Jump to content

tango

Members
  • Posts

    1,641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tango

  1. That would still fit in with the principle of capping how much the school can spend on transport. If it can do it using public transport or some other relatively inexpensive means of trasport, then good for them.

    Lack of benefit does not eqaul harm though. While this would benefit urban centres, it would not hurt rural centres (all they'd notice is a change of administrative procedures). So if it benefits one group but doesn't hurt others, so be it. If the government should introduce laws that benefit rural communities but neither benefit nor hurt urban communties, I'm sure most urbanites woudl support it too.

    Rural students would not have as much choice of schools, perhaps none, so it would hurt them.

  2. "Apparently" we don't need a court of law. "Apparently" you have all the answers.

    "Apparently" I'm the only one who read the reports from court.

    The links are there if you choose to read. Then you can know what I learned.

  3. How more glaring can a double standard be!!!! If you're a minority race... you need affirmative action because of the "potential for discrimination"

    oh but if you're white: "The 'potential' for discrimination doesn't count as evidence of discrimination."

    We have equity programs because of existing discrimination in employment, housing, etc.

  4. Came across these two articles today and yesterday. Both are prime examples of what conservatives hate about the current criminal law in Canada. Both are examples of murderers not being treated as murderers, but being given slaps on the wrists, and then being allowed out again quickly.

    ...

    We definitely need to reform our laws on homicide so that people who commit murder go away forever, not for a couple of months or years.

    Convicted Killer gets indeterminate sentence

    Convicted killer on trial for rape

    I'm not sure I think everyone should do life for killing someone. I don't know what I think of this one ... don't know what the sentence was, except he's out now.

    Verdon, who was convicted in 1998 of manslaughter for beating 63-year-old Robert Savoie to death for $55 and a car battery,

    But I think this sentence was far too short ... :angry:

    In 1990, he was sentenced to three years and six months in prison for choking to death a teenaged girl, who he was angry at because she was in the midst of her menstrual cycle. The body of Crystal Hogg, 17, was found near the Terrace airport. Initially charged with second-degree murder, Bruneau claimed the choking was accidental.

    And I think it's appropriate that he's now in jail indefinitely. That means lifelong monitoring, I think, and no chance of parole for at least 7 years, and not much then.

    In imposing sentence on Daniel Joseph Bruneau, B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Janet Sinclair Prowse said she was satisfied there was evidence that the accused was a dangerous offender and that he had no reasonable prospect of being controlled in the community.

    “Given these decisions, I impose upon you a jail sentence of an indefinite period.”

    I'm trying to find data on crimes and length of sentences. This is all so far, nothing about length.

    Offences for Which a Prison Sentence Was Imposed, 2000/011

    Homicide 85

    Robbery 77

    Attempted Murder 66

    Break and Enter 61

    Kidnapping 59

    Offences Against the Administration of Justice 56

    Sexual Abuse 56

    Sexual Assault 53

    Arson 52

    Trafficking / Importing Drugs 49

    Major Assault 48

    Criminal Code Traffic 47

    Possesion of Stolen Property 46

    Other Criminal Code Offences 39

    Theft 38

    Total Offences 35

    Fraud and Related 35

    Weapons and Explosives 34

    These are the parameters:

    The Sentences Resulting From First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder And Manslaughter.

    In cases of murder, the sentence is automatically a life sentence whether that’s first degree murder or second degree murder. In cases of second degree murder, the judge has the ability to fix the period of parole ineligibility anywhere between 10 and 25 years with recommendations from the jury, if they choose to make them. If you’re convicted of first degree murder, you automatically receive a life sentence with parole eligibility at 25 years.

    Manslaughter, if it’s committed with the use of a firearm, carries a minimum sentence of 5 years. But that is the only condition for a minimum sentence for manslaughter. In other words, if you push somebody down the stairs, not meaning to cause death, but they die tragically, then you are not subject to any minimum sentence. You could receive any sentence at all, including, in theory, a suspended sentence and avoid jail altogether. There are a few examples of people charged with manslaughter who receive what’s called a conditional sentence. Technically, it’s a sentence of imprisonment but you’re permitted to serve it in the community, usually meaning a house arrest sentence. It’s rare, but there have been people who are found guilty of manslaughter and receive a house arrest sentence.

    http://info.lawyershop.ca/criminal/index.p...d-manslaughter/

    Sentences for manslaughter range from eighteen months to life depending on the perceived severity of the crime, the most common sentences being from three to five years with parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence has been served. Most prisoners serve one-third to half the sentence before release.

    http://www.jpp.org/documents/forms/JPP1_2/Walford.pdf

    All murder which are not first degree murder are considered second degree murder. An example of second degree murder is a wife and husband start arguing. This dispute turns physical and in the process of the fight, the husband gets his gun. He then shoots and kills her during their fight. This would be second degree murder because there was no preplanning of the husband's actions before the dispute started and it was not his intention, when they started to fight, to kill her.

    http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/rev2/in...7&Itemid=37

    I'm not sure I agree with this. You pick up a gun and shoot it at someone, you have intent to kill, I think.

