Kitch

I don't mean to sound facetious but I am unaware of a study that finds a correlation between hungry kids and degenerate parents. Pretending that this correlation exists when it might not doesn't help either. The problem that you say will get worse is that poor people will get more poor? I know that by 'problem' you're referring to the poor people who take advantage of social assistance... what does that have to do with the income gap?

I hope so. But, isn't that supposed to be the case in a truly free market? That it will correct itself (not that I'm confident that would happen... people with a lot of money have the ability to control circumstances to their advantage)? But this is not a free market... it's a mixed market. So the amount of regulation that is already in place has changed the game. Either we can release all regulation and let capitalism have at it, or we have to do something to prevent (what some would refer to as) human nature from taking unearned pieces of the pie.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that suing parents of other kids isn't a plausible solution, but as guyser said, it's not as effective as you think it might be. On top of that, in my opinion, it would likely make things worse. Reading your answer, I don't think that you read what I wrote before as you didn't comment directly on it. That's fine, but I tried to give you some insight into how you can solve the problem with the school boards themselves. Now, that also depends on where you live as I can only comment on teaching in Ontario. The litigious nature of our society is one of the main contributing factors to discipline problems in schools today. Parents try to sue teachers, principals, schools and school boards for any of a number of reasons. This obviously costs school boards and teacher unions a LOT of money. I don't think we really have an appreciation for just how much money it does cost. So those who you think sit around with access to tax money (while YOU go to work) aren't sitting around. On the contrary, they're fighting law suits brought forward by parents ranging from greedy and misinformed to justified (yes, some law suits are definitely called for). So, the result, my friend, is that principals, WHO ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE TEACHER UNION, don't have the protection of a union (in the same way that we teachers do). If many law suits are brought against their school, it reflects poorly upon them and the school boards don't take kindly to this... because it costs the board a HUGE amount of money. So, there are incentives for principals to cater to parents regardless of the legitimacy of their complaints. As I said, it is not uncommon for a principal to override a teacher's decision about a student's grade (and when I say decision, I don't mean an arbitrary judgement) and grant a student credit for a course that he/she failed simply because a parent complained. So you can see that it might not be in a principal's best interest to discipline a student when they run the risk of gaining the attention of an angry parent (and their lawyer). The answer is one of two things. Either parents stops being so ridiculous in blaming the school for all of their children's problems (meaning, take responsibility for your kid if your kid is a distraction to others and themselves). AND, give principals the protection that they need from parents. You want to sue other parents who won't discipline their children, right? Well schools want to try to take on that responsibility, but we can only do that if our livelihood is not at risk (although it should be at risk for those who go too far in their attempts to discipline).

Not SOO much profanity. Reason being: "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine" Unfortunately, it seems that some not only do not tremble at injustice, they are unable to perceive it. It's not bad if people are doing well. Claiming class envy is too simplistic. I'm no economist, but when companies are losing money yet the CEOs are 'earning' greater and greater salaries something is wrong... and unjust. Proponents of free market capitalism often refer to Adam Smith. Was it not he who made a statement about the wage diversity within a company? I'm curious... what did he believe was a reasonable amount for the top dog in a company to earn?

Perhaps some. Are you implying that it's a rule that if a kid is hungry the parents are degenerates? I am amazed at the lack of empathy and closed mindedness of some of you. A wretched soul, bruised with adversity, We bid be quiet when we hear it cry; But were we burdened with like weight of pain, As much or more we should ourselves complain. William Shakespeare

Wow bud, you are ignorant. People who are poor are so due to disabilities or choice? No other reasons are possible? What's going to happen to all the employees of auto plants after they close? Sure some of them will be able to find jobs, but not all of them. And if they do, they won't necessarily pay as much. Perhaps they HAD the means to take care of their kids until circumstances changed. Sure you're helping (mind you, obviously not by choice), but you're also spitting in the face of those that need help. Edited.

What an ignorant thing to say. I'm confident the kids in my classes that arrive at school hungry would be offended by your comment.

