Scott Mayers

I just saw this on the news too. I already have problem with the fact that all our government websites are actually privately owned. This enables them to moderate it with respect to an unidentified group (anonymous) themselves to which I find troubling. As to this issue, I haven't seen the commenting, but think that they CAN set it up to be accountable by making the site government owned, require signing up non-anonymously with some identifying means (like a phone number) and have them non-moderated. I find the moderation to any degree on government sites a form of prevention of free speech. The editor commented that he (and the board) decided to suspend this for a couple of months until they can find a more forceful moderation. Regardless, to any degree, this is limiting freedom of speech. It is already bad enough that the other media is as much too moderated and consolidated in the hands of select establishment concerns. (Ontario and Quebec, for the most part). The editor also commented that for ALL comments of dissent, they were either (1) outright hate, (2) 'ignorant' but still hateful, and (3) 'ignorant', hideously dressed up as friendly but still hateful. I question this even though I recognize that this does occur. I've already mentioned some of my own dissent with our Multiculturalist policy in preferred favor for the American Integration because our's is based on creating laws that interpret causes of real problems as solely due to racial or ethnic differences when the problems are almost always about differences of economy. Favoring culture/ethnicity as the means to address the real problems only create discrimination against those without these even in the same real conditions. This is a sad announcement. And I'm ashamed of the CBC for it.

This is interesting....but 75 pages long. I'll need to have time to read before responding in depth but seem to understand some of the concerns as I think it relates to our circumstances here in Canada too. I like so far that Moynihan appears to be suggesting an indirect approach to solve the problems associated with poverty of an ethnic class by focusing on its logical class (poverty) rather than to deal directly with one's cultural background, something I too find problematic here with Multiculturalism . As to the suggestion dealing with focusing on getting men to have sustenance is more about the fact that in all of our world we still treat "women" as a social class combined with the innocence of the class, "children". This universal cultural bias is what contributes to the problem. For instance, if we consider the population of those incarcerated in jails, the more common denominator involves single parenthood of which women are the ones who often take this role. Should this not suggest that even women (the single mothers) are as much a contributor to the very stereotypes against both men and women AND that since they are the ones raising the men who end up incarcerated, are they NOT likely a direct contributors to the problems? I'll have to read this whole article before fairly commenting on Moynihan. But thanks, Michael, for introducing this one. I think it may help in making sense of some of the other threads discussing similar concerns of many issues of discrimination/prejudice.

