? They are still getting a quality education that will put them in good standing to make a lot of money over their lifetime - all for ~$12,000 for a 4-year degree. Most people spend more than that on their first car, and that won't be as valuable over time as a college degree. Do I think that the government over-reacted with the bill? Probably. Do I think the students and other fomentors of riots are abusing their right to assemble to prevent others from attending school and causing mischief (throwing rocks and concrete at police, throwing Molotov cocktails, setting fires in the streets)? Probably. I don't think it was entirely by coincidence that the first video you inserted in your last post took place on May Day of all days.
> 
> Why should education be free? Yes, I agree that it is very important in this day and age. But there are many things that are more essential that are not free. Food is vital to all - should it be free? Shelter is vital to all. Should we hand out free housing? What about water? Sewer? Garbage removal? Clothing? Which of those things is less important to our very survival than is education? Why shouldn't they all be freely provided by government? Why just healthcare and education? Why should anybody have to pay for anything that is deemed essential? Ah, you see, you have to charge for something, otherwise government would have no way of generating any revenues - and they simply wouldn't make enough off of taxes on luxury items. Why, we can always just make those rich people pay more. Except most rich people get rich off of providing the necessities - and if those necessities are then provided at no cost, they probably won't be as much of money-makers. So then you won't have as many wealthy people, so where then do you get your revenue to pay for all of the entitlements? Or what if the companies decide to move elsewhere to places that will pay them better for their goods?
> 
> Canada is free to act as they see fit. I think they should run themselves differently, but have no objection to them doing as they wish. In contrast, I demand that my political officials act within the framework of our constitution. But I just think that there is a bigger problem here than the tempest in a teapot of these protests over rises in tuition. This will die down soon. One side or the other will cave - most likely the politicians, because they don't like to look bad. They won't raise tuition, and someone else will get stuck with the costs of education that these students didn't feel they should have to pay. But the bigger issue is whether or not you will have riots everytime the people are worried that they just might have to contribute a little more to providing for their own essential needs. Since when is anybody entitled to something for the price they think they should pay? Hell, I don't like paying $1.50 for a 12-oz. bottle of diet Coke, but I am not going to go riot to get it back down to $1.00. An imperfect comparison, to be sure, as diet Coke is not an essential, but the problem is that it never stops with the essentials. People who have become used to things being provided to them free of cost begin to expect more to be provided. Entitlements breed dependence and an ever increasing sense of entitlement. We see it now in Europe where Greeks feel they are entitled to the hard-earned wages of Germans.


I agree with you, food (good food) is far from being free....LOL But the increase for studies, my friend is about 80% not less. I invite you to read the corresponding articles. I won't try to convince you.

I think I have spoken too much. Now I will do as God after the 7th day. I will rest. No more arguing, you have the right to think what you think with the information you think you have. I live here, I have read everything I could, I am interested in the problem obviously because I live here and you DON'T. Period.

Martin


----------



## Philip

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I agree with you, food (good food) is far from being free....LOL But the increase for studies, my friend is about 80% not less. I invite you to read the corresponding articles. I won't try to convince you.
> 
> I think I have spoken too much. Now I will do as God after the 7th day. I will rest. No more arguing, you have the right to think what you think with the information you think you have. I live here, I have read everything I could, I am interested in the problem obviously because I live here and you DON'T. Period.
> 
> Martin


What if DrMike presents the same arguments again, but in a longer post, will you then be convinced??


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Philip said:


> What if DrMike presents the same arguments again, but in a longer post, will you then be convinced??


LOL convinced of what? That he is stubborn? That mentally, he's older than his age? LOL Please no offense, dear moderator.

This is new:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/montreal-gears-100th-day-student-protests-163457747.html

Martin


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> LOL convinced of what? That he is stubborn? That mentally, he's older than his age? LOL Please no offense, dear moderator.
> 
> This is new:
> 
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/montreal-gears-100th-day-student-protests-163457747.html
> 
> Martin


"Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right."
"Facts are stubborn things . . ."

Two wonderful quotes from the second president of the United States, John Adams.

Don't worry, I don't take offense at being called mentally older than my age - after all, isn't that another way of saying that I am wise beyond my years? Isn't that a compliment?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> "Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right."
> "Facts are stubborn things . . ."
> 
> Two wonderful quotes from the second president of the United States, John Adams.
> 
> Don't worry, I don't take offense at being called mentally older than my age - after all, isn't that another way of saying that I am wise beyond my years? Isn't that a compliment?


LOL, LOL. I haven't lost my sense of humour (you are funnier than you think you are)

End of story

Martin


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> "Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right."
> "Facts are stubborn things . . ."
> 
> Two wonderful quotes from the second president of the United States, John Adams.
> 
> Don't worry, I don't take offense at being called mentally older than my age - after all, isn't that another way of saying that I am wise beyond my years? Isn't that a compliment?


John Adams may be our most under-appreciated president. And your 'mental age' would qualify you for geezerdom, except that the minimum age is controlled by the AARP.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> Don't worry, I don't take offense at being called mentally older than my age - after all, isn't that another way of saying that I am wise beyond my years? Isn't that a compliment?


:lol:

As absurd as it sounds, this used to be the original concept behind the IQ: the quotient of mental age vs actual age. Eg. A person with an IQ of 100 has equal mental and physical age; while a person with an IQ of 150 would be 50% older mentally than physically.

It is no surprise that this formulation was later abandoned and replaced by a statistical approach, which, even then, isn't universally accepted.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> John Adams may be our most under-appreciated president. And your 'mental age' would qualify you for geezerdom, except that the minimum age is controlled by the AARP.


Yeah, I figured that the only difference between me and the crotchedy old guy who sits on his front porch and complains about "kids these days" is that I don't have a big enough front porch yet!  As for the AARP, I am glad I am not yet old enough to join their ranks (and am questioning whether their group is, in fact, the one I will support, seeing as I am fairly certain my membership fees will be dumped directly into the DNC coffers).


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> John Adams may be our most under-appreciated president.


This is sadly true. He was a dominant force during the Revolution - it is doubtful Washington would have had the supplies, funding, and men that he did without Adams' tireless effort. His was one of those names that was on the British list for offering no mercy or pardon should the rebels have chosen to surrender - he was judged to have been that much of an enemy to the crown. He was also one of the dominant forces that was behind the official Declaration of Independence, and worked ceaselessly to get support for such a declaration, even if we now give the lion's share of the credit to Jefferson.

Sadly, as President, he suffered from being sandwiched in between two giants - Washington and Jefferson. That and the political machinations of Aaron Burr helped to sink his fame. One could also argue that he was one of the most involved of all Vice Presidents that ever lived. He was religious in his attendance to meetings of the Senate, and took his job as President of the Senate seriously.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Yeah, I figured that the only difference between me and the crotchedy old guy who sits on his front porch and complains about "kids these days" is that I don't have a big enough front porch yet!  As for the AARP, I am glad I am not yet old enough to join their ranks (and am questioning whether their group is, in fact, the one I will support, seeing as I am fairly certain my membership fees will be dumped directly into the DNC coffers).