Bud, as a teacher in Toronto I can tell you that there are more problems in schools outside of the 'inner city'. But, it seems that you're referring to Mississauga and Brampton as 'inner city' regions. Well, either way, schools in down town Toronto are GENERALLY better than those in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. Also, I've given you all some insight into the workings of the public school system with regard to what's broken, what the effect is, and what could be done about it. Yet, many of you seem disinterested and continue to speculate about what can be done... such as sue parents of problem children?! Come on now! Perhaps, as a teacher, I'm one of those socialists who's words and ideas are unworthy of consideration.

I sympathize with your situation, for sure. But I'm curious... What do you mean "even though" it is a private company? Do you believe that private companies, by virtue of being private, are always 'good' or always act in the best interest of the customers?

And I believe that's about all they should handle. Anything that is common to human beings is what the federal government should handle. Provinces are, in my opinion, too large to govern effectively as well. People who live in the same communities don't necessarily more in common with each other, but their lives are more intertwined with each other than with people from different communities. Therefore, government should be very local, in my opinion.

First of all, your use of the term cognitive dissonance is incorrect. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort one feels from holding two contradictory ideas. Some people alleviate this discomfort by either trying to justify their actions/attitudes or by changing their attitudes/beliefs. The notion that scientists would allow themselves to believe something because funding depends on it might be a phenomenon by some other name, but it's not cognitive dissonance. And just to correct you, global warming is not being disputed. The cause of it is. Now, I don't think anyone views scientists as infallible. If they do, they're doing themselves a disservice. People in white jackets aren't always right and YOU'RE right in saying that scientists are just as vulnerable to the pressures that, for example, politicians experience from campaign contributors. It is entirely possible that some scientists exaggerate results in order to maintain/gain funding. What I find interesting is that you think that scientists are more likely to do so than other people with vested interests in the dispute. Some scientists are funded by oil companies or others whose products create much pollution. These scientists are obviously encouraged to arrive at conclusions that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. And given the power of some of these energy companies, you'd think that government employed scientists might be encouraged to arrive at similar conclusions. Why do you use the word 'altruistic' when making your assumption of the image people have of scientists? I think YOU have a skewed view of them. Particularly because it's a pretty large (and clearly unnoticed by yourself) contradiction to assert that the scientists who believe we're causing climate change are influenced but those who find that we're not are not. Scientists are by no means altruistic in their work as this would not result in 'science' my friend. Experiments are designed first by observing some phenomenon, hypothesizing as to the cause, developing an experiment that is aimed at REFUTING the hypothesis. Once the experiment is carried out, if the hypothesis is not refuted, it is still plausible. The more times we can't refute a hypothesis, the more confidence we have in that hypothesis. Have a read of Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations". So, in reality, we know that nothing can be "proved" to be so. All we can really do is prove things to be NOT so. Scientists are, generally, not interested in anything beyond learning. That's all science is... it's a mode of inquiry. Have a read of some peer reviewed articles to see just how valid the conclusions are. I'm sure you'll find many that are and many that aren't. But you can't brand all scientists as sharing a certain tendency such as doctoring their results to maintain funding. If you want to dispute the research, dispute the research. Ad hominem attacks don't do anything to help your cause. Attack the use of models that make large assumptions, challenge the idea that CO2 is a significant green house gas, but don't attack the people who are making the claims. That's weak. My quote does apply to everyone equally. I don't think scientists are immune. But I tend to think that some people have more to lose than environmental scientists have to gain. You seem to not have a good understanding of how science works and how funding is determined. You are a perfect example of a person who doesn't want to believe something (or understand it) because of money. I have already said that I'm on the fence about the cause of global warming, but I'm not closing my mind to possibilities based on ridiculous external factors. You want to talk science, talk science. Don't throw weak attempts at politics and psychology out there!

Does this hypothetical not lend support to the idea of more localized governance? Canada is too big and too diverse for people to live under the same umbrella.