By the titles you favor though, I get the impression which reminds me of the multitude of pop-psychology, new age, or motivational garb promoting things in steps. The (X-number) steps to improve your life, the (X) keys to success, How you can lose 100 pounds in 30 days, etc... This 'sells' or appeals to those who MAY lack a skill in actual critical thinking or who wants an easy solution to some problem. But I find this hints at those who like lists and wants to follow or be followed. Before even attempting any of this, let me ask you what you even think is "good" or "evil"? Are these marked in the universe as absolutes somewhere? ...by something (like a god)? ...by nature? You can't simply assume we all agree to these terms and why you need to define what you mean up front. Note that the John verse is a Christianized reinterpretation of origins from Judaism. And Judaism also received their sources from Egypt and other stories. Writing on paper or inscribing in stone were like wonders of the ancient times as it was to many in even many tribal cultures up to the last few centuries. It was like interpreting advanced scientific math for many today. How, did they ask, does this capacity to place marks on paper or stone seem to effectively transfer ideas with such clarity by those scribes or readers who could replicate another person's ideas? And to even those of the 1500 B.C. Egyptians, the Pyramids and writings of the past were from an equally distant ancient time as they are to us now! That is, the pyramids and surviving stone scripts or writings were ancient to those like King Tut or Akenaten. These were the days that inspired the old testament and are also the era to which paper (or papyrus) writing began in. Thus, the very records of the ancients came down to them in symbols or orally passed down stories. While words are certainly powerful, they misinterpreted much of what was likely intended as a means to communicate secular (non-religious) ideas down through the use of stories that 'cartooned' the original meanings in entertaining ways to help them remember. Thus, I don't consider numbers and words as trivial in the least. What I DO think is the problem is to interpret the evolution of words (including those regarding number) as somehow transcending some clear truth of history based on our contemporary interpretation of them today. The ancients were just as likely as 'secular' minded then as many are today when these sources were first recorded. But what has survived would have been too simplified because the average person back then did not read nor write. So, much of the words or symbols were over-simplified and also severely generalized to appeal to the masses with an intentional means to both be interpreted broadly and to entertain. To your (1) above, Human civilization is neither 'good' nor 'evil' other than your perception that these qualities exist in nature itself. But if you've studied history, you'd also see that we go through stages as well as cycles where what is considered relatively 'good' in one era becomes 'evil' in another. We also lose the history of the defeated as many new generations believed in destroying the old records in disgust of their own then present interpretation of history. Thus, for example, the Old Testament treats things like Palestine as the "promised land". Yet, if you look and read contextually and consider the times, the actual "promised land" to those of the writers of what came down to us as "Genesis" likely favored Egypt (the land of 'ham' -> Abraham means "father to 'Ham" when he arrived as opposed to Abram as "father before it" [likely from the north or (A)syrria]). The point of this example is to show that what we assume was one history cannot be so certain. I also noticed that the focus of Genesis, for example, was to demonstrate the error of these people who took presence in Egypt with apparent 'good' intent only to have caused 'bad' things upon the people there. "Good" and "evil" are thus flipped on its end. The original Assyrians (Hebrew/Jews) who generally 'conquered' Egypt that was heightened as the reign of Akenaten, was intended to be 'good' but imposed a closed and fixed interpretation of truth to which caused the uproar against that leadership and the eventual expulsion from there. Palestine was only the last refuge and remnants of that age as a reconsidered prize of a "promised land" because of their recognized error (or defeat) in trying to conquer the Egyptians. This relates to your belief in advancing civilization through some apparent 'good' means often defeats itself in practice. We are still not any more 'good' as a society than the Assyrians who thought that their 'god' (God of Abram/Abraham) was the arbiter of "goodness". And so the cycle continues. [ironically under the latest banner of the (As)Syrians today through ISIS] Again, this is merely your interpretation and I personally believe that it has missed the mark of the original lessons of even the bible in its likely original intent. Many in that day were somewhat Multicultural in that as travelers in the Middle East, they had to respect other's 'gods' or ancestral leaders, etc. When Joseph (or others?) heard a 'voice' from the heavens (or likely authority through people) commanding him, he asked, "who (or which) god are you" to which he received the response, "I am who I am" in a sarcastic way to say it is not important. The term "YWYH" was a mere way of saying this or to emphasize that it lacked any 'supreme' significance over any other. This term was likely more localized as "I, source" or "I am the egg" [Ye Ovah/ovum or Je ovah in reference to life we think of coming from that oval-shaped thing like the sun as to an egg of many animals.] The story was likely symbolic and merely tried to communicate to its listeners that this source was not owned by any culture. Yet the mistake was that this was improperly interpreted to mean by these biblical characters that they were destined to dictate that only one source was 'true'. Historically, though lost in time, this was probably Akenaten (= a kin or the same as to the shape of the source or aten, meaning the sun). When the Assyrians took on Egypt, Genesis explained that the family fortuned through Isaac had loaned to Egypt in bad times what was previously gifted to Isaac in a previous time from the Egyptians who welcomed them. This backfired as the loans were backed by promises to relieve the average Egyptians in desperation of their ownership. They rebelled and expelled this government represented by its "Moses" (= leader = Akenaten) and why in Tut's reign this whole society threw them out. But it was relatively calm and respectful initially. Akenaten's people had relocated their capital (literally) to the desert for what was one generation (40 years). Agree or disagree, the 'spiritual' conflict was about the conflict of interpreting what is 'good' or 'evil' in some fixed and certain way. THIS was the error to which was likely intended to be passed down when written to what eventually became the remnants of those earlier 'wanderers' that coexisted among the settled in the whole of the middle east. This is fine on its surface. At least what I'm saying here may contribute in kind. Here is where you make another error that was likely understood with more secular roots to ancient peoples. When Moses' character, represented by the expulsion of the Assyrian/northern migrants from Egypt through Akenaten (or caricature of his likeness), had been forced from Egypt altogether, they likely took with them remnants of the almost destroyed remains of Akenaten's reign (an obelisk? or set of stone dictates or commandments of his), they carried this in an amphibious boat/sled or "Ark" to which represented the moses' commandments. To maintain the loyalty of these people and their return to 'wandering' (= non-land ownership), they resisted the symbolism which represented the very 'ownership' markers of such land -- the idols. Idols back then were merely mapped markers of tribal associations that had a matching idol buried in plots of fixed properties. This was a means to assure which tribe or individual 'owned' which plot of land. It acted as a proof or signature to the claim. Civilization (settling) was still relatively new to which both coexisted with the transient lifestyle but also caused problems because of it. A tribe would often lead the original transient life of hunting and gathering during most of the year but only return to the lands they held seasonally as society was being formed. As such, there was a 'conservative' feel to the tribal wanderers that became more and more distinct from those people who settled into towns and villages with more permanence. Much of the 'wanderers' were rejects of the very people who settled. Like the clash of civilized Europeans to the North American tribal lifestyles, these were irreconcilable unless one or the other lifestyle was preferred over the other. The 'wanderers' became the "Jew" (which likely derived from the same idea. Like a wadi, where the rains are plentiful, these dry creeks fill up with water an draw in crowds until they dry up again just as one who wander's like the old tribal lifestyles.) The abandonment of the idols were more likely a demarcation of the ancient wanderer against the strict formality of claiming and settling land, not simply about any 'gods' they represent. They represented 'gods' only in the interpretation of these as symbolic reminders of their rooted tribes. And so by abandoning them was a form of agreement to despise what they represented as legitimate claims to land ownership. It has only come down to us as improperly suggesting an abandonment of 'gods' as we understand them. Also, in a symbolic way too, it delegitimizes the formalized function of settled civilization that these idols represented. They were of the very "fixed" idea of what is 'true' or legitimate in kind to what one might think of is one 'true' God. While it is now perverted to make the ancient wanderers (Jews) appear as devout to some particular god, it is just as likely that they fostered the very abandonment to which their last generation had thought to equally imposed upon the Egyptian masses prior by trying to make them conform to one specific 'god'. It's funny how the lessons get flipped through time. But this only proves once again how we as society never seem to settle on what is supposedly 'good' or 'true'. The 'violence' is often just as hard not to realize comes in the form of the apparent passivity of those who think they are 'good'. This again was the lesson of Genesis. They 'thought' they were being helpful in trying to 'save' the Egyptians in the turmoil of economic disaster by loaning them what they needed. But it turned out to require those they were 'helping' to relieve themselves of the property to which they felt they had a historical link to. Thus, the Egyptians felt they were not being 'helped' but rather exploited, similar to what again occurred in Germany in more recent times. The 'aboriginal' settled populations in times of desperation are forced to make severe sacrifices to those they believed were foreign new-comers. While you might think this is simply the fault of nature or to the aboriginal population, the same can be said of the wanders of Egypt who then later reclaimed Palestine in their own belief of aboriginality (ironically, the present state of Israel does this in distinctly the same way). We all continue this cycle of claiming stake to something whether it be 'truth' or 'real estate' until the nature or our environment of politics steals these from the last generations of people through concentrated authoritative hands. Then as the masses of impoverished grow, they too rebel and get interpreted as terrorists who then desperately fight in extreme ways. These non-owning peoples are no different than the ancient wanderers who get denied their means of survival. They either have to fight, lay down and die, or to go elsewhere to find new settlement...often in places that they again treat them as foreigners attempting to conquer them. Does this at least inspire you in any way? Don't take my interpretation as literal though. I might repeat, "I am only who I am" too. I mean that I could be mistaken and not authoritative on this. I am no god. But I'm sure if this writing survives in another thousand years, someone who might come across this will likely misinterpret this as coming from one too.

