Kitch

I don't think it's racist to say so (I suppose I'm not in one of those circles). I don't think it's PC to say that those cultures are merely 'different' either. They are different. The idea of which is better is a matter of perspective. Some people like condos, some houses. Some like urban areas, others rural. Some like living on the streets, many don't. It's not that it's wrong to say that one culture is 'superior', it's just that the person making such a claim hopefully understands that this is their opinion and not an absolute. Maybe some people are overly sensitive and maybe some are not sensitive enough. And if somebody wants to say that life expectancy and the rest of the list of parameters are things that point to western culture superiority... did you ever consider that maybe somebody doesn't want to live that long?

He's not implying that the story isn't plausible. He's inferring that it's fabricated because some aspects of the story are unbelievable. If I may put words in some one else's mouth.

Well, just from browsing through some of the federation websites I found this: http://www.etfo.ca/BeingaMember/YourUnionD...es/default.aspx It's just one of the teacher federations in Ontario and represents 57 693 teachers. Defense is only 19%. I'm still looking though.

Wasn't he involved in Latin America?

Let's assume it's not for a minute though. A company that is struggling wants to save money by hiring people who will work for less and do more work. Sounds like capitalism to me. No need for the shot at leftists either.

But seriously, is it not dangerous to even use a word like 'unpatriotic' to describe people? Isn't the word 'treason' or 'treasonous' good enough? Those are unambiguous whereas 'unpatriotic' could be (and is) used in such a way to control the behaviour of certain people.

I know you're joking, but that is something some people would take pride in.

I personally think Obama will be good for the states... in my humble and relatively uninformed opinion. But he will be an American president and I can't think of one who didn't use some military force, whether official or not, in some other country.

Is that true??? 100 years?? Wow. I think Obama will bomb some country too. As far as I've read, every single president has done something to some other country for... different reasons.

Hahaha, nice. America has been successful indeed. I mean, it depends on your definition of success, but yes, they've (you?) been successful in a number of ways. I'm not even really saying that the constitution needs to be re-worked. It doesn't hurt to question the validity of certain amendments from time to time though. And maybe a re-examination means nothing more than adopting a different interpretation of the same words. Or maybe the way that you achieve a certain... ideal... has to change from time to time. Our 'culture' has changed a lot in the past 100 years and there's no reason to believe that it won't continue to change... the same, I believe, could be assumed for many cultures. My grandparents viewed black people in a different light than I do... banks used to give credit cards to people who were low risk, now they give them to people who are likely to make low monthly payments and carry a balance... there are many ways that our 'world' has changed and there needs to be checks and balances to make sure that people remain 'free'. ALL people.

Maybe you can predict the likelihood of that happening, but maybe you can't. So shut the door on everyone?

Well that's not fair. I don't believe that you REALLY think that Canadians are stupid, or that we don't understand America. (In case you're correcting me, I wasn't quoting the thing... as indicated by the ' instead of "... and I wasn't referencing anything. Just paraphrasing a well known American sentence). Anyway, White Doors... I don't know bud. I don't claim to have any answers for America's problems, I just asked a question. It doesn't hurt to re-examine things that you hold to be true every once in a while. I mean, you wouldn't turn the furnace on all year if you lived in New York, would you? When the weather changes, you have to make a decision... and it's likely not the same decision you made a few months ago. But, maybe I'm wrong and the climate (read: economy or culture or society) where you live never changes.

Come on man. You can't believe that all people from these countries are dangerous or unworthy of coming to Canada. You can't even say that many people who's families have been in Canada for 3, 4, 5 generations are 'worthy' of living here. My family came here from Ireland three generations ago with their cultural baggage of being drunks... and I don't drink. The answer is not as simple as throwing Canadians in jail indefinitely (depending on... a lot of things) or keeping people from certain countries out of Canada. That's a step in the direction of implementing thought police. I mean, if we're going to prosecute people on suspicion of future crimes, then what else will we do to 'keep Canadians safe'. I'm all for what I did refer to as an increase in standards, but I think that you and I would have very different ideas about what that would mean.

But what if the policies created a long time ago, that made one's country great, aren't what's best for one's country today? Society has changed. Perhaps it's best to re-evaluate some of the 'truths held to be self evident', no?

Well, living in a region of Scarborough where there is quite a bit of gang activity, I can tell you that membership is not really contingent on skin colour. That being said, it could very well be the case that people other than those who are white commit the most violent crimes. (I don't know that this is true, even if we're talking gun violence... watching the news for this sort of information isn't helpful as it is entirely possible that they support a previously held belief rather than broadcast objectively... but who knows either way). There are other factors that... lead (?) to this sort of violence that need to be considered other than skin colour. People are people and skin colour doesn't change that. But there may be certain aspects of the chosen/unchosen lifestyles that are conducive to violence. Some people will say looking at a problem like this so closely is 'coddling' or 'weak' as we should solve the problem by simply reducing immigration or increasing standards. I'm not against throwing people in jail who commit violent crimes, especially with guns. But it's not effective (nor is it right) to simply label a group and treat them differently. Ex. Canadians are labelled as peaceful and generous people by those in other countries. Was this clown shooting his gun into a crowd peaceful or generous?

Obama is to terrorism what 'inside job' is to 9/11 Why can one be called a conspiracy theory but the other is taken as truth? On the media: They must find it difficult… those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority. - Gerald Massey

Sorry... this has been said already.

VERY curious. Good point!

That's not fair. White people belong to gangs and commit acts of violence too. The guy who killed an innocent girl at a bar on Queen street on the weekend was a white guy. Just pulled out his gun and fired it into a crowd. (There are other issues surrounding this guy, but you can't blame immigration for an increase in violence).