The AARP is a 'special interest' outfit. Regarding SocSec, their interests are congruent with mine. Regarding the Second Amendment, the leadership is damnfool socialist (that's a particular kind of socialist). I am damn near broke, but as far As I can I support the AARP _and_ the NRA (they support of the plutocrats, the damn fools), and hope things shake out my way.


----------



## Vaneyes

"$30 and no waiting, c'mon in."

View attachment 5185


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Exactly, they shell out the big bucks for wars but when it's time to educate your people, let them pay for it. DrMike seems to think that everyone here is an idiot for thinking education should be "free of cost"... we know it's tax money, Doctor, thanks anyway.

It's a matter of priority, and we can see that the USA's priority is certainly not the health or education of its people, but rather the size of its military p/nis.

Bingo... and unfortunately those who measure everything in terms of the size of the military p enis don't grasp the fact that said p enis is dependent upon continued support of a thriving economy... and said economy is dependent (especially in a world of global competition) upon an educated populace. Limiting a quality education to the wealthy is certainly the quickest route toward reducing the United States into a has-been nation.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think that only a very limited number of things should be provided at no cost.

Obviously higher education is not among these. So how do you propose that the individual not born into a wealthy family afford a college education which has become virtually a requirement to attain any real job? When college tuition has increased some 800%+ over the last 15 years how does the child born into poverty escape the cycle? How do they pay for health care when that (and the accompanying health insurance) have increased in cost at an even more rapid pace?

Oh well... tough sh** eh? Make better choices in picking your parents next time.


----------



## Vaneyes

Make college football pay for it, and we can still have our wars.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Make college football pay for it, and we can still have our wars.

Sadly true. A recent report in the papers here revealed that at Universities and Colleges in Ohio that field football or basketball teams, tuition is padded out by an average of $750 in fees to subsidize these programs... even if a student never attends a single game. The sole exception was Ohio State which benefits from Big Ten broadcast fees.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Philip said:


> :lol:
> 
> As absurd as it sounds, this used to be the original concept behind the IQ: the quotient of mental age vs actual age. Eg. A person with an IQ of 100 has equal mental and physical age; while a person with an IQ of 150 would be 50% older mentally than physically.
> 
> It is no surprise that this formulation was later abandoned and replaced by a statistical approach, which, even then, isn't universally accepted.


I am not sure...when you are mentally old....Probably when you have much more prejudices...you become old fashion...you become narrow minded...you become dead.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think that only a very limited number of things should be provided at no cost.
> 
> Obviously higher education is not among these. So how do you propose that the individual not born into a wealthy family afford a college education which has become virtually a requirement to attain any real job? When college tuition has increased some 800%+ over the last 15 years how does the child born into poverty escape the cycle? How do they pay for health care when that (and the accompanying health insurance) have increased in cost at an even more rapid pace?
> 
> Oh well... tough sh** eh? Make better choices in picking your parents next time.


Right, because I said that very few things should be provided for free, I totally meant what you said here. You nailed it, dude! Quite adept at the straw man, aren't you?

I fully agree that college tuition has increased at a ridiculous pace here in the U.S. I think one of the reasons for that is similar to the housing crisis - borrowing money got too easy. Government sponsors student loans and pell grants, and since students are becoming more detached from the cost of the education, universities increased tuition at a ridiculous rate - because it was so easy for students to get the student loans. Make it tougher to get those loans, and people would start to realize more just how ridiculously high tuition was. Then you would start to see tuition rates fall back to a reasonable level. Whenever you see government prop up borrowing in a sector, you tend to see costs rising unrealistically, much higher than what the good is actually worth. It might make sense that someone going into medicine have a lot of debt, because they can expect a high paying job afterwards. But what about the individual saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt who is then going to become an elementary school teacher?

But just because the system is screwed up doesn't mean that government should then step in and provide it "free" of charge. How does going from one extreme to the other make sense? You haven't changed the cost of the education, just who is going to pay for it. And yes, my route would probably be painful, but you can't go from irresponsible policies for so long back to responsible policies and expect for the transition to be smooth and painless.

Medical insurance could also be made cheaper if governments didn't mandate so much what everybody has to have covered. Why not set it up like car insurance - allow people to shop across state lines, allow people to opt for what kind of coverage they want to pay for, rather than the typical one size fits all. For example, why should a single male have to buy a health insurance policy that covers mammograms and maternity? Why should a single female have to buy a policy that covers prostate exams? Why should a young person have to buy coverage that covers issues that affect older people? Why can't a younger healthy person purchase a plan that has a high deductible and large co-pay in exchange for lower rates? If they don't anticipate going to the doctor as much, that might be more attractive. In auto insurance, you can opt for either basic collision coverage, or full coverage. And the auto insurance industry manages to make it work.

But no - in your mind there are only two ways this can go - either prices will be ridiculously high, or government has to pay for it all. There can't be any other option. Geeze, and I thought I was supposed to be the one who sees things in only black and white.


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I am not sure...when you are mentally old....you have much more prejudices...you become old fashion...you become narrow minded...you become dead.


The word "prejudice" has gotten a bad rap. The word itself is not bad, but rather how those prejudices allign. For example, I am highly prejudiced against crime. I am highly prejudiced against drugs and alcohol. I believe all those things are bad for individuals and society - that is not wrong. But to be prejudiced against something for irrational reasons would be bad - prejudice based on religion, sexuality, appearance, race, gender - those are bad things.

Yes - older people probably do have more prejudices, but this is most likely due to their greater experience with things and a long life of witnessing things in the world and being able to make informed decisions on what they believe is inherently good and inherently bad. When you are younger, you still have time to experience various things and remain uncommitted as you learn what is of value and what is not. As you get older, you have already learned many of life's lessons, and no longer need to be as open-minded about everything, because you have some better idea of the relative value of things. A young person might feel that it is good to be open-minded about all different philosophies and cultures, as all might have intrinsic value. An older person, having witnessed the relative values of those different philosophies and cultures would have learned that some, in fact, are more valuable and useful than others. Some are easier to identify than others - totalitarian societies are clearly of less value to humanity than liberal societies; classical liberalism and ensuring basic human rights is preferrable to repression and persecution; etc. Some are harder to judge between, and that is where the greater experience plays a role. The human mind is wonderfully designed to be able to analyze the benefits of various options and make decisions. After all, for those who are so ardently in agreement on the reality of anthropogenic climate change and evolution, could they not be described as "narrow minded" in that they discard other possibilities?


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> I am highly prejudiced against drugs and alcohol.


So why do you have a bottle of wine in your avatar...?


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> So why do you have a bottle of wine in your avatar...?


As tribute to my old friend, Almaviva, who is no longer over here on this site.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> As tribute to my old friend, Almaviva, who is no longer over here on this site.


Oh, i see. As a friend, did you try telling him that alcohol was bad for him, and that he should perhaps consult a doctor?


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> Oh, i see. As a friend, did you try telling him that alcohol was bad for him, and that he should perhaps consult a doctor?


He is a doctor. I am certain he was probably well aware of any and all health issues related to the consumption of alcohol. My prejudice against consuming alcohol is also related to my religious beliefs, which he doesn't share.