If you ask an American who was 'from' an ancestor of Ethiopia or their Nationality, they'd respond, "America" or "American". If you ask an American who was 'from' an ancestor of Scotland or their Nationality, they'd respond, "America" or "American". If you ask an American who was 'from' an ancestor of the Andromeda Galaxy, they'd respond, "America" or American". Etc.. Even the aboriginal-decedents in the States would say this too. If they DO qualify more specifically, it is "American-X" where the X stands for that root. If you ask a Canadian who was 'from' an ancestor of Scotland or their Nationality, they'd respond, "Scotland" or "Scottish". ... But if adding the qualification of our country at present to which you'd think our nationality should respect, they would revers the way the Americans would additionally qualify. I am a Native Canadian, I am a Scottish Canadian, I am an X-Canadian (sounds like Ex-Canadian, doesn't it?)

You seem fixated on numbers on everything you post. Is there a reason for your compulsion? Oh, wait... I just noticed your signature regarding "private tutoring of math". But how do you propose religious ideology has anything to do with math? I certainly would not have my kid being sent to you for math in your apparent neglect to differentiate these ideas. Perhaps you should define yourself as a Religious tutor that uses 'math' in your particular philosophy. But don't paint yourself as a mathematics tutor or you are purposely intending deception. Math is NOT emotive. You can't use your human emotions to define a study that relates numbers regardless of human feelings (like 'good' or 'evil') to your religious/spiritual ideology. Do you believe in 'good' or 'evil' numbers too? This WAS a common belief among many ancients only due to confusion of understanding reality prior to further investigation. In ancient times, words had appeared to be magical because they seemed to differentiate how we are as opposed to other animals. So many thought that "In the beginning was the Word". But it was likely originally a means by our ancient ancestors that since authority was commanded by words, whatever had 'caused' reality would be as to a command in what we now call "laws". There 'gods' were neutral and only meant "the unknown factor or source". The idea of the latter emotive assignment of "good" to this entity, was a human idea. The very root of the term, "God" was their literal transference to assign this source as "good". That is, the term, "God" actually meant "good", not the other way around. This is why the Old Testament's Genesis kept repeating that for all this "source" [YWYH -> Je-Ovah -> literally, "the ovum or egg" for a word meaning any "source"] merely assigned a default value that appealed to what we value life as being a 'good' thing rather than nothing at all. Numbers were also used then in sync with their phonetic alphabets. Thus "A" might be used to also mean '1', "B" might be used to represent '2', etc. Only later had many who were awed at the symbols upon things like stone (ancient even by their standards), made some interpret that the very permanence of such ruins must have been of the original creators of their present reality at the time. Some also confused that since the symbols relating to their phonetic alphabet were also used as counts (numbers), they presumed that their "sources" must have had a magical meaning to associate a phonetic symbol to a number. Why would a symbol like "A" also be associated with meaning a '1' when those symbols appeared arbitrary UNLESS they had some 'meaning'? Thus Numerology evolved as a religious belief that there was some correlation between numbers and human history or their use in words. You appear to be a numerologist in the same light. So my question to you is how do you relate anything you speak of here about human matters to numbers? I'm not asking you whether numbers matter. I am asking you how you seem to think that numbers have some magical relationship to things like politics or other human social affairs other than as mere non-emotional/non-spiritual concepts. You are appearing to impose significance of our accidental history of this world's assignments of symbols of numbers to the actual meanings of them regardless of our history.

I don't like the quote features here. "What are you talking about? According to a report from the parliamentary budget officer income inequality in Canada stopped rising in 2006, and has been narrowing since then - unlike in the United States where it continues to widen." Income 'inequality' can occur when the average becomes poorer too! But I'm skeptical of this declaration and would have to see the actual stats and how they were created to determine this and to what that could mean. Our society is in an economic downfall right now and the only 'winners' of the Conservatives is to the real estate/mortgage/construction industries taking advantage of the propped up population via temporary employment laws. "I have no idea what this is even meant to say" The Americans may favor our oil but it would make their already cheap oil cheaper! It would thus possibly create more secondary industries there but the net result would require laborers working in these new industries to be paid that much more cheaper and thus reduce the average person's capacity to survive at present as they are still recovering. "No, not so much. They're more concerned with the money donated by environmental groups." Are you proposing that the Democratic Party is simply without any standard ideals? I understood liberal parties always more interested in global and economic groups as this is a function of their ideal towards the whole. So declaring your statement is more what a conservative party would do as in "Conservatives are more concerned with the money donated by every corporations". What 'gain' do any independent environmental groups have compared to the power and dominance of corporations (who aim to capitalize financially)?