This is an ignorant thing to say as you clearly don't understand the gravity of the situation. The problem isn't necessarily directly related to humans. Other living things, that we depend on, are in danger. We some how believe that we are not part of nature... that we have ultimate control over what happens to us on this planet. This is simply not so. There are complex relationships that exist between ALL living things and if those relationships are hurt, we will inevitably be hurt as well. The problem lies in the fact that some people don't WANT to believe that we are causing the problem because it will affect the economy. (As if we wouldn't find new industries to supply jobs anyway). This completely lacks an understanding of the fact that the economy is something created by us... we existed for a LONG time before we created the notion of money came to be. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

OK, but is that the kind of stuff that MPs are responsible for, or is that something of a political tactic? Just asking. I understand the ombudsman part and would love it if my MP stood up for me when I have a problem, but in my experience, (which I know is only anecdotal), that doesn't happen. Is the ombudsman function part of the job description or is it, too, reserved for those we call 'good' MPs?

I mean in terms of the effect IN parliament. I have no doubt that you're correct about the small interest parties. But how much power/influence will they have? In a sense, the PR consequences that you outlined would be more democratic. People vote for parties now, no matter what some people try to say. So, when you vote liberal, say, you're voting for a spectrum of opinions, as you said. So really, there's no way of knowing which... position on the spectrum will be represented by the party. (Probably close to the centre, but maybe that's not the 'best' thing to happen). Whereas with the numerous small parties, the debating process happens right out in the open rather than within parties away from view. Perhaps an unfounded idea... what do you think??

Hyperbole?

This discussion on this forum is indicative of the level of understanding that the public at large has of these election models. Ontarians had no idea, generally, what they were voting on except that it was either 'the way it is' vs. 'a new way'.

Well, I can't speak about that, but my question is, what to MPs do that is in the direct interest of the people in their riding and ONLY the people in their riding?

Teens may get pregnant for this reason but one way to combat this is... education. These decisions might be made without a full understanding of how the world works. If this is not so, then a person who decides to have a baby to get government cheques is despicable. Now, I may be wrong, but I don't think that there are THAT many people that are so malevolent so as to knowingly (meaning all the factors involved) bring a child into the world to get a free ride. So, education might help. So is the problem that in order to get better education we need to get better education? If one buys into what I've just said, that would be true. So what's the solution? Well, assuming it's not possible to 'make' parents discipline their children more effectively, we CAN try to teach these kids some responsibility at school. The problem is that this necessitates the ability to exact punishment, physical or not (I much prefer non-physical... and I think it'd be harder to sell anyway), without the fear of unfounded parental backlash. This necessarily means changing the fact that principals actively attempt to avoid this parental backlash because their jobs could be in jeopardy. I've seen situations in which principals changed the grades of students who failed a course because of a complaint from a parent! It's not uncommon at all, apparently. That is ridiculous!!! The kid learns no lessons in responsibility except that they don't need to be responsible in order to be 'successful' in school.

If I may add, from the perspective of a teacher, you are not being ridiculous. It is truly unfair to everyone that so much time is often spent dealing with behaviour issues. Sometimes, it is the teacher's fault... although I find it difficult to say that this is common. Some teachers just don't know how to engage their students... and keeping them interested in the topic at hand is the number one way of preventing behaviour problems. The other problem is the relative impotence of teachers in terms of discipline. Ever since the last strike in Ontario, principals are no longer part of the teacher federations, and as such, have their own interests in the schools now. It is not uncommon for a teacher to exhaust all options while dealing with a student and finally resort to sending a kid to the office, only to have the kid come back after receiving a warning... for a repeated offense. Principals can't always be blamed as they have to look out for the good of the school, and that often means avoiding law suits. Some parents will not accept that their child is a problem or has done something wrong and if you try to tell them otherwise, they give YOU problems. Sometimes, they take things way too far and sue the teacher, principal, school, school board and/or the ministry! (The more people on the list the greater opportunity for money). School boards spend a LOT of money settling frivolous law suits... some are not frivolous, but many are. This creates an environment in school boards similar to insurance companies, with principals being adjusters. The less a board has to pay out, the better. So principals tend to want to do their part by preventing issues from getting to that point. Often this means giving parents what they want. When principals were in our union, however, they didn't need to worry about such things as they couldn't be punished for ridiculous law suits... but they can now. And students quickly become aware of the lack of discipline and do as they please, making it VERY difficult to teach. So, partly, the problem has to do with parents no longer treating their kids like kids. They want to be friends with their kids, and want to be the 'cool' parent. Or they simply coddle their kid for any number of reasons. This leads to kids with a huge sense of entitlement and an 'I can do no wrong' approach to life. Compound this with what I said above, and there you have it... today's school atmosphere. Don't get me wrong, the number of parent/kids like this is small compared to the rest. But they do create huge problems for everyone else.