Is there a point to these questions?


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> He is a doctor. I am certain he was probably well aware of any and all health issues related to the consumption of alcohol. My prejudice against consuming alcohol is also related to my religious beliefs, which he doesn't share.


I am trying to understand your point about prejudice. To sum up, it's fine to hold a prejudice motivated by religion, but it's not right to hold a prejudice against religion? Convenient.


----------



## Ukko

Philip said:


> I am trying to understand your point about prejudice. To sum up, it's fine to hold a prejudice motivated by religion, but it's not right to hold a prejudice against religion? Convenient.


You are generalizing from a narrow train of evidence; a process fraught with potential error.

_DrMike_'s prejudice against against alcohol consumption could be termed 'dogma reinforced by empirical evidence'. The atheist's prejudice against religion could be defined in exactly the same way.

_exactly_ the same.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> I am trying to understand your point about prejudice. To sum up, it's fine to hold a prejudice motivated by religion, but it's not right to hold a prejudice against religion? Convenient.


There is no relationship between the two. The one is the motivation behind the prejudice, the other is the target of the prejudice. Religion, like education, life experience, and similar things, are what informs how we act and interact in this life. My particular religious beliefs prejudice me against certain things, such as: pre-marital sex, infidelity, alcohol, drug, and tobacco consumption, murder, and a variety of other things. My education prejudices me against certain things, particularly my education in my particular field (microbiology/immunology): irrational fear of vaccines, irrational fear of disease spread that is not possible, and other such things.


----------



## Ukko

Please note, _Phillip_, that _DrMike_ and I disagree even here. So it isn't even a matter of 'great minds thinking alike'.

_DrMike_ - :angel:

_Hilltroll_ - :devil:


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> There is no relationship between the two. The one is the motivation behind the prejudice, the other is the target of the prejudice. Religion, like education, life experience, and similar things, are what informs how we act and interact in this life. My particular religious beliefs prejudice me against certain things, such as: pre-marital sex, infidelity, alcohol, drug, and tobacco consumption, murder, and a variety of other things. My education prejudices me against certain things, particularly my education in my particular field (microbiology/immunology): irrational fear of vaccines, irrational fear of disease spread that is not possible, and other such things.


I think your hierarchy of target/motivation is a bit arbitrary. Personally, i treat some of your examples in the opposite way. I don't hold any prejudice against alcohol consumption; I take it pretty objectively, like any drug, the effects are pretty well documented. On the other hand, my education prejudices me against certain things, particularly religion: irrational belief in imaginary figures, unfounded moral guidelines, and other such things.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> I think your hierarchy of target/motivation is a bit arbitrary. Personally, i treat some of your examples in the opposite way. I don't hold any prejudice against alcohol consumption; I take it pretty objectively, like any drug, the effects are pretty well documented. On the other hand, my education prejudices me against certain things, particularly religion: irrational belief in imaginary figures, unfounded moral guidelines, and other such things.


And so you prove the original point that I was trying to make - prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing. You have a prejudice against religion, and you don't view that as a bad thing. You have taken the things that you have learned in your life and judged things based on that.

We only differ in the things that we are prejudiced against. But you certainly wouldn't consider it a negative that you are prejudiced against religion, would you? Or that you are narrow minded as a result?


----------



## Philip

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are generalizing from a narrow train of evidence; a process fraught with potential error.
> 
> _DrMike_'s prejudice against against alcohol consumption could be termed 'dogma reinforced by empirical evidence'. The atheist's prejudice against religion could be defined in exactly the same way.
> 
> _exactly_ the same.


That's what i'm saying, it's all the same. Therefore, old people don't really have any advantage over younger adults, as far as prejudices go. Last time i checked, all the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind were made by young to middle aged adults, not old geezers.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> And so you prove the original point that I was trying to make - prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing. You have a prejudice against religion, and you don't view that as a bad thing. You have taken the things that you have learned in your life and judged things based on that.
> 
> We only differ in the things that we are prejudiced against. But you certainly wouldn't consider it a negative that you are prejudiced against religion, would you? Or that you are narrow minded as a result?


Correct. That's why I thought it was narrow minded of you to say that you wouldn't hold any prejudice against religion... perhaps i misread.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

LOL....LOL Hypocricy makes me laugh...a lot!

Martin


----------



## Ukko

Philip said:


> That's what i'm saying, it's all the same. Therefore, old people don't really have any advantage over younger adults, as far as prejudices go. Last time i checked, all the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind were made by young to middle aged adults, not old geezers.


Aha; you didn't look closely enough to see that geezer who helped the hero get his **** together. But that's OK; we couldn't do what we do without you.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> Correct. That's why I thought it was narrow minded of you to say that you wouldn't hold any prejudice against religion... perhaps i misread.


I don't hold prejudices against religions. Disagreeing I don't think is the same thing, although I recognize that this may very well be a distinction without a difference. I may have prejudices against how certain people act on their religions - for example, I have no prejudice against Islam, but I am prejudiced against extremists who use Islam to justify blowing up dance clubs.

Furthermore, the level to which I am outspoken about my prejudices is directly proportional to how much of an impact those things have on other people. Hence I am much more outspoken about abortion than I am about alcohol consumption. Certainly alcohol consumption can lead to bad things, but a good number of people are able to drink responsibly, and so their consumption does not have that great of an impact outside of themselves. Hence, using the example of Almaviva, I was more prone to have debates with him regarding abortion than the consumption of wine.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> That's what i'm saying, it's all the same. Therefore, old people don't really have any advantage over younger adults, as far as prejudices go. Last time i checked, all the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind were made by young to middle aged adults, not old geezers.


True - many great discoveries and leaps forward were made by younger people, but often harnessing the collected knowledge that was already out there. For example, Watson and Crick, who were relatively young when they determined the structure of DNA (thus unlocking so much of what we know about DNA, genetics, etc.), did so using the observations and knowledge of a great many other scientists - arguably it could have been their fresh approach to looking at the data that made them the ones to put the pieces together. But that doesn't mean that younger people have all the advantages either. And I would be curious to see some kind of list that attributes all the greatest accomplishments to young and middle aged adults. First of all, considering that up until the 20th century, life expectancy was a great deal less than now, the statistics might just be skewed by the fact that there weren't as many people then living to be old geezers, so naturally you would expect the young and middle aged to have more accomplishments. Second, while the greatest accomplishments may well catch most of the attention, that doesn't mean that lesser accomplishments don't also move us along. Consider evolution - rarely do you see major jumps in the genetic make-up. Most of evolution is likely the gradual accumulation of multiple minor changes over a long period of time. Are those less responsible for evolution than some drastic change?