I'm not reading the 440 + posts here to catch up. I'm glad Obama turned this down. Although it is claimed that this is simply about environment with utmost significance, there is also both economic and political concerns here with regards to other factors. (1) The American Democrats have to be cautious of enabling the ease to Canadian's impulse towards more conservative politics that favor expedient benefits for monopolizing wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people as we act with more force to trade in raw non-renewable resources. The Americans would no doubt actually favor our oil but it comes at the expense of both our own economy in Canada in the future as well as to foster an even cheapening price for American industries who would only end up exploiting American labor with more demand for cheaper and cheaper unsustainable labor. (2) The Democrats are as much more concerned about affairs in other countries as they are to their own in contrast to the Republican ideal to simply do what it takes to always favor their own over other's interests. It was this latter attitude to which has fostered such hatred among the world against the U.S. for so long. To start paying attention to fairness in International stages, Obama is demonstrating the compassion towards others as much to appropriately represent how their own founding ideals concerned their own people. Thus the better concern for environmental factors as well. For us, now, we need to begin using our own resources to foster our own manufacturing and other industries rather than lose them to the benefit of others. It may appear 'good' while we already have resources. But these will eventually be gone and then what do we have to support ourselves then?

The problem with this OP is that any of the stats that relate to aggregate measures based on genetics is precisely why the problems occur in the first place. That is, it is the very ignorant classification to use genetic markers to pinpoint concerns in ones' economic conditions that is the problem. Poverty or other related social generic problems in any society will always have some ethnic or cultural plurality within that logical class who are over represented. Men are over-represented in prisons. Does this mean that there is something intrinsic about men to be more morally culpable? NO. More likely, the same population of culpability is equally dispersed by both sexes. I don't see those who favor advancing laws to balance out other genetic ethnic factors through things like quotas willing to reason that we should put more women in jail simply to appropriately balance this kind of discrimination in practice. Nor would I suggest this. But if we found means to demonstrate culpability by women who favor INDIRECT means to behave criminally, we'd likely fill in those missing stats on women prisoner populations. As for those of us white men who argue for individual injustices that demonstrate samples of how such claims of "white privilege" are not true for us, this is intended to show how the very classification of basing struggle via race, ethnicity, or other genetic factors are not appropriate. The actual benefactors of most attending to the "white privilege" argument are just as much the very actual privileged whites who have real advantages in their own ethnic class based on their own family's actual participation in what gave them their worth from the past. As such, it is convenient to appeal to ethnicity as the 'cause' to both keep their own power and to distribute the debt upon those whites who are simply not benefiting. In other words, these very wealthy whites 'sacrifice' the poor or suffering whites while encouraging even more divisive strengthening of ethnic/genetic groupings. They both save themselves AND appeal to the other ethnic groups who want empowerment at the expense of at least some outsiders. I feel this as a poor white male as I both get discriminated against the very "white privileged" AND to the all other races or ethnicities. By my 'peer' members in the same impoverishment or suffering through the same conditions, I get discriminated on the an unspoken bias of an assumption that I'm withholding some hidden bank account with millions. And by 'whites', I am discriminated by being exploited where I am more desperate economically as I am assumed that if I already don't have at least an average comfort, it must be because I am naturally unworthy or not trying hard enough. I've been told by some friends that I have to look at the 'big picture'. Yet this 'big picture' is about sacrificing me for the debts of the actual ones who should be liable to the causes of any potential discrimination. It's no surprise to me that there are often more individual "white" disgruntled men who react with more unusual violence because of this. It is the biggest scam of things like our "Multicultural " policy intended to preserve this politically. I hear things like, "We are ALL Treaty People", and think, wait a second, I don't even believe in setting up a system of Reserves we use to preserve animals and treat them as distinct beings; why would I honor maintaining any agreements that only Conserve this blatantly racist policy? Should we not be trying to integrate rather than segregate? Wasn't that the lesson of the American Civil War against slavery? Fuck, are people really this stupid?! If I appear angry here, some will no doubt point at this as "proof" of the very racism in return. Yet I assure you, I don't favor any group based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc, INCLUDING the "white" population I just happened to be genetically related to ancestrally. The true danger lies in those who actually appear to be supporting the cause of "diversity" as they hide that this is not about any LOVE for all others, but rather a strict loyalty and LOVE of their own group....what we call, pride.

I only discovered this topic now and so what I may say may already been hashed out by others. First off, this video is clearly an anti-liberal political viewpoint as it makes the woman speaking appear drastically off in how she would likely respond realistically. (I find the conservative speaker usually more candid in this respect [think Donald Trump]) I AM for the position of this video even being most liberal politically. Yet I think it deserves a proper inspection of how we as a society classify things that often tend more towards ethnicity or race as the distinguishing factor to attend to when solving the actual problems. In this video, the conservative thinker there presented how that particular type of liberal clearly acted contradictory to how she interpreted what is 'fair' or not to the different expedient concerns of groups. It appears that where a cultural/ethnic group in a minority is losing in some measure based on plurality of being a larger representative of some bad concept, like poverty, they deserve to be granted affirmative laws that grant them a leg up, yet where their benefits are innately represented in another area (sports, for instance), she would ignore the relevance by contrast. Treating societal problems based upon ethnicity or culture, however, IS the very causes that initiated these differences in the first place. I relate the American Affirmative action to our Multicultural ones here with one major exception: that at least the American system's use of Multiculturalism through its "Affirmative Action" is a localized or temporary one in contrast to our constituted ones in laws here in Canada. That is, I see that the American ideal of Affirmative Action is NOT intended to be a permanent fixture in law through time and it suggests that they too (or most of them) are not strictly not cognizant of the problems that the conservative male in this video is apparently suggesting. It is likely more about the expediency in practice to which many may believe is an inevitable short-term means to create the desired equality. And in this respect, for the charity I am granting to liberalism, it MAY be necessary to do this yet am still preferentially hesitant. I certainly disagree with our own Canadian constitutionalizing of Affirmative Action for select pluralities through what we call, "Multiculturalism" (as opposed to a simple "Intercultrualism" idea) because I believe it will always lead to strengthening Nationalism as a function based upon ethnicity and always will lead to worse outcomes in another future time. This is my fear for Canada as we are embracing this whole heartedly by most of ALL parties here. So, for others, do you agree that the real problem lies with how we classify a social problem inappropriately by attending to one's ethnic or cultural heritage as some representative of some sub-majority rather than to deal with the classes that are defined by the very problem we are intending to tackle? Example: If ethnic Group X is the majority of Impoverished People, is it appropriate to create laws that address the concerns of Group X or should we better address the issue of ALL people who are of the class, Impoverished People to be fairer?

