Kitch

In principle, I strongly believe in freedom of speech. But in practice, it's not clear in my own mind what constitutes an expression as compared to an action. Your bomb threat example is a good one. It's an expression in that the person making the threat is doing nothing but speaking words. But at the same time, they could be communicating the potential harm that they will cause on other people. Obviously the main issue is that we don't want people blowing up, so the action is wrong. But if it is an empty threat... then what? The threat must be considered real until shown otherwise. So words do/can cause an effect in other people. This particular effect is different from the potential effects of hate speech. If I repeatedly put down a particular group of people and somebody else goes out and hurts a person belonging to that group, the person who did the hurting is at fault, not me in the least. But if I personally threaten to do harm on somebody, that person CAN be justified in their actions, whatever that action is. It's a very grey area to me. I really don't know if my claim of "limitless" freedom is at odds with this grey area or not.

Soooooo, Americans freedom wasn't reduced, even if slightly, after 9/11? The fact that a black man is running for president is a problem to nobody? Everyone in America has access to the things they need to survive? I suppose my eyes are too open to see reality. I should close them just enough so that I see only what I want. This is all besides the point, which is a digression in itself. Even IF we assume that things are as rosy as you'd like to think in America, is Canada different? The UK? Germany? Do the people of Argentina feel differently about their countries (I don't know)? People from most countries are proud of the country that they were born in... more so than of other countries. Therefore, I believe Mr. Shaw is correct.

Those are indeed problems with our society. But schools have the ability to combat this, if not change it. But that ability has been taken away from schools, in Ontario at least.

What if they have the child while they can afford it but at some point, in the child's life before it can provide for itself, the parents, for whatever reason, can no longer afford it?

I don't disagree with you here. But the system can be poorly designed in the other direction. I can't comment on the reasons that some of my students don't have money, but it is an indication that there is a problem when a student is absent one day because they can't afford bus tickets. Or, if a student is disruptive because they haven't eaten anything that day. This doesn't NECESSARILY indicate a societal problem, but it's worth investigating, right?

But it can. And your assertion doesn't speak to the likelihood of a cause/effect relationship either. This is one step short of saying "it's not true because it's not true".

When did age become part of the discussion? A few of you, now, have claimed that rich and poor people are not static groups. Well, young and old are, and you're trying to link wealth to age.

So we have to choose one or the other? We have to be completely equal (in terms of finances) or the opposite? Mr. Churchill was a smart man indeed. But this particular quotation doesn't do justice to the debate. How can you possibly make definitive statements about models of society in one sentence?

I won't deny that some unions are too powerful and can be as greedy as some corporations. That's a problem. But unions are, sometimes, necessary. Companies should not be able to exploit employees, but employees should also not be able to exploit this. I can't offer any solutions for that. That doesn't say anything about my original point though. You're saying that because unions are powerful, in the case of auto workers, the companies were forced to make moves, and that it was not the economy that initiated the plant closures. That can be debated, but the point is this; what of the employee that voted against strikes and anything that unions typically vote on? That person cannot be blamed for the power of the union and therefore can't be blamed for the circumstances that they're suffering from. Now, I'm digging here obviously. Who knows how likely it is that such a union member exists (realistically... all you union haters out there can't claim to KNOW either). But my overall point is that people aren't always responsible for their circumstances. Sometimes things happen by chance or as a result of OTHER peoples' decisions.

That's quite the accusation. People who desire equality are necessarily communists? I don't think people really care that there are some very wealthy people out there, but they do care when people don't have access to the things you listed... and it's not a merely interesting question. It's an extremely important one. I'm not advocating for giving a free ride to freeloaders. On the contrary I think that freeloading is one of the worst offences that a person can commit. There's no reason why we can't prevent this type of fraud (that I'm aware of). If our economy is consistently growing (overall) and yet there are still people who don't have access to the basics then we're doing something wrong. Some may say "it's the survival of the fittest!" Well, I don't know how I feel about that given that we claim to be superior to other living things in the wild in terms of our ability/desire to be civilized. But regardless, the next time you watch a nature video in which some predator is looking for some prey, take note of whether it is always the weak that are attacked. Sometimes animals get into large groups (think fish, for example) to protect themselves but the ones who are unlucky enough to be on the perimeter of the group are the most vulnerable... not necessarily the weakest.

I think that there are some really good points that can be debated. For example... Can some of the economic experts on this forum please try to explain to me how it is possible for the economy to grow indefinitely?

Freedom now or 8 years ago? Human rights for whites or for everyone? Standard of living in all regions? If you were American, you'd fit right in. Sorry. Cheap shot at America, not you.

That's because you seem awfully concerned with yourself. "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith And I want no part of a society filled with people like you. Would it even be fair to call that a 'society'?

He'd also be shocked to see how many people so far into the future are unable or unwilling to open their minds to possibilities. You miss the point of the quotation though. Don't comment on my education.

Who's disagreeing with you on that? What of a person who is skilled, in a division of labour sort of way, who makes a good living and provides a good life for their family... until an entire industry craps the bed? Such as manufacturing in Ontario? You're being hard on people who suffer from consequences rather than decisions.

Situating yourself on a higher horse does not equate to higher education. You're a clown and me saying so says nothing about my intellectual capacity nor my ability to teach. And yes, I am passionate about some things. Anger doesn't immediately make me wrong... but your tunnel vision on this issue does prevent you from acknowledging its complexity. Most = majority, no? You're right though. My question wasn't a good one. I'm challenging you on the notion that poor = result of bad choices more often than other reasons... not the number of possible reasons. Don't let YOUR little feelings get hurt because I'm noticing the selfish, CLOSED MINDED character of your posts. So nothing is left to chance? It's ALL about good and bad choices? You ridicule me for my tendency to be emotional yet you lack the capacity to experience empathy, it seems.