I would argue that geezers tend to be more patient in waiting for results than younger individuals, and are thus more willing to put in the longer effort, as opposed to something exciting and fresh that will achieve instant gratification, but has a higher risk of failure. The young are greater risk takers, while older people are more prone to work with things that have proven track records. They are different approaches to solving problems.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> I don't hold prejudices against religions. Disagreeing I don't think is the same thing, although I recognize that this may very well be a distinction without a difference. I may have prejudices against how certain people act on their religions - for example, I have no prejudice against Islam, but I am prejudiced against extremists who use Islam to justify blowing up dance clubs.
> 
> Furthermore, the level to which I am outspoken about my prejudices is directly proportional to how much of an impact those things have on other people. Hence I am much more outspoken about abortion than I am about alcohol consumption. Certainly alcohol consumption can lead to bad things, but a good number of people are able to drink responsibly, and so their consumption does not have that great of an impact outside of themselves. Hence, using the example of Almaviva, I was more prone to have debates with him regarding abortion than the consumption of wine.


100% d'accord! I agree 100%.

Martin


----------



## Very Senior Member

Philip said:


> Oh, i see. As a friend, did you try telling him that alcohol was bad for him, and that he should perhaps consult a doctor?


 Are you suggesting that he possibly drank too much?


----------



## Very Senior Member

DrMike said:


> He is a doctor. I am certain he was probably well aware of any and all health issues related to the consumption of alcohol. My prejudice against consuming alcohol is also related to my religious beliefs, which he doesn't share. Is there a point to these questions?


 Since you and others have started to talk about relgion in this thread, may I ask with regard to your religion, Mormonism, whether you would you agree that it is possibly more akin to Islam than to mainstream Christianity insofar that it is based on a similar negative attitutude towards issues like gambling and other such "vices" such as the consumption of alcohol, and is also based on a set of further "revelations" long after the NT closed? The reason I ask is that you appear to have become the Forum's principal champion and educator of "Christian" good behaviour and morals, and yet I personally do not find that I have any sympathy for your particualr brand of Christianity, and nor would the vast majority of Christians in the world today who woud see your sect as nothing more than a tiny blip on the religious radar, with weird and highly peculiar views about the nature of Christianity.


----------



## Philip

Very Senior Member said:


> Are you suggesting that he possibly drank too much?


No.
.......


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Very Senior Member said:


> Since you and others have started to talk about relgion in this thread, may I ask with regard to your religion, Mormonism, whether you would you agree that it is possibly more akin to Islam than to mainstream Christianity insofar that it is based on a similar negative attitutude towards issues like gambling and other such "vices" such as the consumption of alcohol, and is also based on a set of further "revelations" long after the NT closed? The reason I ask is that you appear to have become the Forum's principal champion and educator of "Christian" good behaviour and morals, and yet I personally do not find that I have any sympathy for your particualr brand of Christianity, and nor would the vast majority of Christians in the world today who woud see your sect as nothing more than a tiny blip on the religious radar, with weird and highly peculiar views about the nature of Christianity.


Some guys are champions of "Do what I say but do not do what I do"

Martin.....with humor


----------



## Guest

Well, since we actually do consider ourselves to be Christians, my simple answer would be no. However, as I am well known for being verbose, as well as Mormon, I shall elaborate.

Regarding the prohibition of consumption of certain things, this is not unique to Mormonism or Islam. Practicing Catholics have distinct laws regarding what they can consume, particularly on Fridays (no meat). In addition, the other member of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, is also well known for specific laws regulating the consumption of various things. Our religion is also not distinct from other Christian religions in the discouragement of the consumption of alcohol or participation in gambling. There are numerous Christian organizations other than Mormons that are fairly outspoken in their opposition to such things.

Yes, we do believe in further revelations, but that belief is based on biblical doctrines. Revelations to mankind are not a phenomenon linked to a specific period of time, rather to the presence of prophets to communicate those revelations to people. We firmly believe, as it is stated in the book of Amos in the Old Testament, that God will do nothing without first revealing his secrets unto his servants, the prophets. As we believe God continues to work, we believe he also continues to provide revelations. Furthermore, we firmly believe that where there is no vision, the people perish. These are all doctrines that are also shared by Christians.

The distinctions between Mormons and what we will call mainstream Christianity have more to do with the creeds and doctrines introduced after the New Testament and apostolic times. Where we diverge is in adherence to creeds such as the Nicene Creed, and the Apostolic Creed, and such doctrines as that of the Trinity. Those were agreed upon, sometimes hundreds of years following the events of the New Testament.

Why do we believe we are Christians?
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that Christ is the Son of God, we believe in His divinity, we believe that He was the Only Begotten of God in the flesh, was born of Mary, lived, taught, bore upon himself the sins of the world, died for our sins, and then was resurrected on the third day. We believe that He lives, and has made salvation possible to all who will believe in Him and keep His commandments. We believe that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that noone can come to the Father but by Him.

I would ask where our teachings differ from the teachings of the Bible (Old and New Testament) that would make us not Christian, and more akin to Islam? We are followers of Christ.

I don't know that I would call us a blip. I believe our membership is 6 million in the US, and 20 million worldwide. We are one of the fastest growing churches in the US. Are we the largest? Certainly not, and yet considering that our church has not even been in existence for 200 years, we are growing very fast.

I don't claim to be the spokesman for all Christians on this forum. Most who engage me in religious discussions know I am Mormon. I will contend that I am a Christian, and defy anyone who claims to be the arbiter of what is and isn't Christian in defining me as something else. But I don't speak for Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Orthodox in my discussions on religion, and never have claimed to do so. But I will ask where, when debating social issues, such as abortion, or gay marriage, or other issues where religion figures in the discussion, that my views have been unique to Mormons alone among Christian groups. Regarding abortion, I believe that our beliefs are very much in line with many other Christian groups, as well as regarding gay marriage. So with the particular idea of abstinence from alcohol (which I did not attribute to Christianity, nor even mention any particular religion when I first brought it up) set aside, the particular brand of Christianity I have spoken out on on this forum, had you not known I was Mormon, you probably would have no idea that I was Mormon based on my positions. If I tell you that I am anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and generally socially conservative, I could just as easily be a practising Southern Baptist, Catholic, or Evangelical. What have I mentioned on here that people would view as "weird and highly peculiar" as pertains to Christianity?


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Some guys are champions of "Do what I say but do not do what I do"
> 
> Martin.....with humor


Umm, where have I been guilty of this? I don't think that VSM was accusing me of hypocrisy, merely asking whether it would be more accurate to lump Mormonism in with Islam than with mainstream Christianity.

DrMike . . . . confused by your comment.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Well....I am a little Jew here. I firmly believe in God, not in Jesus...even if the guy was so cool.....LOL. I eat pork without any problem nor remorses, I shave my head...I went to a sinagogue once and to the church many times, but I don't believe in any kinds of priests. My wife is Catholic, my two sons are baptized Catholics, but they are virtualy atheist, I'm sad about that.
Religion is the worst for wars. I respect every religion but I don't like extremists of any kind! I live in the XXIth century! I live in my era! No veils, no sh...no nothing! 

Martin, transparent


----------



## Philip

http://imgur.com/eCB97


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> Umm, where have I been guilty of this? I don't think that VSM was accusing me of hypocrisy, merely asking whether it would be more accurate to lump Mormonism in with Islam than with mainstream Christianity.
> 
> DrMike . . . . confused by your comment.


Did I say it was you?