I am atheist but recognize that there is value in scriptures with respect to interpreting the past as they did in a secular light. I believe that much of past scriptures actually did treat reality as secularly interpreted but as time passes, people lose the actual understanding of this. In the example you give here, I tend to disagree. I think flood stories were derived upon interpretations of fossils and other observations that have been lost where literally recorded. It would have been a mystery to them to see fish fossils in places relatively far from their contemporary bodies of water. Also, they would have had sufficient evidence of the dinosaur fossils that would not have been preserved to us today. In fact, they likely had a lot more of this back then that we do today. This would have suggested that such giant beasts must have met some unknown end as they do not exist. Therefore, they both interpreted the world as arising from water first, had some stage of life that appears to have disappeared and thus needed a flood story to explain this. So flood stories would be a normal intellectual evolution in many areas of Earth independently. The Middle East was a point of commerce and trade among various continents and peoples. Thus the data from various regions would have been more common and influenced how they likely derived scripture that intended to explain things that collectively explained their wisdom of the day. AND, it would have been a relatively secular one when initially written/recorded, not the dumb unintellectual religious fanatic we interpret them to be from our perspective looking back on them historically.

[i hate the software of this site. I keep forgetting that you have to sign in before posting and lose what I expended on writing. They should fix this to at least save one's work to allow them to sign in or remove the post button unless you ARE signed in.] I see the advantages and disadvantages of varying systems. But not all are equal. In our Canadian system, our constituent MPs who get elected favor only those who favor their party. In contrast, the American 'representative' is free to deal with their constituents independently and makes them way more democratic. Also, the Americans can create a petition to a create a bill and it can act to allow the public a true means to participate in politics that 'skip' the party differences as such bills act on particular issues. Here in Canada, a petition has no force as it requires only the politicians to decide whether they care to bother with it. Thus our system is party-dependent and acts more strict. Another major contention I have with our system is how we classify issues based on 'culture' inappropriately to issues that relate to individuals without respect to culture. For instance, we classify poverty as a function of culture; the Americans classify poverty as poverty. The distinction is about the difference between the significance to whom we consider is the true minority. In the States, the individual is the ultimate minority, even while other groups are also recognized. Here we think that only groups are the significant minority and base them arbitrarily on heritage. It makes our system disrespectful of individuals and change. On 'change', this means we think that one's historical roots should be conserved. And to me, this makes our system ironically more conservative than the Americans. Even with a conservative government in the States, progress is still more probable as they are more easy to adapt to changes through time given their present environment.

Logic: (1) Some who are mentally ill are some of those that have access to guns (2) Some who have access to guns are some of those who use guns to kill (illegally) (Con) Some who are mentally ill MAY BE some of those who use guns to kill (illegally) This suggests no logical link between the mentally ill and to those who use guns to kill. Note that the "MAY BE" is required as this doesn't logically assure any overlap or if there is one doesn't eliminate those outside of it or to other possibilities. So jbg, you can't argue any connection between the mentally ill to gun violence with any certainty. However, notice that if you take out the 'guns' as a possible factor for all people, this makes even the possibility of gun violence to occur with the mentally ill. While you seem to recognize this in part but suggest we are beyond a tipping point to be able to do anything about it, you also imply that ALL severely mentally ill people are a danger by implication, and so this is the focus for which we should at attend to as a distinct discussion apart from guns. NOT all gun violence is a product of the mentally ill, unless you define them as such by default.

Hey, ...you read my mind! Can you patent mind-reading?

