Kitch

I was speaking with a guy who was born in Iran and hid in the mountains while Saddam Hussein fired scud missiles into Iran. He visited Iran recently and asked an uncle of his if Iran was developing nuclear weapons or if Iran was a threat to Israel. Take this for what it is, just an anecdote... but I think it's interesting... This guy's uncle said that Iran is basically a "communist" state in the way that the Soviet was "communist". (I use the quotation marks because I disagree that this is actually what communism is... but for the purpose of this story, who cares what I think). Everything is owned by the state and the necessities of life are rationed. The people in the government benefit greatly from this system... as most of you would already assume in this type of system. Well, these people are living pretty luxurious lives. Why would they want to do anything that would disturb this? They wouldn't! They don't want to actually take steps toward fixing the Israeli problem, nor do they want to attract attention from the U.S. What do you think?

What makes you think anybody is 'defending' FOX? I originally made a post that described the way that information is filtered before it is 'allowed' to become news. Monsanto produces a drug that harms the cows and potentially harms humans. Some FOX reporters were going to inform Americans of this and Monsanto threatened to sue FOX who then did what they could to suppress the story. The drug is banned in Canada and Europe, partly because of the harm it causes to cows and partly for the potential it has to harm humans. Why, do you think, that is? Why do you keep using the word "bullied"? It was business decisions by both corporations leading to... the important part of the problem... suppression of important information! Of course Monsanto wouldn't want that info out there. It's in their interest to lie. Of course FOX doesn't care about the info. Their interest is to keep advertising dollars... which Monsanto and the other companies owned by the same people provide. I believe that your approach communicates nothing more than disbelief that either Monsanto would lie, that FOX would allow them to lie or that the drug really doesn't cause any harm. You're not saying that information isn't filtered, you're just saying you don't believe that there was anything to filter. Am I correct?

A biologist eh! Your last sentence communicates a true understanding of Darwin! We're... well I am just debating points without any passion now. I don't identify with a 'nation' and I don't care what other 'nations' think of me, my 'nation' or of themselves. So, MY answer to the main question in this thread is... WHO CARES!? For the record, I'd fight for my life and the lives of those that I love if I perceived a real threat or if I could not perceive a non-violent way of resolving a vague threat. (I also view Osama Bin Laden... if such a character exists, as a vague threat to the safety of me and my loved ones... maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm right. Either way, that's why I don't wish to kill or die for that particular cause). "You cannot keep peace by force. It must be achieved through understanding" Albert Einstein AND "To understand is to forgive, even oneself" Alexander Chase TRUE communication is the key to solving problems. (I can hear the conservatives laughing)

Are those causes that you would die for?

Well, I'm not going to even try to guess at how many people in Canada would be willing to die for a given cause. Particularly if it is a cause within the context of Canadian society (separation of provinces, for example). But if there are Canadians out there who feel as I do, there is far more that you can do while alive than dead... besides, there are ways to 'fight' for causes that aren't violent. As Bertrand Russel said, "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." For example, the ideal model of society for me is based on Marxist ideals. I STRONGLY believe that capitalism causes many of the problems that we experience as a society. I STRONGLY believe that we should govern more locally because people in different regions can have very different interests. I STRONGLY believe that our lifestyle here is at the expense of people in other regions around the world. Would I fight to the death for these causes? Definitely not. The American revolution happened in an entirely different context though. The lives of Americans at the time were more than just less than ideal... were they not? The second amendment must have been added to the constitution for a reason. (Please let me know if my knowledge of history, meaning the lack of it, is leading to an incorrect assumption). For the record, I don't think that confederation is really beneficial to many people anyway. (Please don't take what I've said here and use it for an ad hominem attack... if you want to discuss my opinions on such things, I'm game, but those opinions (Marxism and the like) have nothing to do with this conversation). I definitely don't disagree with you. I don't disagree with you here either, but I think I should remind you of the fallacy of speaking in generalizations. 'Americans' are not dolts as a collective... but just as many Canadians are dolts, many Americans are. I've never seen the Jay Leno bits, but dude, you should see some of the Canadian comedy shows out there. They interview people from large American cities and WOW. It's pretty funny. (This is probably what leads me to believe that American's are generally "uninformed"... but it could also be the trips that I took down to Florida. Small, rural towns in the south don't seem to be home to the "informed" 'Americans'). Well, how could you experience guilt before the fact. The point is not a matter of admitting being wrong. It's about whether or not guilt is experienced. This would necessitate experiencing empathy for those who were done wrong at the hands of 'Americans'. If people are unable to empathize, in my opinion, our species is doomed. Or at least our version of civilization is.