Martin, not-so-confused


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Who said the best things are expensive? My mother always sang this wonderful song. Be patient, it is from a movie...after sing along!






BTW, practice your French a little bit. LOL

Martin


----------



## sabrina

DrMike said:


> As tribute to my old friend, Almaviva, who is no longer over here on this site.


WOW:lol:, I thought you were Almaviva undercover!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I fully agree that college tuition has increased at a ridiculous pace here in the U.S. I think one of the reasons for that is similar to the housing crisis - borrowing money got too easy. Government sponsors student loans and pell grants, and since students are becoming more detached from the cost of the education, universities increased tuition at a ridiculous rate - because it was so easy for students to get the student loans. Make it tougher to get those loans, and people would start to realize more just how ridiculously high tuition was. Then you would start to see tuition rates fall back to a reasonable level.

I think many have recognized just how ridiculously overpriced higher education is in the US for some time now. I paid cash on a monthly pay-as-you-go basis for the two-years of post-graduate professional studies less than 15 years ago. Today I would be hard-pressed to afford the same schooling in spite of the fact that I am now working full time in a professional job. You assume that the schools would lower the tuition if there were enough complaints, and a shrinking number of consumers... but already US schools are turning to foreign students willing to pay the full tuition and attracting these students through employing agents and recruiters overseas. At the same time, the universities keep lobbying for increased requirements for this or that profession. Courses that are little more than a joke are hoisted upon employees in every profession. The universities are equally notorious for forcing students to take endless filler classes and spreading out courses so that a degree or certificate that should have only taken a year or two to attain, now takes 3 or 4.

Whenever you see government prop up borrowing in a sector, you tend to see costs rising unrealistically, much higher than what the good is actually worth.

You have a rather blind faith in capitalism and a belief that if you take the government out of the mix all will be well and right. We've all seen how well that worked over the last decade.

But just because the system is screwed up doesn't mean that government should then step in and provide it "free" of charge.

Again, what you have failed to address is that higher education is virtually a necessity in our modern, poet-industrial world. It would seem to me that an investment in the future through education might be of far greater worth than spending trillions of dollars on a war in the Middle-East, building schools and training teachers (free of cost) in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we saddle our students with a student loan debt that is often an equivalent to an upscale mortgage payment. Years ago we deemed that an Elementary and Secondary education were the right of every citizen (although currently any number of Neo-Cons are doing their best to destroy this as well). The economy has changed. I'm personally of the belief that far, far more should be invested in Elementary and Secondary education... including a far more intense course of study and a broad array of vocational training. The college undergraduate degree should not be a necessity for a great many professions. All too often it seems as if undergraduate courses are merely remedial courses to make up for what should have been learned in grade school. Government support of college certainly shouldn't be a _carte blanche_. There should be clear prerequisites and grade requirements with serious oversight to the current practice of grade inflation.

How does going from one extreme to the other make sense? You haven't changed the cost of the education, just who is going to pay for it. And yes, my route would probably be painful, but you can't go from irresponsible policies for so long back to responsible policies and expect for the transition to be smooth and painless. 

And so we just tell a generation or two of potential students, "Tough luck, kid... get a job in a factory (the ones that no longer exist in this post-industrial economy) and if you live like a monk you just might be able to afford to send your kids to college."


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Whenever you see government prop up borrowing in a sector, you tend to see costs rising unrealistically, much higher than what the good is actually worth.
> 
> You have a rather blind faith in capitalism and a belief that if you take the government out of the mix all will be well and right. We've all seen how well that worked over the last decade.
> 
> But just because the system is screwed up doesn't mean that government should then step in and provide it "free" of charge.
> 
> Again, what you have failed to address is that higher education is virtually a necessity in our modern, poet-industrial world. It would seem to me that an investment in the future through education might be of far greater worth than spending trillions of dollars on a war in the Middle-East, building schools and training teachers (free of cost) in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we saddle our students with a student loan debt that is often an equivalent to an upscale mortgage payment. Years ago we deemed that an Elementary and Secondary education were the right of every citizen (although currently any number of Neo-Cons are doing their best to destroy this as well). The economy has changed. I'm personally of the belief that far, far more should be invested in Elementary and Secondary education... including a far more intense course of study and a broad array of vocational training. The college undergraduate degree should not be a necessity for a great many professions. All too often it seems as if undergraduate courses are merely remedial courses to make up for what should have been learned in grade school. Government support of college certainly shouldn't be a _carte blanche_. There should be clear prerequisites and grade requirements with serious oversight to the current practice of grade inflation.
> 
> How does going from one extreme to the other make sense? You haven't changed the cost of the education, just who is going to pay for it. And yes, my route would probably be painful, but you can't go from irresponsible policies for so long back to responsible policies and expect for the transition to be smooth and painless.
> 
> And so we just tell a generation or two of potential students, "Tough luck, kid... get a job in a factory (the ones that no longer exist in this post-industrial economy) and if you live like a monk you just might be able to afford to send your kids to college."


I reject the premise of your statement about what we have learned over the past 10 years, because despite the rhetoric that has gone around, and the cliches about removing government regulation, we have had nothing remotely resembling free market capitalism. What we have is crony capitalism propped up with government handouts to whatever business they think should be propped up. When the slightest bit of deregulation occurs, people start going into hysterics, claiming we are back to the age of laissez-faire capitalism. Those days are long gone, likely never to be seen again. It is the famous ratchet effect that Thatcher talked about.

Again you create a straw man argument about what I have said. I suppose that makes it easier to debate me. You claim that dropping the demand for education won't do a thing for costs, and a lot of this is due to the high demand from other countries. That may be true, but I also know, especially in graduate level degrees in the sciences, there is a higher demand for American students, because there are more funding opportunities for them, making them cheaper than foreigners. Either way, there are ways to deal with that as well. But simply taking it over and having government provide it free of charge to students won't do a single thing - answer me this, when government steps in and negotiates wages and benefits in any other situation (teacher's unions, government employee unions, etc.) do we typically see the costs go down? Before you do anything else, you have to address the issue of the costs first. Otherwise all your are doing is shifting those ridiculous costs onto the taxpayers - and then you may have people without college educations paying for others to get a free college education at a ridiculously inflated price. Tell me, what is your plan for addressing the costs?


----------



## Philip

"Students in Quebec were asked to send the cops the route of their march. Here's what they replied."










http://imgur.com/tH9Kn


----------



## Ukko

Philip said:


> "Students in Quebec were asked to send the cops the route of their march. Here's what they replied."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/tH9Kn


Figures. Mob morons before they even started. Higher education would be wasted on them.


----------



## Philip

http://imgur.com/7CXjT












http://imgur.com/0Hte6


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Hilltroll72 said:


> Figures. Mob morons before they even started. Higher education would be wasted on them.


I don't agree...bad things are just getting worse...It became a political problem, they want the prime Minister to abdicate...We're fed up of him and his gang. Corruption is becoming general. Many other people are joining the students. This became the "FED UP" march.

Martin, disappointed


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Philip said:


> http://imgur.com/7CXjT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/0Hte6


Where is this?