The Assimilation ideal (or American Melting Pot) is the concept of allowing anyone to CHOOSE to integrate or associate with whomever you personally identify with NO influence by government (via the First Amendment). Here we mandate protections for groups based on race, ethnicity, language, etc that are NOT universal to all groups (where the smallest such 'group' is one person) and acts to both favor some groups and discriminate against others (often by what they leave out). For example, Aboriginals in Canada are given tax exemption for things like tobacco. Much of this is based on the presumption of it being an inherent property of BEING a genetic Native. Laws are also often created to 'favor' a group for the statistical relationship to their plurality in an economic range. For instance, as a 'group' the Aboriginal population is the largest majority of poor people. So although certain laws that favor them as a group are feigned as being about this factor, it discriminates against those non-Aboriginals who may also have identical circumstances but get left out as 'sacrifices' for the class these outsider's presumed natural identity belongs to who may be presumably 'favored'. An impoverished white European male, for instance, is sacrificed by the other European whites who are in benefit as if the nature of the impoverished male is 'earned' based on his genetic association in common with the fortunate whites. They also get doubly discriminated by others even in the minority population they economically associate with as they too interpret the white male as certainly more likely to succeed by default. There are also many other indirect means of abuse that occur within our "multicultural" system. The term itself too is deceptive. To Americans, this exact same system is called, Segregation. "Multicultural" appears to mean just what its root part-terms mean and so acts with clear deception. Also, our Canadians often falsely feign that the American system of "the Melting Pot" means a forced assimilation to annihilate the minority and make everyone into one ideal kind of person. While some certainly do think this, the principle is either voluntary OR, where they have made laws in force, are based on equal integration of peoples based on their 'group' based upon economic differences, NOT race or religion. For instance, busing a random set of individuals in one economic community to another for schooling was intended to apply mixing ones' economic influences, NOT race. Some of a poorer school district is sent (bused) to a richer school and visa versa. Can you see that while America may have a lot of problems (they still have a hard time implementing busing by those resisting it, for instance) their overt separation of church and state includes religious-like ideologies that are things that include culture. They also remove Royalty because they clearly recognize this is only a form of dictatorship entrenched in law to privileged god-like peoples in systems like ours. Can you see the distinction? Our system inappropriately addresses rational classified needs based on individual's real environmental conditions as due to cultural differences and so uses laws base on their genetically inherent conditions. The American system classifies real environmental conditions based on environment and tries to diminish genetic distinctions.

I'm more strict against Multiculturalism because it is intentionally discriminatory in the most extreme way of our modern societies. But I'm not sure what you are saying in context above as you appear to be pointing fingers at some here you are not indicating with clarity. Multiculturalism is a quicker acting process but it is distinctly different from Assimilation and only works in the initial stages for some groups only. But as it sets in place successfully, it creates very real discrimination as these groups embrace their nationalism through time. This is already pre-established by those who put this concept in place, though, as they have purposely designed our constitution to conserve the traditional original people as a real priority. For instance, even the culture involving Royalty and our imperial houses are just such reasons. I am totally disgusted by our whole system with respect to crap like formal rituals that are indistinct from religion, intended to bias against all others who are non-Christian favoring, non-authority respecting, individuals. There is NO real distinction between our system and the American Confederates of the old Southern States. The only real difference is that our system was well evolved by our British Commonwealth roots and associations that cleverly knows better how to 'appear' friendly while stabbing you in the back.

I mean our Constitution that preserves the distinction of the Aboriginal population, the laws that preserve the French language and Catholic Church advantages throughout Canada, not just for Quebec, and other Multicultural ideas there. Even religion is protected by law here without respect to all people equally. I see Canada as an accidental nation built upon the historical foundation of English loyalists and French Catholics that stood against the ideals of the age of Enlightenment that produced the U.S. I don't agree with those people and the way they "reserved" the Native population like they are wild animals. And so I disagree with the whole concept of our continued ideas to preserve these groups distinctly. The English and French of those who benefit from this history aim to preserve multiculturalism because it both favors them AND keeps other groups, like the Natives, from their own ability to naturally integrate. I'm still confused at the issue of things like Residential school abuses as this project was specifically designed by the religious establishment of those English and French. We don't seem to 'blame' or penalize the very ones responsible for this and instead transfer the 'fault' to the people at large. It is also feigned as a fault of the idea of assimilation or integration in an attempt to hide the very responsibility of the religious organs that are the true cause of the abuses. I see the whole idea of "multiculturalism" as a means to create a smoke-screen of the ones who inherited the wealth of this nation at the expense of other groups they actually despise but feign a love for such diversity. As such, our Constitution and Multiculturalism is only a clever devise to preserve particular beneficial groups by enhancing an appearance of acceptance of certain other groups. The purpose of multiculturalism is to forcefully segregate the population by law to enshrine conservative principles to prevent the progress of individuals who would eventually integrate and rule. It is also intended to distribute the costs of liability of those particular established groups who initially were the ones at fault against other groups to the tax of society at large and to simultaneously retain their gains.

I already tried to post but found that I was not signed in and lost it. Did I say, "pure Canadian" anywhere? By "pure" or "purist" etc, I was referring to how groups discriminate against things like inter-marriages or, in general, integration, as they segregate. If you are asking about Canadians as a whole, I think we need things like a single official language or things like laws that aim to integrate in acceptance of a whole country. When people are segregated as we are as a whole, this makes it easier for other countries who ARE more consolidated in principles of integration to use this as a means to deal with groups based on their selfish interests apart from others. To clarify using a simpler example, if you have a household of a unified family, an outsider has a harder time if they want to take advantage of the individual's self-serving motives. In families where the members are divided among even each other, an outsider can penetrate the solidarity of the household by appealing to their individual members based solely on that individual's isolated concerns that default to self-interests. As such, it only makes it easier for an outsider to capitalize on the divisions. This is what makes the U.S. a more powerful nation. Even while they have internal distinctions among their people, they act as a functioning whole with better unity because they are constituted to treat each person as equal in the laws they create. Our system does the opposite when they predesignate groups, not individuals, as the ultimate constitutional goal to prioritize. Another way to explain this is how the police intellectually optimize their means of incriminating a group of suspects by segregating them in isolated rooms for interrogation. They can use their wisdom of each person's self-interests to manipulate them into turning each against the others for their unified goal of getting a conviction. This is the same with the idea of how a country like America can utilize our segregation in the same way to capitalize on our economy from under us by taking advantage of our distinct isolationism. The German example applies in cycles of many societies throughout time. It is the nationalism to which I was referring to and to how in times of economic duress this leads to divisions which CAN and often DO lead to such extreme problems. But if you think this cannot happen here, I disagree. I also believe that we are engaging in our laws to actually support the very nationalism that can lead to another Hitler with ever more ease.

