Charles Anthony

Counselling for what?

This is an exciting find. Like you said above, they still do not see what is happening. Big mistake. My advice: do the opposite and figure out a way to make it CHEAPER than free. No, he IS ignoring what is happening -- or maybe he has little choice. In Sulzberger's olden days, people had to read the paper to find out what was going on in theather because THEY WANTED THEATER -- not because they wanted the paper. He must think that people open a phone book because it is the most enjoyable way to find a phone number.

Allow me. They are maintained in our own minds and in how we choose to frame our questions.I have a question of my own: How can you modernize something that is eternal?

Better quality education. That makes as much sense as subsidizing stand-up comedians more than we subsidize long-winded television comedy writers because stand-up comedians get their message across faster -- unless they use too much sarcasm. Whether it is a good or a service or even a dream, if somebody or a group of people are in need, the most efficient way to help them is to give them money to buy their needs -- unless it is physically impossible to buy said good or service or dream. Subsidizing the supplier of their need creates waste and kills competition of the supply. Saturn, you are not getting it and I doubt that you have dealt with many people (outside of a school campus) with a post-secondary education that have to work for a living. A lot of education is a round-about and indirect symbol of future success. A long time ago, higher education co-related reasonably to higher success. Now, it does not. Educators are doing a grave disservice for maintaining such an illusion. A lot of students are wasting both their time and our money. As a result, the value of post-secondary education is diluted. Here are some more of my thoughts on the subject: Cost of education related to value Let me sit on the fence on behalf of education as a goal in and of itself. I am reminded of a conversation (young student and old man) that I overheard while waiting in line at a library many moons ago. The two clearly had not seen eachother is some time and were catching up on details. The old man asked the student what he was studying. After hearing he was studying lettres francaises the old man balked saying he used to be so good at science and math and yadda yadda yadda and asked what kind of a job he expected to get with that education? The young man quipped "Je ne suis pas ici a la recherche d'un job mais plutot pour une education." Also, around the same time, a buddy of mine was studying history and I asked him what he was planning to do with a degree in history. He laughed and said: "Hang it up on my wall!" Now, my buddy has been working consistently at the same job. He summarizes news (television, radio and print) reports for politicians. [Politicians want to know everything that is in the news but they do not have the time to pay attention to all of the media.] He prepares up-to-date headlines with sub-headline-summaries for quick reading. Sounds like a pretty interesting gig, right? I do not know how much he makes but he likes it and he gets paid and he has been doing it for 10 years.

What does it matter??? You are referring to the U.S. Department of Defense website for their version of the transcript. Without a doubt, they must certainly be unbiased. If the U.S. Department of Defense says so, it must be true! "Everyone has a horrible fantasy that makes the actual horror seem (to him) worth putting up with." - Joseph Sobran

As a point of order, there is no need to repeat my entire post in your quote. Your reply directly follows my post. Thank you. You proved my point. There is no need for these Whoville laws -- except to express racism. No, it is not. It is submission to the State.

Really? Some of the people in Whoville want to forbid islamic women from covering their face. Does that sound tolerant to you???

-- not when I get them on the black-market. I do not mean to be flippant just for the sake of being flippant. My point is that I firmly believe that what drugs are considered legal or illegal is primarily a result of cronyism: cigarette, alcohol, pharmaceutical, textile, pulp and paper companies want to protect their turf. However, this: is just a different type of cronyism (civil servant jobs depending on enabling drug use) and I will say it is worse.

discussed here: Accommodement raisonnable -- Hérouxville and all that

Most of us understand that perfectly. What we do not understand is why you think that is a problem. That is not a problem because we (customers of the bank) agree to it. We do not want to hold ALL of our cash ourselves. If we did, why would we go to a bank?? Answer that.

If we want to be compassionate to the mentally ill, we need to be compassionate to the budgets of the family and friends (as opposed to civil servants) who want to care for them. Maybe we should consider making it cheaper for people to earn a living. Prison guards are trained precisely for that. I guessed the "noggin" part correctly but "brad" is new to me. This gives me the following thought: maybe there is nothing morally wrong with treating the mentally ill the same as we treat criminals? I would hope the answer is an emphatic NO but it seems that we let the chips fall in the same place. I am sure aborted fetuses are innocent too but they get the short end of the stick too. Crack-pipes are more important. Safe-injection sites are more important. Artificial joints are more important. Free dentures are more important. Free flu shots are more important. etc. etc. Everything is more important because the mentally ill are a burden: they are not productive (now or in the future) and they can be easily sequestered away. I will boldly make the leap of drawing a parallel with the elderly. Like incarcerating the mentally ill and drug addicts, many old-folks homes are filled with people who do not get much care -- let alone not much attention. Anybody who has an old loved one institutionalized should find out how often the inmates get bathed. I agree with you even though I am not a statistician. As an anecdotician, most homeless people above the age of 25 years that are visible on the streets of my city (just under 1 million people) are clearly not mentally sound. Even if they are mentally sound when they become homeless, I believe we should consider the possibility that living on the street might lead a normal person to go crazy. Just a thought.

Instead of borrowing a lawn-mower from my neighbor, I will just take it and not give it back. Did you ever consider the possibility that I am stupid? I am sure you have. Now, I ask: what should I do if I am not intelligent enough to understand the message of your books and videos?