Indeed, there are stereotypes. There are stereotypes that attempt to describe black people, for example. Is it fair... or even reliable to use those stereotypes of black people in your attempt to understand a particular black person? While some black people may fit a stereotype in some ways, it's not likely that EVERY aspect of a stereotype describes ANY one individual. And thus it's not fair to use stereotypes to generalize groups of people... nor is it logical. And besides, acting on negative ethnic stereotypes makes one a racist.

It's kind of tough to get back into this after a few days... I really can't remember what my train of thought was, but let me give it a try. I originally quoted Einstein who said that "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Which is a statement that I agree with. Somebody then pointed to Hitler for an example of why we need to prepare for war, and said that had the 'west' prepared better then the war may have been prevented (sorry if I misquoted). Well, there's a difference between preparing to defend yourself and developing weapons used only to destroy large areas, or only to kill populations of people. And preparing to defend yourself does not include preemptive attacks. I encourage you to try to refute this, but keep in mind that if this was OK, then it SHOULD be OK to kill an individual who you believe is conspiring to harm or kill you. But the laws that apply to individuals don't always apply to 'nations', do they? Is that right? Whether or not you think it's... useful, do you think it's right?

To be honest, I wasn't constructing my posts in the context of this thread... which I probably should be doing. But the reality is that I, personally, don't care how the 'U.S.' feels about 'Canada'. As I've said, those terms, 'U.S.' and 'Canada', describe large diverse populations of people and cannot be used to draw any accurate conclusions about the collective people who live in each geographic region. Please understand that when I do use these labels its for simplicity, not reality. My interest in this forum was a little different. I assumed... or hypothesised... that because here in Canada there isn't the same aggressive culture of patriotism (and disdain for anyone labelled "unpatriotic"... whatever that ACTUALLY means), the 'U.S.' may view 'us' as weak... and thus, not respect 'us'. Now, I can't speak for the Canadians that you're referring to, but I can say that many people speak poorly of the U.S. for things that have been done in the name of the U.S. It usually doesn't have anything to do with Canada. For me to criticize the U.S. for the Vietnam war when Canada helped supply weapons would be unfair. However, for me to lambaste the 'U.S.' (I used that punctuation for a reason) for what happened in Latin America in the 80s, I don't know that I'm being hypocritical. If Canada did have a role, it was not stepping in when it should have... but then, 'we' need to ensure our own safety (from the U.S.) before we can advocate for another population, do we not? Why would what I said, or what you said in response, mean that I've backed off my claim that 'Canadians' are more informed than 'Americans', generally? I'm not going to hold strongly to that claim, because really, how do I know??? Guilt is irrelevant? I don't know about that. You say that the 'U.S.' "owns" decisions that it makes... well, are you implying that the U.S. hasn't done anything that is regrettable?

I could teach you and your niece all about population genetics, physiology... many sub-topics in biology, though. Why must so many people try to paint all teachers with the same brush? I'm a high school science teacher. I don't converse with my students about Canadian history, and if I did, I'd do so without any claims of being an authority. You sound like some of my students who think that I fold up and store myself away in a filing cabinet in the classroom over night.

I'm glad that you enjoyed, I really am. And I hope that I've left you with some thoughts as you believe you have done for me. But dude, we haven't really come full circle. I think you need to read what I've said a little more carefully. I thought I was clear, but, perhaps not. I said from the beginning that the logo was NOT offensive. Which is why I took exception to you using the word 'liberal' to describe the people who do. I'm liberal, and I don't find it offensive. I said it from the beginning. So please don't patronize me... you led me nowhere. Apathy for social issues, by our generation... apparently, allows those with the will to do as they please. Some things that you would agree with, some that you don't, such as this logo campaign. I, for one, am not apathetic though. But seriously... I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I will definitely trade 'hay makers' with ya in the future... but you gotta read what I'm saying bud. You can't refute somebody's claims based on who you think they are. You have to refute their ideas by showing that their ideas are wrong/bad!