Funny, but... So leftists are those who either seek welfare or indiscriminately give it out, and right wingers are those who look out for themselves. Seems fair... and it's not at all a generalization.

I never said you don't have a right to complain... I just said you sound like a baby. You would quit crying if you thought more about what you are saying. Did I not give reason enough to show why that's so? You hear of one family getting help from Habitat for humanity, not the government, and go on a rant about how people on welfare are lazy and it's not fair. Bud, some people need it. And like I said, in the case of helping people with kids, it's about the KIDS!!! They can't do anything for themselves, they can't get jobs. It's not their fault that some parents are irresponsible clowns. It's unfortunate that some parents take advantage but that's an unavoidable side effect... that the parents benefit, not necessarily take advantage. A lazy bastard unwilling to work is not a family with 6 kids. That single bastard should be subject to some mechanism designed to prevent the system from being taken advantage of. You don't seem to differentiate between people who need help and those that sponge off society. There is a difference and you can't punish everyone because of the potential for sponging that exists. Dude, I don't make a great salary either. I won't have a problem getting a house that is comfortable for me. Maybe you need to change your idea of what a "small" house is. The reality is that some people take advantage of welfare programs. Your beef is with them and the government agencies responsible for detecting that. Your beef is not with the concept of welfare... is it? If that's the case then I have no patience for you and give your complaint little merit as it's extraordinarily self centred, inconsiderate and ignorant. But, that's only if your beef is with the concept.

I think that the idea that people move from the left to the right as they age is simply another form of ridicule against the left by people on the right. If you prioritize something other than whatever makes the economy grow at the top of your list, then you're stupid, right? I mean... correct? Or you don't understand how the world works. That's essentially what we're told. I'm obviously not being fair to those who sincerely believe in free markets and have no problem explaining in detail why. But it's also not fair for people to assume that a leftist wrong and then not explain why, in detail, you think so instead of simply calling 'us' names.

Is it the belief of some that there is no limit to the amount of CO2 that can be released by humans without causing some change? Honestly.

The fact that MMP was shut down in Ontario once frustrates the hell out of me because I'm confident that people didn't really know what they were voting on. And now we're likely never to get the choice again. I wasn't even aware that different election models existed before that... perhaps this is true for many people which would give reason to the alleged low number of people calling for election reform. I have read a lot from people stating that MPs need to represent communities/ridings in order to be accountable... or simply that voting for a party rather than a person is not ideal. DO MPs really need to represent a riding? What is it that MPs do, in terms of governing, that represents the interests of the people in their riding? As opposed to representing the interests of ALL the people that voted for a politician from the same party? I, personally, think that I have different interests (living in Toronto) than people living in Alberta. Should the policies decided on in federal government not represent the views of people on issues that are not contingent on regional circumstances? Such as the abortion issue? Anything that is dependent on the region should be left to the region to decide. Therefore, I don't know that MPs really need to represent ridings. People, as it was said earlier, don't vote for the name on the election signs, they vote for the PM or the colour of the sign. I voted Green and couldn't tell you the name of the candidate. Had I voted for another party it would have nothing to do with that person and everything to do with the party. And what is wrong with "fringe" parties getting seats? (I don't mind cybercoma's suggestion about vote thresholds). Wouldn't these parties just bring new, ill or unconsidered ideas? How much power could a fringe party with 2 seats really exert anyway? Doesn't parliament work by members voting on legislation (whether it's with their party or not)? So if the conservatives have 143 seats and the NDP have 37, and individuals in these parties vote with their parties... does this not mean that the conservatives will win every time? Is that too simplified? I really like the idea of proportional representation for the reasons that I gave above... of course, that's contingent on the answers that (if people would kindly oblige) are given to my questions. I have absolutely no beef with mixed member parliament though.