No. I am practicing for my run at the Smart A$$ Party leadership. OK. I will try to stop. It is one thing to formulate a reasonable counter argument but it is even more difficult to counter and un-reasonable argument. I should be commending you instead! I am just jealous of your endurance keeping up with Poly. Sometimes I get a headache and other times my ribs hurt! That is exactly what money is. A piece of "cash" is a very small balance sheet. What do you recommend we do?

The Western world is relatively young. How do you explain the continued survival of the non-Western world? Your over-dramatization of cultural differences is unjustified. If both Prince William and Prince Harold started to date Catholic girls, the Queen would not be silent. Inside the theater, each of us swoons over Romeo or Juliet. Outside of the theater, reality hits: none of us are heirs to rich families and some of us are actually ugly. There are not enough Romeos or Juliets to go around.

Indemnifying the beneficiary of personX is not what I am talking about. That can easily be changed. Trust me, it takes a hell of a lot more than that to hurt my feelings. Nevertheless, I appreciate your advice. I will try to keep it in mind if I should ever feel compelled to expire.

It takes two to tango!

What do you mean they have no legal standing? I am not denying that they will payout the beneficiaries. I am suggesting that they seek damages AFTERWARDS from the perpetrator. Are you telling me that if an entire familyA gets murdered or killed by drunk-driving-millionaireB and the insurance company has to pay a few million dollars to the next-of-kinA, the insurance company has NO legal standing to seek wrongful death damages from millionaireB to recover their losses?

Je vous felicite. I made those suggestions because nothing at all seems to be acceptable to you. I doubt you even want to make a difference. This: says a lot about why you reject market incentives: you do not know how a market operates.

Give them a lot of people dying and the insurance companies will start changing their rules. People can be charged with wrongful death suits. If payouts become common such that profits are eroded, it is in an insurance company's interest to find a perpetrator and take them to court. I would.

I believe therein lies the solution -- if there is one. [i am going to chicken out intellectually and make the following generalization: I trust a family member to care more for a person than non-family.] There needs to be an incentive for a family to take on the responsibility. Nowadays, relinquishing family (or more accurately, community) responsibilities is too affordable. Not only do the police and paramedics have better things to do but they are not the best people for that job. We should be ashamed of ourselves for brushing off our responsibility on those professionals. It is like expecting a school teacher to deal with a discipline problem instead of teaching a class. It can be even more trying (if not hopeless) when the mentally ill person does not have a designated power of attorney (as most people do not) and every member of the family has a separate professional opinion on the best course of action. I genuinely do not know what you mean. Please explain the slang. I am not ready to judge drug addicts in general terms. Both drug addicts and the mentally ill pose a health problem first. They are a criminal problem secondarily. I am ready to assume that we can all agree that such a criteria is not good enough. We should aspire to helping the mentally ill earlier. Recommendations for institutionalization must include a discussion of funding. There are jurisdictions in Canada that keep mentally ill people in jail for no other reason than a lack of beds in mental institutions.

MyAta, I think YOU have only two choices: 1) go find out where in the world it is most affordable to reduce emissions. Pay the inhabitants of that part of the world to reduce their emissions. 2) go find out where in the world you can most easily coerce people to reduce their emissions. Go to war against those inhabitants and force them to reduce their emissions. Good luck.

Market prices will make us do it. Right now, the populations of third world countries demand very little in terms of consumption. Food, clothing and shelter. In the future, they will see their standard of living rise. They will demand SUVs and CDs and TVs and disposable this and disposable that. Eventually, we will have to deal with an increase in demand for the same things we all enjoy. This will make us pay for our pollution. The problem is then: will it be too late? Sorry. I was not clear. I meant through the threat of force. For example, if you do not pay your taxes, somebody will come to your door and force you to concede. I am speaking of this sort of State power. Simple: by denying pickup of his garbage.

Wrong. There is a way for someone to come to your door and tell you what to do. It happens all of the time. Modern states have a lot of power. It just turns out to be inefficient to order people around at gun-point. The most efficient way is to create market incentives. For example: make people pay for their garbage. Charge every bag that sits at the curb $5 on garbage day. Within one week, you will see people throwing out less and recycling more. Within one month, you will see people buying products that have little or no packaging. So on and so on. An other example is taxation. [i can not believe I am saying this but anyway...] Charge taxes on polluting activties. Take your pick. An other example is to cut down on cronyism. Stop subsidizing industry. Unfortunately, the bigger the country, the easier it is to hide cronyism and the more profitable cronyism will be. My solution: we need smaller governments and smaller countries. My practical solution: do nothing. Globalization is going to raise the standard of living throughout the world. If people in third world countries want a continued improvement in their standard of living, they will demand it themselves. They will reduce their polluting ways.

from the same article G & M: What is this?!? Some kind of a game?!??!?!?!? What kind of "just-us system" is this?!? I like this two-tiered justice system we have: One justice system for the rich and the cronies and the statesmen. The sloppy left-overs for the rest of us. This is polycentric law. Do I object to it? Yes, because it is with my money and the First-Tier does not pay for it. I am sure every other Canadian gets the same treatment that Schreiber gets. Lovely.

If my house burns down, I will blame a right-winger.