Yes, I think that our historical formation was necessarily based on this and is the motivating major factor for multiculturalism.

I did mention that I DO see some contemporary advantages even with my concern. I have noticed that in countries that, for instance, impose a constitutional religion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) that an opposite effect seems to occur where the general population tends to be less religious AND yet think of their 'church' as a form of secular institution. But the 'real effect' (1) of creating a state with a multiculturalism mandated in law can reinvigorate division even if the opposite may be intended where especially those that favor them even where previously in some minority only gain a norm in those communities to both favor their ingroup more while disfavoring some or all of the outgroups where even none existed before. It fosters a nationalism based upon lines of one's inherent race, ethnicity, religion, and historic culture, which is hard to reverse. Although I can't speak of whether Germany prior to the World Wars literally imposed such laws, it gives a good example of how their society then divided among each other on these lines. The 'native' or 'aboriginal' population in times of great struggle there recognized that by fostering nationalism of the 'German' people was what was needed in order to unite and strengthen their pride. Of course this was what initiated the National Socialism which to me represents a high degree of concern to why great division among populations create the backdrop of extremes. Even though the party through Hitler fostered 'assimilation' when in power, their means of such was to actually force an assimilation of others to their particular group interests and 'weed' out those who don't follow suit. This cannot occur in a state that has a prior norm of 'assimilation' in the form of a "melting pot" where no one is literally forced to assimilate to one particular group but is in law a means to simply grant people the power as individuals to opt to intermarry and choose their own ideas of what is their 'culture'. In our country, while our 'aboriginal' people are at present not empowered, multiculturalism fosters a pride in them as a distinct nation within the federation that if it works, in some future time, they too may act similarly as the "German aboriginal" did from the World Wars era. In Quebec, a similar relative "aboriginal" of the French Catholics also shows how such distinction only fosters the same likelihood of groups to be more empowered to bide their time to strengthen their in-group powers until they could be powerful enough to command their own nationalism in the future. Notice that while it is from without (Canada at large) fosters Multiculturalism, the province of Quebec acts internally to try to enforce a nationalist assimilation and hints at how they too would behave if they had the power federally to command the government. None of these may appear to you as sufficiently 'real' to you yet. But even as a whole, our country's divisions thus far only makes us weak as a whole on the international level. It makes us vulnerable to the economic conditions we are finding ourselves in today because when a particular party gets majority control in our federal governments, they do whatever it takes to use our multicultural laws to do what it takes to empower their own in-groups at the expense of all others. Nationalism is a (small 'c') conservative ideal to which all parties will resort to favoring one or some preferred group over all others. And by having such laws as ours, they are legitimized to do this by default. As to (2), it IS significant. America actually benefits by our own divisiveness as it makes them easier, for instance, to capitalize on economic takeover of our resources. Notice how we are actually forced to trade with them in forms of pure resource exchanges without being able to successfully enhancing our own capacity in the manufacturing industries. Even 'free trade' doesn't protect us equally here. On a more personal note, I used to have many friends that relate with me based on our common economic reality from various cultural backgrounds. Being relatively 'poor', many of these were aboriginal or Metis. Yet since the 80's, I found more and more division among even my past friends who have embraced their cultural identity and preferred to associate distinctly with their own. I have been perceived as somehow innately 'privileged' based on my own 'whiteness' to which lacked any actual merit. And so even in my own experience, I feel the effect of how fostering this nationalism only makes me as an individual isolated as I don't actually belong (nor want to) to any traditional nationalism.

Perhaps. But smoking pot doesn't make everyone think alike. I never considered the Trudeau's as "Hippies" anyways. At least, I understood "Hippies" as a more liberal than Liberal belief since multiculturalism is more akin to the state of the American South's Confederate conservatives as it supports a segregation policy over an integrated one. The Trudeau's ideals favor multiculturalism over assimilation for the Eastern provincial problems between Ontario and Quebec as though they represent what all Canada is. It is the preference to conserve the Canadian traditions of the original establishment of our country that gives them the likely impetus to support this idea. Unfortunately, as we still see to this day, it only amplifies the distinction of Quebec but forces the rest of Canada to have to comply to those like the Trudeau's who have an unusual familiarity that embraces both those cultures with ignorance to the rest of the provinces. I'm guessing that they figured that by placating to Quebec that things would eventually enable all of the relatives of those who have family in both Quebec and Ontario to reconcile. But they are in severe error to think this will work for all of Canada by enabling laws that grant segregated protections. What it does instead is to reinforce the distinctions by the extremes. Also, by adapting it for all plural groups in position of plural popularity, it also isolates cultures that would naturally have integrated given time in a unified principle of assimilation instead. I see our future as bleak as we divide into more purely defined groups that both keep them segregated and restrict access to outsiders. This is the kind of precursor to all past civilizations that embraced this ideal that eventually leads to extreme Nationalists in the future. Germany was one such example. But by the time of Hitler, it was too late for natural assimilation to which lead to the Holocaust when they realized they could no longer unite their differences by that time. Our only hope is to alter the Constitution to appeal to the American idea that removes any preferences for religion and culture as a predefined function of society. Even the States embrace multiculturalism to some extent. But it is a balanced approach and remains a function of the non-constitutional portions of their policy making. In time, the U.S. has proven able to preserve both a non-cultural national pride AS WELL AS freedom for those who may or may not want to segregate. But our system will crumble because we are so disconnected with one another that we are socially unable to unite as a whole and consider its truest minority as the individuals that make up all of us independently. And with the U.S. forging forward, they'll be able to take great strides to overcome our economy without the hassle of our social problems in our system. There IS a reason that they gave up on Manifest Destiny! They don't need to 'own' us via our people as resources, but only the earth beneath our feet as they take advantage of our inability to collectively operate as a whole to address creating a productive and sustainable economy.