I have a few questions, I hope that you'll answer them rather than going on rants about unrelated sore spots on your heart. Who do you think you are to try to tell me how I developed my political/philosophical opinions? My decision to be atheist had nothing to do with public education. I have been raised with self-hatred? Think again bud. I'm white and liberal and was born in Canada am opposed to censorship (and most attempts to change society in the name of political correctness) and definitely don't blame myself for what happened to Natives, black people or people of any other ethnicity. My family has been here for 3 or 4 generations and, on one side, were very catholic. I have rejected catholicism and the notion of a god. Am I less Canadian????????? SHOULD I FIND ANOTHER HOME????? Some white people have done terrible things. Does that mean that white people are bad?? NO!!! Me saying so would be equivalent to your assertion that liberals all feel guilty because they're white and white people did bad things in the past. SOME white people have done bad things. If I want to identify those people, I'll identify them as the people who did those things. Just as I identify the teachers who want the West Hill logo changed as the teachers that want the West Hill logo changed. You can't fairly label them as liberals because, although they may be very liberal, their cause isn't something that defines liberals generally!! I'm liberal and it doesn't define me... that refutes your claim!!! To be honest your reminiscent post makes me believe that you idealize a time when black people weren't considered equal to white people and were often lynched. Can 'white' people be blamed for THAT? NO, but SOME can... the ones who did the lynching and held beliefs leading to it. Canada was absolutely not founded ON judao-christian values. Most people that came here at the time that this continent was taken over... because the Europeans weren't the first ones here... thus did not, technically, found this place... were likely christian. But British common-law is British common-law. It's not christianity. Again, I'm NOT CHRISTIAN! Am I less Canadian than you?? And maybe some muslim people wanted sharia law to be implemented here. That won't happen, but if you want to read a little bit, check out what has been done: Read under How did Shariah come to be considered in Canadian jurisdictions? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html You've taken this a long way from a school logo. You've blamed people who deserve no blame and tried to stigmatize a group of people that doesn't really exist. I am VERY liberal... at least in my understanding of the word. You and I... and everyone else have different meanings of this word, and claim it to describe us to varying degrees.

You're going way deeper into this than I ever intended. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're accusing... maybe not JUST me, but me included... of claiming no responsibility for 'Canadian' decisions but asserting that Americans ARE responsible for 'American' decisions. That may very well be the approach of some Canadians, but certainly not me. I will go about my business talking about 'America' and its imperialistic ways in the middle east, South America, and wherever else 'they've' been involved. Perhaps I should change the language I use, but I don't think that the average American is responsible for these things. I (intend to) apply the same logic to everyone that I apply to myself. Beyond that I'm having a hard time understanding your posts. Not because they're complicated, but because I can't figure out why you're going down those roads. I think we're on different pages... maybe even different books. And, the notion that more Canadians are informed than Americans has nothing to do with the election of Harper. I'm referring to the level that people are 'informed' about the world outside of our own. Take a look at this and tell me what you think: http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...ficial%26sa%3DN

You answered some question... but not the one that I asked. Try again? You're wrong about what kids are taught. You're seeing what you want to see because you're upset about your religious traditions. I'M Canadian. I don't want to say 'the' lord's prayer ever, anywhere. So am I now an immigrant that should find another country to call home? Would you please answer that question too? So you're crying about the liberal party... they're not 'liberal' in any way other than by name. So please stop attributing your disdain for a political party to people, like myself, who are not in any way aligned or affiliated with them.

I'd be just as comfortable with that. But British/American imperialism is rarely used as justification for America's war machine. That would be a little ridiculous... wouldn't it? You are aware that people in places around the world compare Bush to Hitler, right? Whether YOU or I think that this is ridiculous or not is irrelevant. Hitler was viewed as the leader of a developed country, was he not? He wasn't immediately seen as a dictator who needed to be removed. So from the perspective of these people around the world, how can they differentiate between Germany circa 1935 and U.S.A. circa ever since?

The problem is that you perceive the world views of others as unenlightened. Reasonable people can and do reach different conclusions based on the same information. You can't automatically say somebody else's opinion is wrong. And another problem is that your post assumes that the intention for these interventions is to stop violence. If that was truly the case then there would be similar interventions in all or most regions that are engaged in violent conflicts... but that is not the case. There are varying degrees of self interest involved.