We used to have our own 'big' businesses until NAFTA. Relatively speaking, of course.

What you've said doesn't sound unreasonable. But it is possible (I'm making no comment on the likelihood) that some businesses view providing their service/product to Canadians as more important than making more money. No matter how many people dislike this notion or believe it to be an unlikely scenario, it's not ridiculous. (how much more do businesses make when business taxes are reduced anyway? Don't they have good accountants that know how to navigate through tax laws?)

I think you answered your own question my friend. Actions are not protected by the rights of expression. I consider threats to be actions as well... at least potential actions. Which is not as severely punishable as is the realized potential. Murder vs. attempted murder. My claim of limitless freedom of expression is held strong in principle, but not in scope. (Does that make sense?)

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." -- Bertrand Russell But be prepared to learn something that you don't like. Whether it be that Obama is a racist, or that Marxist ideas aren't all that bad. And let me drop this gem too: Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. George Bernard Shaw

Ask away. I spoke with my fiance's mother who taught for about 25 years, took her principal qualification courses and now works as a guidance counsellor... which is a position that works very closely with school administration. And my professor in 'law class' in teacher's college, a former super intendant and long time principal, was the first to explain to me that principals do not have the same protection that we teachers do. By personally at risk I mean that if a school/board is sued and the principal is named, and the suit is lost, then the principal is not financially backed by their union. Teachers are protected by the OTF, Ontario Teacher's Federation. How many schools are there in Ontario? And how many teachers are there in each school? There can be over 100 teachers in a building. How much money does that generate in union dues? Now, how many principals and vice principals are there in each school? Their union simply can't generate the necessary funds. It's too small. (And when a parent sues, they usually name as many entities as they can... teacher, principal, school, school board... as there is a better chance of getting money). If you don't "believe" this to be true, what explanation can you offer for principals avoiding conflicts with parents? Even when they're in the right?

Not that I support the NDP but why is it so commonly assumed that an individual who does has 'no grasp of economics' rather than having a different perspective of the economy... or simply has different priorities?

I was wrong about principals not belonging to a union. They do but it's a small union and there are relatively few members (compared to the teacher's federations) that they don't have enough money to back principals in law suits. So, if a principal is named in a law suit, they're personally at risk. They used to be members of the teacher federations but Mike Harris wanted them to be managers instead of 'head teachers'. Regardless, this is still the reason why discipline has become ineffective in Ontario schools. (Or at least a contributing factor).

Agreed. My comment was aimed at the other guy though. I know what you were saying before... and I don't know what to think about it. What would it mean if only one of the numbers was changing? Either way the gap is widening, right?

Hearsay? Go here: www.oct.ca the web site of the Ontario College of Teachers. Check out "Professionally Speaking" the publication that the OCT puts out every... I don't know how often, and look at the "blue pages". Here you'll find ALL the investigations of teachers for... the period of the publication. Only teachers found guilty will be named. Check out how many are dismissed. And keep in mind that this is the professional association, not legal courts. Actual court hearings may happen simultaneously or after the OCT completes their own investigation (which is often more scrutinizing since teachers are held to a higher standard than are other citizens... by our own professional association that is... the body that licenses us). The type of protection that I'm referring to for principals is the type that a union can provide. They used to be part of the teacher's union until the last time we had a strike. Then, during the Harris government (as a time reference, not as a shot at a particular government), they were removed from our union and now have the Ontario Principals Council which I believe is not as effective as our union was for them. Indeed the school boards end up settling out of court more often than not because it is cheaper to do so in a lot of cases. How often does a principal refuse to override a teacher's decision? I don't know. I don't even know how often they do override teacher decisions. All that I know is that it's happened. I've read about it in the paper and it happened to my fiance who is also a teacher. The principal actually approached her afterwards to tell her, which doesn't always happen, and explained that he felt that he was doing HER a favour by appeasing the parents of two students of hers... who, she told me, did not deserve the grades that they were given. Had he not done so, the parents could have caused a LOT of grief for my fiance. So, the threat of legal action has weakened the authority of everyone in the school system. You propose taking action against other parents. Well, besides the extreme difficulty in 'proving' your case, the teacher is ultimately responsible for the behaviour in the classroom. We're just not always supported in ways that we need. When those two students got the grades that their Mom's wanted, they presumably lost respect for my fiance and no longer acknowledge her authority, both as an educator and disciplinarian. But what would the overall result be if parents started suing other parents? We already have kids in our schools with an enormous sense of entitlement because their parents have taught them, through their own actions, that the students is always right. If the parents of good kids start suing the parents of bad kids you create a number of problems. Bullying against the good kids, you teach the good kids that they way to get what you want out of society is to sue somebody, you run the risk of putting the children of poor parents in worse situations (which may be the initial reason for misbehaviour), and you very well could have frivolous law suits from this front too. Not to mention the complete lack of ability for schools to teach any sort of responsibility for actions because that is done in court, not in the classroom. Not very "real world" answers? Changing societal attitudes is indeed wishful thinking, but protecting principals so that they are not at risk of losing their jobs if too many parents try to sue. Think of school boards as insurance companies. Insurance adjusters that pay out too much are not 'good' for business. Those who reject a lot of claims are great because they save money. Similarly, principals that avoid law suits at ALL costs... even if the cost is YOUR kid's education... are 'good' employees of the board. I am offended at your suggestion though. Why do you keep trying to down play the possibility that I have something to offer? Either I'm a teacher and therefore too far into the culture, or my claims are hearsay or just not realistic. Meanwhile, I'm the one trained as an educator, exposed to classrooms all the time, deal with principals and problem students and have been given guidance by current and former school board super intendants. How are you so sure that I'm wrong about what I've said?