Well, you've convinced me. Now I'm very curious though. Because there is a difference between liability for slipping on ice at school and the kinds of things you see in the 'blue pages' in the Professionally Speaking magazine. I'll look into it... somehow. And if you're interested, I'll let you know what I learn. (Including where that $135 M a year goes!) I really can't think of another reason why principals are trigger shy these days either. Good conversation... and sorry for being aggressive.

The number of members does matter each member's contribution to 'insurance' premiums is equal... meaning between principals and teachers. $1000/year x 5000 members provides 5 million a year for principals but $1000/year x 135000 provides 135 million a year for principals. If contributions to insurance are equal then the number of members does indeed matter. A given principal is FAR more likely to be named on a law suit than is a given teacher. (And I'm taking your word for it that this is the way different industries work. I can't think of what $1000/year/member from 135 000 members could be used for if not as insurance itself). Well, fights aren't the type of thing that principals can (or do) really be lenient about. Violence is something that cannot be and will not be tolerated. But fights don't GENERALLY happen in the midst of a lesson. The types of things that principals have become far too forgiving about are things that are not so serious so as to require immediate action but serious enough that cannot be left unpunished. For example, a student came to my fiance's door a few years ago to disrupt the class. When she asked him to leave he made kissing noises at her and ran off. She found out who the kid was and reported the incident to his vice principal who said... "we have to figure out how serious of a problem this really is". In the end, the kid was given a warning and nothing more. Or, kids are given repeated warnings for plagiarism, or skipping or showing up late or blatantly disrespecting the teacher. All of these behaviours, obviously, disrupt the learning of EVERYONE in the classroom and if they're not corrected, any sense of respect for authority is diminished. THESE are the types of behaviours that principals have become reluctant to deal with because parents either don't believe their kid is responsible or simply don't see the behaviour as a problem. Now, I understand that you're not in a position to comment on that other than provide other anecdotes from a principal. Don't get me wrong either. There are principals who aren't scared of personal consequences and do an EXCELLENT job of managing their schools. All that I am saying is that it would be too much of a coincidence for this change to occur for some other reason at about the same time principals were removed from the teacher's unions. Suspension isn't always the best tool. It's a great threat, but cannot be overused or it won't be respected. Unless of course we're talking in-school suspensions which are VERY undesirable... for everyone involved though. It depends on the type of area in which you teach in terms of the interference from parents. The schools in poorer areas don't TYPICALLY have this problem but schools of wealthier students do. And it is these kids who often walk in the door with a sense of entitlement (leading to a lack of respect) that results in these less serious behaviours.

Well, the concept of communism has nothing to do with government. The idea of a group of people, undemocratically 'chosen', is a perceived necessity to coordinate a communist country... at least by those who attempted to force a communist lifestyle on a large population. This word, communism, is one of the most ambiguous words out there. EVERYONE has their own definition of what it means. It makes it really difficult to discuss certain topics. I agree with what you say though. The problem is that in a capitalist society, there can be undemocratic control of certain industries/companies as well. So really, it is possible to lose 'freedoms' under each system, regardless of which is 'better' or which is preferred. My point is that a decision to nationalize an industry, as you said, is a decision that is made by the people because it is in their best interest, for whatever reason.

I know that's not what you're saying, you're giving me evidence that Americans are proud of being American... or living in America... if those are two different things to be proud of. I'm aware that people are immigrating to both America and Canada, implying that there are things to be proud of here, I suppose. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that we, or you or they, have no reason to be proud, I'm asking about the nature of patriotism vs. unpatriotism. According to what you said, and correct me if I'm wrong, to be patriotic is to be proud of the country that you live in because it is more desirable than others, for whatever reason (apparently so much so that one becomes emotional upon hearing the national anthem). And to be unpatriotic is to like something or everything about another country or to agree with something about another countries society.

Well, that's an assumption that the 350 million people in America, or at least those that travel, share your views about those other countries. But, as I said, I'm not trying to say that comparing America to other countries shouldn't leave you feeling proud (I don't know that it should either though). Again, how does America progress socially or otherwise if they're always using other countries as a standard of comparison? Does that imply a dependence on these countries? (I know the answer will be no, but I'd like to know why that's so). That's unpatriotic? Saying that another country is as good (or better) than your own? That seems limiting to me. What if another country does come up with a great idea. Are you going to shun it simply because America didn't come up with it itself? I'd also like to note the ridiculousness of us (everyone seems to do it) referring to Americans, or Canadians as a homogeneous group of people, or a single entity. It's like referring to a corporation as an entity. Legally it is, but it is composed of a group of people each with their own mind and different (even if only slightly) opinions.

Well, it's not as simple as that. I don't disagree with you, but I don't know that segregation based on intellectual potential is a good idea... especially when the kids are so young. Regardless of this 'potential' that they have, they're not stupid; they know when they've been branded. And once they've been branded they can easily impose limits on themselves or they can use their 'lack of intellectual potential' as a crutch. They could externalize any responsibility for their own actions based on the label they've been given. So it's not ONLY about coddling kids. These kids also benefit by being exposed to others who are more intelligent, experienced and... mature(?). I know that I learned a lot just by being at university. Not necessarily in classes, just by being around people who think about ideas on a higher level than I was used to. In other words, keeping the slower learners with the quick ones might help the slow ones improve themselves. But on the other hand, you're right. As a teacher it is VERY difficult to meet the needs of your students when the range of needs is so broad.