Very simple. But it's important information, don't you think? And it's an example of a corporation having power over what information is disseminated.

I take your word on your reference to recorded history. But keep in mind that history is very subjective and easily manipulated. Not that what you're talking about now isn't realistic... just making a point. Competitions are better than war. Sure. But when one competitor is so much more powerful than others, that leads to unprovoked war... not necessarily, but, history has shown! And it's not really fair to always refer to Hitler as the justification for perpetual preparation for war. (I'm not saying that YOU do that... maybe you do... but it seems like a common argument). You can't convict somebody of a crime before they commit it and you can't attack a country before they attack you or somebody else.

Save your chest banging for the not so bright broads at the bar, bud. But If you want to discuss, then discuss.

General outlines yes. But why would we need to know the names of generals, for example. I had to look up Montcalm and Wolfe when you mentioned them before. I knew that there was a war between England (Upper Canada) and France (Lower Canada) which England won and then... 'allowed'?... the French to have their own province in the English colony. Do I, as a citizen, need to know more than that? Maybe I do! As a high school science teacher, though, do I need to be qualified to teach history? Definitely not.

Dude, don't get me wrong. I am in no way claiming that 'Canada' is less guilty than the 'U.S.' for harming people around the world. Canada manufactured a lot of the weapons that the U.S. used in the Vietnam war! Things have been done in my name that I am VERY ashamed of. But that's part of what leads me to my reluctance to feel any sort of 'national pride'. Not because I'm ashamed... but because I wasn't part of any such decisions nor do I agree with them, but I'm still included in this heterogeneous group called "Canadian". However, when I say that decisions made in either country have unequal consequences for people around the world, I'm not necessarily talking about bombs! I don't know why you automatically assumed that. When you say we refuse to accept responsibility for "this", what exactly do you mean? That we benefit from the U.S. doing what they do to serve self interest because our interests are similar? Well, I don't know what to say about that... assuming this is what you meant. But how exactly do we benefit from the pursuit of American self interests in geopolitical conflict? Do European countries benefit from this as well? How about Asian? Dude, I don't know what to tell you. It seems that we're engaged in a competition to see who's better or more responsible for their actions... and when I say "their", please understand how I perceive the idea of a 'nation'. I'm not personally responsible for decisions that are made by people who are in control of the people that share the same geographical space that I live in. Can I be considered responsible for such decisions made by a government that I didn't vote for? Sure. I don't feel that way, but I can't disagree with people who make this assertion; that's the nature of democracy. All that I'm saying is that because Canada is smaller (in population... reason being that it's so damn cold up here and there aren't a lot of places that many people want to live because of the climate) and less powerful, there are fewer decisions made here that affect the rest of the world. Harper being elected has less impact than the new American president will have... because both will make decisions other than to bomb people.

No, not always, but I think he's (she's?) giving reason for people perceiving Canada as indistinguishable from the U.S. He's not trying to describe a world wide truth.

Ya, I'm sure it does include a lot of Canadians. I really don't think that the number of uninformed Canadians is near the number of uninformed Americans though. And really, as you said, what happens here doesn't usually impact people around the world... so what does it matter? But it DOES matter how informed Americans are. Please don't kid yourself... you can take shots at 'Canada' and I'll be the last to defend it as I have hard time identifying with what it means, in the typical sense, to be patriotic. It does include those places. I didn't say Canada hasn't harmed people elsewhere. I said so long as our decisions don't then I'm happy.

Well, visiting a place doesn't necessarily translate into an understanding of the people in that country. But, I'm sure that there are a lot of Americans that do understand the way other societies work. I'm just saying that there are probably a lot that don't. And if that's a shot at Canada... the fact that our decisions have little impact on others... I, for one, don't care. So long as the decisions made here benefit the people here and don't hurt people elsewhere.

Then why did Fox News pull the story about Monsanto's bovine growth hormone drug... Posilac, I think?... which causes infections in the cows necessitating antibiotics which have been found in the milk and cause serious health problems in people that drink it? I'm assuming this is well known enough to not need to reference this. Canada also banned the drug here. Also... Chomsky described 5 filters that information must pass through before it can become 'news': 1. Ownership of the medium 2. Medium's funding sources 3. Sourcing 4. Flak 5. Anti-communist ideology Before dismissing these immediately as liberal/socialist garbage, have a read: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%2...Prop_Model.html