Martin, skeptic


----------



## Philip

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Where is this?
> 
> Martin, skeptic


Montreal, Gatineau, respectively.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Philip said:


> Montreal, Gatineau, respectively.


Wow!

Martin


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Before you do anything else, you have to address the issue of the costs first. Otherwise all your are doing is shifting those ridiculous costs onto the taxpayers - and then you may have people without college educations paying for others to get a free college education at a ridiculously inflated price. Tell me, what is your plan for addressing the costs?

Again... how do you address these costs? It doesn't seem to me that the private schools and universities are offering anything in terms of tuition that suggests removing governmental support is going to lead to some great savings. Nor is this true even at the grade school level.

Of course... maybe we could find a little money here in the most bloated portion of the US budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

http://costofwar.com/en/


----------



## Ukko

As the wikipedia list shows, the US is funding the defense of all the western countries. So what's new?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

You call this US defence (Brit) or defense (Am)...shouldn't we call that just WAR! The U.S. lives in a perpetual *war*...*Just tell me when and for how long the U.S. were in peace?* *Never* would be the appropiate word? War costs money and lives...But we have to feed the weapon manufaturers! They have a great power! Why spending in Education, indeed war is more important, even if this places the U.S. in a looser looser relationship!



Martin, so angry


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Before you do anything else, you have to address the issue of the costs first. Otherwise all your are doing is shifting those ridiculous costs onto the taxpayers - and then you may have people without college educations paying for others to get a free college education at a ridiculously inflated price. Tell me, what is your plan for addressing the costs?
> 
> Again... how do you address these costs? It doesn't seem to me that the private schools and universities are offering anything in terms of tuition that suggests removing governmental support is going to lead to some great savings. Nor is this true even at the grade school level.
> 
> Of course... maybe we could find a little money here in the most bloated portion of the US budget:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
> 
> http://costofwar.com/en/


Ah yes, just cut military expenditures. That is the solution to every military problem. And yet, we are talking about financial problems in Canada regarding costs of higher education - tell me, what percent of GDP do they spend on defense? Or what about Greece? Will you tell me that their military spending is what has led to their financial downfall? Or Spain? Or Ireland? Or Italy? And who should be covering defense costs? Do you expect the rest of the world will step up and do more if we cut back? They couldn't even handle a regional conflict in the Balkans without our interceding. Or should we just stand by and let more Rwandas and Darfurs occur, and pat ourselves on the back for being more peaceful.

I read a really interesting statement that puts into perspective the relative values between the U.S. and Europe - Europe has for a long time valued peace over freedom, while America has more highly prized freedom over peace. There is a difference - I would hate to live in a peaceful world where so many people lack freedom and are oppressed. Sadly, most of Europe seems more interested in peace at any cost, and so it is often up to us to do the heavy lifting to promote freedom. It was that valuing of peace over freedom that led the leaders of Europe to allow Hitler to overrun the Sudetenland, sacrificing the freedom of others just to have peace.

There used to be a time when Democrats and liberals understood that the price of freedom required defense spending. Where did that party go? Now they are more interested in giving as many handouts as possible. All just to ensure that they have more people voting for them.

But your assumptions make no sense. Colleges are either public, in which case they are run by states (with the exceptions of West Point, the Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy, is there such thing as a federal university), or they are private. States and private institutions do not fund the federal government directly in this way, so there is no connection between the cost of college education and government defense spending. The only way the federal government gets involved is in grants and in loans. These don't serve to reduce costs, they seek to fund. And it seems that student loan spending has gone up since the Carter administration, not down. So even if you were to cut defense spending to 0, that wouldn't impact the costs of education at state or private colleges and universities. The only way you could change this would be to: a) have the federal government force all states to cover the cost of university educations - another unfunded government mandate; b) have the federal government pay for all college and university education - another entitlement program, when we already have deficits in excess of $1 trillion/year. For 2011, total defense spending, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was $700 billion, about 19% of total spending. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security accounted for ~$1.5 trillion, or 43% of spending. Discretionary spending was ~$650 billion, or 18%. Total spending was $3.598 trillion. Total revenues were only $2.303 trillion. That gives us a budget deficit for 2011 of $1.295 trillion. Even if we were to slash defense spending down to 0, we would still be running a budget deficit of $595 billion. So where exactly does the extra money come from for yet another mandate - to fully fund college educations? Do we borrow more from China, and allow them to take the interest they make off of us to build up their military?

So we'll do it your way. We will completely cut defense spending. We are still spending more than we make, and will not have money to pay for college education. Got any other ideas?

Update:
If we were to eliminate the Bush tax cuts on millionaires and above, even the best estimates only predict $500-600 billion over 10 years - so another $50-60 billion/year. That still leaves us, best case scenario, with a budget deficit of $535 billion.

The Millionaires tax (or Buffett Rule) is also predicted to only raise $500 billion over 10 years, so there you have another $50 billion/year, bringing our total deficit down to $485 billion. But then we will start to see the actual costs of the healthcare bill kick in soon, and already we know that the costs are going to be nearly double what we were originally told (nearly $2 trillion over 10 years, so that adds an average of $200 billion/year, so that brings us back up to an average deficit of $685 billion/year even with cutting defense expenditures to 0, eliminating Bush tax cuts for the rich, and passing the Buffett rule).


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> You call this US defence (Brit) or defense (Am)...shouldn't we call that just WAR! The U.S. lives in a perpetual *war*...*Just tell me when and for how long the U.S. were in peace?* *Never* would be the appropiate word? War costs money and lives...But we have to feed the weapon manufaturers! They have a great power! Why spending in Education, indeed war is more important, even if this places the U.S. in a looser looser relationship!
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, so angry


You claim the U.S. is not for peace, and that therefore they are for war. I would suggest, as I have recently read in a book about the Nobel Peace Prize, that the U.S. is for freedom more than they are for peace. Peace is easy to obtain - you just lay down your weapons. But all too often the cost of peace is freedom, and that is a price that Americans are not comfortable paying. To quote Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, he noted "a dissonance between Europe, which historically favored peace over freedom, and America, which has supported freedom over peace."

Going back to the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher once asked, "We speak of peace, yes, but whose peace? Poland's? Bulgaria's? The peace of the grave?"

Lajos Kossuth, the Father of Democracy in Hungary, once declared, "I am a man of peace - God knows how I love peace. But I hope I shall never be such a coward as to mistake oppression for peace."

Only the power hungry dictators truly enjoy war - nobody else does. Everybody else hates it. FDR and Eisenhower both were on record saying they despised war - yet they led our country, both at home, and on the frontlines, during one of the world's greatest conflicts.

You think that the U.S. builds up its military because we don't want peace - no, we build up our military because we want freedom from oppression, and don't ever want to be in a situation where we would have to surrender our freedom. As the state motto of New Hampshire states, "Live free or die." Others, though, value peace over freedom.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Freedom....seems to be an excuse. The actual problems in Europe are caused mainly (as far as I know) by the introduction of the *Euro*...Poor countries trying to keep appareances...France accepted them anyhow, because they don't give a fig about them. 
France and Germany being the most powerful...England was the smartest (again, as far as I know)...and I don't know too much about politics. The prices increased a lot in these countries, trying to make the prices similar all over Europe, but the salaries couldn't follow. Of course, they lent money that they couldn't afford to pay! Shouldn't we redefine FREEDOM? Corea, Vietnam, Kwait, the cold war, Yugoslavia, Irak....(and of course the two big wars). The U.S were always there. Freedom should also be related to peace. I,M.H.O. we shouldn't make war without a real threat...Among the countries I have mentioned, where were the real threats?