It was devised and expanded by both the Liberal and Conservative parties as they were the ones who placed this within our constitution. I'm doubting your relationship to "hippies" as I see this as a very conservative concept. Multiculturalism also only preserves specific traditional or largely pluralistic groups that have strong identity and definitely wouldn't welcome the "Hippy" movements regardless. For instance, our preservation of the duel languages (French and English) and the laws that favor public funding to both a general secular school system AND the Catholic system via our laws and taxes. I also see this being supported by the conservative parts of even those like the NDP as their base support is dependent upon the large plural conservative groups who are simply unable to compete distinctly UNTIL they hope to take over politically. I'm seeing our political ideals being robbed by the interests of groups based on culture over logical distinctions such as poverty. That is, we place an emphasis to favor things like religion, tradition, ethnicity, and overall, inherent factors rather than individual capacity to choices or logical classification. I can't "choose" to be of a culture here except in 'thought' as only the genetic or economic factors we inherit from birth are given priority. And it discriminates against the individual who is born external to these favored biases.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism I am opening this to discuss the differences between our Multiculturalism and the general contrast of Assimilation through the American system. I personally have contention with our Canadian system as it has evolved to constitutionalize us as necessarily "Multicultural" without most understanding what this implies. I cherish the American constitutional first Amendment that particularly attempts to separate religion from being allowed to participate as a justification for law creation in contrast to our own, derived from the British system, that grants a right of our governments to impose special laws that privilege such religious thinking. Multiculturalism differs from Assimilation in this particular distinction between the American's First Amendment and our constitution that grants special privilege to specific cultural, ethnic, or religious groups. Most prominent is the fact that in our system, our governments are allowed to create laws that encourage segregation for those who desire conserving their power based on plural and purist interests (a preference for a favor to keep one's inherent genetic or economic groups strong through a type of 'pure' breeding mentality in exclusion to one's individual choices). While I can see how our system has helped give certain groups who have traditionally been biased and especially impoverished, the hidden intent of this is to preserve specific historically privileged and established classes distinct and conserved for all time by allowing them to create laws that protect them uniquely apart from the rest of society. But recognizing that they can only do this by emphasizing other special pluralities in the same light, they prevent dissension of these large yet other plural interests by appealing to their interests too. To me, this is a kind of agreement among the extreme groups who prefer conservative ideals to prevail by appearing as a diverse group of people who are all loving and neighborly. Yet the reality is only intended to agree to capitalize on building walls and assuring that the individuals of our society who would naturally assimilate from being empowered as the majority they would naturally evolve towards. For instance, what I do like about certain present conditions from Multiculturalism is how our aboriginal populations are improving through some of these laws. However, what concerns me is that while this may help NOW, in the long run, it will only foster a future of Nationalist who will eventually demand their own capacity to rule with a strictness of conservative beliefs that favor their ingroup to the exclusion of all others. In other words, our society in the future in this system will only become more and more divisive, discriminatory, and exclusionary against all others who opt to do things like choose to marry outside of their races not preserved by the historical protections granted by our constitution. Before arguing on, I want to see how others here may interpret this and to see if they either share this concern or if they can, convince me why this is NOT the case. Thank you, Scott.

With all our losses in privacy even by our governments, I propose that we simply find some laws that prevent ones from using information in any means as tools for governments or anyone from utilizing them. I also propose we require government officials or any entities using information founded publicly to require being on an equal surveillance 24/7 to be allowed such rights. I'm guessing that we cannot defeat these violations by anyone. And so it would be wise to merely downplay its significance. Such hacking is likely political. I fear that it may only excuse governments to open up more leniency for laws that enable them to spy without accountability. And it wouldn't surprise me if even such political interests were just as likely behind this hacking for this sole reason.

Hmmm.....are you a top-ist or a bottom-ist? Sounds a bit unrelated to morality. As to politics, I think the selfish morality is way too powerful in our present society and we need a redress to the more altruistic aspects. I'm doubtful that this will happen though. A democracy is about social concerns that appeal to the majority and is thus an institute intended to act altruistically. The selfish powers though have more reason to conserve their ever present power and so will always be most attentive to means which disrespect democratic ideals.

This is why I'm concerned in this respect. When companies share arrangements because they benefit by agreeing to specific areas of competition, in a sense this can act as a form of inevitable conspiracy (not necessarily spoken) to which they agree NOT to compete which establishes their shared monopoly by doing so. We need an infrastructure independent of private interests if only to prevent these companies from 'owning' up the media and enable them to frame our politics in their favor. Private interest will always act at least to conserve their interests. And since our system of private ownership is based on the profit motive, such media will tend towards favoring politics that favor their survival. We will lose our capacity to be democratic if our communications are all required to be done through media that is allowed to be manipulated by the media owners. I believe we've reached out limit on technology that allows us freedom in our medium between people other than direct person-to-person communications.....unless, we can find a means to mind read, perhaps. Yet even the air we breathe to speak between each other may become a commodity to be sold and traded. Then we may even lose this.