Many times other countries asked for help and the U.S. raised their hands: count on us! 
This is very noble cause, but at the same time... It doesn't respond to the real Warrior nature of the U.S.? This is just a question. The U.S. have always considered their country as the centre (center) of the world. It is not any more. Like Rome, the U.S. are declining...Their Empire is coming to an end. Like Rome...soon it will be history. The most powerful country in the world is becoming weaker and weaker.

Be welcome to the third world!

In ten years from now...I'd like you to read this "opinion" again.

He dicho

Martin


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Corea, Vietnam, Kwait, the cold war, Yugoslavia, Irak....(and of course the two big wars). The U.S were always there. Freedom should also be related to peace. I,M.H.O. we shouldn't make war without a real threat...Among the countries I have mentioned, where were the real threats?


Korea - yes, we shouldn't have intervened, then the entire Korean peninsula could be unified and at peace, with the entire peninsula now dying from starvation instead of just half of it.
Vietnam - a wiser man than I once made the observation that when bombs were being dropped all over South Vietnam, the people stayed where they were. It was only after the peace was declared and the North marched into the South that thousands of people took to the ocean in anything that could float to escape. Yessirree, that peace is a wonderful thing.
Kuwait - yes, we should have allowed for peace by letting Hussein march into Kuwait - after all, why should only Iraqis be fed into wood chippers?
The Cold War - well, now, this is kind of repetitive, isn't it, since we have already mentioned Korea and Vietnam. But very well - you go ask the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and Poland whether they preferred the peace living behind the Iron Curtain to what they have now as a result of the successful ending of the Cold War.
Yugoslavia - no threat whatsoever, unless you count ethnic cleansing as a threat. Those people in those mass graves certainly have their peace now, don't they?
Iraq - A mass murderer that used biological weapons against Kurds and Iranians, who invaded a sovereign country to his South, who paid money to the families of people who blew themselves up in discotheques.

When you have things like this going on around the world, and you do nothing about it, it really is kind of hard to argue that you have peace, isn't it? Would you rather that none of the people freed by these military actions should have been freed, that the U.S. should have just sat back and let it all happen, just so we could all pat ourselves on the back and say, "Well, at least we are all at peace."

That logic is just plain wrong. If you know your neighbor is beating his wife, what is the more honorable thing to do - go over and stop it, or just look away, because it is better to have peace on the street? And when he finally beats her to death, do you pride yourself in not having rocked the boat by intervening? Better to let the status quo be? And should you go over and intervene, does that make you a warmongerer?


----------



## Guest

By the way - if one were to accept the premise that the U.S. is in decline now, why should it become a third world country? Would it not be more realistic to assume that it would simply become like other European countries that were once world powers? England? France? Germany? Italy? Why does American decline mean third world? That seems an absurd assumption. In our decline, we are still more powerful than Europe combined - is Europe the third world?

And given that a lot of Canada's prosperity is tied into the U.S., I would be a little worried about the economic situation down here.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

DrMike said:


> By the way - if one were to accept the premise that the U.S. is in decline now, why should it become a third world country? Would it not be more realistic to assume that it would simply become like other European countries that were once world powers? England? France? Germany? Italy? Why does American decline mean third world? That seems an absurd assumption. In our decline, we are still more powerful than Europe combined - is Europe the third world?
> 
> And given that a lot of Canada's prosperity is tied into the U.S., I would be a little worried about the economic situation down here.


I guess you are right.

Vietnam should be a shame for the U.S nonetheless.

http://www.uswings.com/vietnamfacts.asp

Read this a bit.

Just...

58,148 were killed in Vietnam.

75,000 were severely disabled.

23,214 were 100% disabled.

5,283 lost limbs.

1,081 sustained multiple amputations.

Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21.

11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old.

Of those killed, 17,539 were married.

======================================
Who benifited of this? Nobody! Nobody!

American dollar is falling freely...Obama is not so "loved" any more...The honeymoon is over! Here we're not much better, of course! I agree also with this.

Martin, a bit sad


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I guess you are right.
> 
> Vietnam should be a shame for the U.S nonetheless.
> 
> http://www.uswings.com/vietnamfacts.asp
> 
> Read this a bit.
> 
> Just...
> 
> 58,148 were killed in Vietnam.
> 
> 75,000 were severely disabled.
> 
> 23,214 were 100% disabled.
> 
> 5,283 lost limbs.
> 
> 1,081 sustained multiple amputations.
> 
> Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21.
> 
> 11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old.
> 
> Of those killed, 17,539 were married.
> 
> ======================================
> Who benifited of this? Nobody! Nobody!
> 
> American dollar is falling freely...Obama is not so "loved" any more...The honeymoon is over! Here we're not much better, of course! I agree also with this.
> 
> Martin, a bit sad


Quoting casualty statistics is great for pulling on emotions, but what does it really mean? Let's look at World War II:
On the Allied side:
Military deaths - Over 16,000,000
Civilian deaths - Over 45,000,000

On the Axis side:
Military deaths - Over 8,000,000
Civilian deaths - Over 4,000,000

That give a total of over 73 million dead, without even counting other casualties. Does that make WWII less worthy of a war than Vietnam? You can't tell anything about the justification for a war based on the number of casualties.

We were not successful in Vietnam, so that makes it look like it wasn't worth it, but that seems like faulty logic. Had we lost World War II, would that have meant we shouldn't have fought? Victory or defeat does not determine whether the fight should have taken place.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

myaskovsky2002 said:


> ... France and Germany being the most powerful...England was the smartest (again, as far as I know)...and I don't know too much about politics. The prices increased a lot in these countries, trying to make the prices similar all over Europe, but the salaries couldn't follow. Martin


Yes, good point. A central problem with the Euro and the EU taking Germany as an example too, was the freezing of its wages. Labour mobility in a borderless zone, especially of lesser skilled jobs would not be able to compete with each other in terms of wage for a common job in Germany versus, say Greece. I have never thought a common currency was a sensible idea.


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Freedom....seems to be an excuse.


I would also say that freedom is never an excuse. Only people who have never known the lack of it would make such a statement. Too often, people who have enjoyed freedom have dismissed the oppression of others because they don't want to be troubled . . . they want peace.

It almost seems a mockery to hand out peace prizes when so many people in the world still live in oppression.


----------



## Guest

To quote a great American Revolutionary, Patrick Henry, 
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> We were not successful in Vietnam, so that makes it look like it wasn't worth it, but that seems like faulty logic. Had we lost World War II, would that have meant we shouldn't have fought? Victory or defeat does not determine whether the fight should have taken place.


US involvement in Vietnam was _obviously_ driven by blind Anticommunism, less obviously but clearly by the plutocrats. It was a stupid waste of human lives, except that it allowed the plutocrats to form a useful wedge between the middle class and the working class, between the fundamentalist Right and the liberal left. Your guys actually won that thing, _DrMike_.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ah yes, just cut military expenditures. That is the solution to every military problem. And yet, we are talking about financial problems in Canada regarding costs of higher education - tell me, what percent of GDP do they spend on defense? Or what about Greece? Will you tell me that their military spending is what has led to their financial downfall? Or Spain? Or Ireland? Or Italy? And who should be covering defense costs? Do you expect the rest of the world will step up and do more if we cut back?

Ah... so the fact that excessive military spending is not the cause of the financial problems of other countries justifies our continued waste of money in an inane attempt to police the rest of the world? Do I expect the rest of the world to step up and spend more if we cut back? No. Why should they?

They couldn't even handle a regional conflict in the Balkans without our interceding.

Let's put it this way: F*** the Balkans. Why is it our responsibility? You don't give a s*** about your fellow Americans who can't afford health care and can't send their kids to college. Faced with those expenses you moan about who is going to be saddled with increased taxes... yet you are willing to saddle us with the cost of policing the world. For what reason. So that we can brag that we have the biggest military p enis?

Or should we just stand by and let more Rwandas and Darfurs occur, and pat ourselves on the back for being more peaceful.

Yep. That's exactly what we should do. I don't see anyone else rushing about sacrificing trillions of dollars and the lives of their citizens (so glad you're willing to cavalierly offer up our poorly educated youth to meaning wars around the globe).

I read a really interesting statement that puts into perspective the relative values between the U.S. and Europe - Europe has for a long time valued peace over freedom, while America has more highly prized freedom over peace. There is a difference - I would hate to live in a peaceful world where so many people lack freedom and are oppressed.

Unfortunately what you have offered here is little more than (to quote Sid) a false dichotomy. There are a great deal of limitations on freedoms being imposed on citizens in the US that do do exist in many other countries. Our treatment of minorities is egregious and we don't really need to speak of issues such as gay rights and marriage. But then you are quite right... Americans are more free in some ways. They are free to choose to pay for health care or for food. They are free to spend their lives laboring at Wal-Mart or some other underpaid job because they cannot afford a better education. Freedom is irrelevant if the quality of life deteriorates. Freedom is irrelevant to those who died in some stupid war in the Middle-East with no point except to assure you the freedom to keep filling up you Hummer.

Sadly, most of Europe seems more interested in peace at any cost, and so it is often up to us to do the heavy lifting to promote freedom.

Yep... those poor Europeans... living under such oppression.

It was that valuing of peace over freedom that led the leaders of Europe to allow Hitler to overrun the Sudetenland, sacrificing the freedom of others just to have peace.

Unfortunately your whole notion of the noble American fighting for freedom is no more than a load of bunk. Nearly every war we have fought has been about the same thing that war has always been about: power... control... and wealth. We didn't enter into the Vietnam War with the intention of offering greater freedom to the Vietnamese. The South Vietnamese government was every bit as oppressive as the North. We went in intending to flex our muscle in Asia. We went into the wars in the Middle-East for the sole purpose of maintaining the flow of oil... nothing more.

But your assumptions make no sense. Colleges are either public, in which case they are run by states (with the exceptions of West Point, the Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy, is there such thing as a federal university), or they are private. States and private institutions do not fund the federal government directly in this way, so there is no connection between the cost of college education and government defense spending. The only way the federal government gets involved is in grants and in loans. These don't serve to reduce costs, they seek to fund. And it seems that student loan spending has gone up since the Carter administration, not down. So even if you were to cut defense spending to 0, that wouldn't impact the costs of education at state or private colleges and universities.

When the Federal Government makes deep cuts into the amount of money available to each state, the states have been forced to slash their support to any number of services... education being one of the hardest hit. The moronic implementation of a tax cut while conducting a war and the continued tax cuts for the wealthy during a time when property values (and thus tax revenues) have tanked have all added to this. While everyone else is ponying-up and tightening their belt... this has not been true of military spending. What many fail to recognize is that excessive military spending... beyond what they could reasonably afford... is what led to the economic and political collapse of the Soviet Union.


----------



## Guest

You don't feel the need to back up your financial claims with any facts? would you just add more in deficit spending for yet another entitlement?
I'm not going to debate war with you. It is pointless. But I presented you with the numbers on military spending, and how cutting them completely as well as introducing all the tax increases Democrats propose will not close our budget deficit. You presented military spending as one of the great obstacles to more entitlement spending, andI showed that eliminating it gets you nowhere close to being able to afford universal college educations, and you totally ignore it. So what other great ideas do you have for making college free?


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> Korea - yes, we shouldn't have intervened, then the entire Korean peninsula could be unified and at peace, with the entire peninsula now dying from starvation instead of just half of it.
> Vietnam - a wiser man than I once made the observation that when bombs were being dropped all over South Vietnam, the people stayed where they were. It was only after the peace was declared and the North marched into the South that thousands of people took to the ocean in anything that could float to escape. Yessirree, that peace is a wonderful thing.
> Kuwait - yes, we should have allowed for peace by letting Hussein march into Kuwait - after all, why should only Iraqis be fed into wood chippers?
> The Cold War - well, now, this is kind of repetitive, isn't it, since we have already mentioned Korea and Vietnam. But very well - you go ask the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and Poland whether they preferred the peace living behind the Iron Curtain to what they have now as a result of the successful ending of the Cold War.
> Yugoslavia - no threat whatsoever, unless you count ethnic cleansing as a threat. Those people in those mass graves certainly have their peace now, don't they?
> Iraq - A mass murderer that used biological weapons against Kurds and Iranians, who invaded a sovereign country to his South, who paid money to the families of people who blew themselves up in discotheques.
> 
> When you have things like this going on around the world, and you do nothing about it, it really is kind of hard to argue that you have peace, isn't it? Would you rather that none of the people freed by these military actions should have been freed, that the U.S. should have just sat back and let it all happen, just so we could all pat ourselves on the back and say, "Well, at least we are all at peace."
> 
> That logic is just plain wrong. If you know your neighbor is beating his wife, what is the more honorable thing to do - go over and stop it, or just look away, because it is better to have peace on the street? And when he finally beats her to death, do you pride yourself in not having rocked the boat by intervening? Better to let the status quo be? And should you go over and intervene, does that make you a warmongerer?


Let me get this straight:

1. You witness "injustice".
2. You invade in the name of "freedom".
3. You make things worse, kill a bunch of civilians, and then leave.
4. You have done a better thing than doing nothing.

Also, in your world there are no foreign policy alternatives to direct military invasion?

And, how you manage such love of freedom with your willingness to be dominated by that old galactic genocidal dictator, God.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

This thread has careened severely off-topic.

Couldn't help noticing the "getting personal" and obscenity/vulgarity, as well.

Imagine our surprise (not).

The conversation (if it can be called that) has proven to be an object-lesson in the wisdom of our enjoinder to take these issues to the Social Groups.

This thread is closed.


----------