    "I didn't intend to kill her, just argue, but she argued back p'd me off ... so I shot her!"

    ???

  5. This very question is the meat on the bone of bureaucracy. We have triplication of efforts from the federal to the provincial and finally to the municipal level.

    Federal government should be all about setting national standards or baselines of minimum levels. The provinces should administer these things and the cities or counties should undertake the operational delivery of services.

    If all forms of programs and services were designed this way we could cut billions from the three levels of government budgets and reduce the numbers of bureaucrats by the thousands.

    They seem to think it works better with a division of responsibilities, and I think I agree: Getting two levels of government to work together on anything is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

    I think it's better with each having their own jurisdictions (and taxation powers) and staying out of each other's way.

    There's no real duplication of function, I don't think, though there are areas where they have to coordinate due to their different responsibilities.

    You'd have to give me examples.

    The CMEC (see above) provides monitoring of standards, national and international.

    It is run by province/territory Ministers of Education but I expect it is funded by the feds.

  6. I can't imagine an education system coagulated at the federal level. Cripes! Nothing would ever get done!

    The feds provide educational resources and a connection to international education scene (standards, assessments, etc.) and that's valuable.

    http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/subject...ion/index.shtml

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/AboutParl_Edu....asp?Language=E

    http://www.international.gc.ca/studies-etu...x.aspx?lang=eng

    The Council of Ministers of Education also provides some national oversight:

    Newest Publications

    Key Factors to Support Literacy Success in School-Aged Populations

    2009-08-06

    Fact Sheet: Transitions to the Labour Market

    2009-06-17

    Factors Affecting the Use of Student Financial Assistance Programs by Aboriginal Youth

    2009-05-20

    Research Project: An Examination of Barriers to Pursuing Postsecondary Education and Potential Solutions

    2009-05-15

    Fact Sheet: Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program, Household Spending on Education

    2009-05-01

    Upcoming Events

    * ` 96th CMEC Meeting 2009-09-01

    * UNESCO Ministerial Round Table 2009-10-09

    But administering education at the federal level? NO THANKS!

  7. I just recapped 3 very good examples, and lifted many others while here... I also cited the CHARTER... that's right the LAW OF THE LAND... saying quite clearly that minorities have rights to SPECIAL PRIVILEGES which in effects makes them "MORE EQUAL" then us ie makes white people SECOND CLASS CITIZENS...

    What you have provided are examples of employers hiring those they want to hire, to provide better service to the public. How outrageous! :rolleyes:

    Can an import-export business hire a Chinese Canadian to service China, an Iraqi Canadian to service Iraq, etc? Yes, of course they can: It's a requirement of the job.

    Firefighters, police officers, nurses, doctors, teachers, etc, must likewise be qualified to serve the public that exists in their area, including understanding and speaking the language, understanding the culture, etc.

    Big deal. :rolleyes:

    you aren't really interested in what is fair and what is accurate...

    you would rather retain the undue privileges given to minorities because

    YOU WANT WHAT YOU WANT... not because of anything moral or EQUAL. ...

    you people would be all for it... as somehow "correcting discimrination" or "equalizing the playing field" etc or whatever... that's because

    you don't care about whats fair and equal... if

    you have a prospect of benefiting from it..

    that's all that matters to you..

    you really could'nt care less about equality and a rational justice system or charter...

    Don't tell me what I think, sonny.

    I'll tell you what I think:

    I think I'm embarrassed to be the same race as racist pigs like you. <_<

    And btw ... you've shown no examples of white male individuals actually convincing a court or other adjudicator that they were discriminated against. The 'potential' for discrimination doesn't count as evidence of discrimination.

  8. Yet you say: Obviously Omar was shot in the back during the fight, fell, and at some point was covered in rubble, presumably from a grenade, since he also had shrapnel wounds in his eyes.

    So as you say it's hard to get at the truth, you say "obviously" this-is-what-happened.

    You also say I prefer the court reports (under oath), and I think the picture speaks for itself re the sequence of events: Omar wasn't throwing any grenade at the end of that fight, yet if there are conflicting reports under oath, you pick the one you want to believe as 'the truth.'

    There are no conflicting reports under oath.

    You also conclude that Omar wasn't throwing the grenade at the end of the fight based on a picture that was taken even later. Who are you to know if he was capable of one last move, blindly throwing a grenade?

    Yes, that's why Obama made all the decisions that he did regarding Gitmo; it was "definitely looking like [Omar] was innocent," so Obama tried to spare the Bush administration embarrassment for having held Omar for all those years, and "pulled the plug on the trial."

    How do you know it wasn't his choice to be there? Seriously.

    Wow. Sounds as if you really have some privileged information regarding what went on the Khadar family, not to mention in Omar's mind.

    A fifteen year old can most definitely want to go to war.

    Omar was 10 when his father took him to war. He was 15 when it ended for him ... in Gitmo.

    The fact that it's not legal (here) doesn't mean there aren't fifteen year olds who "want" to, and who choose to go in nations that don't have laws against it.

    It's not legal anywhere, by international law.

    But to speak about "what he knew" as if you actually know what was on his mind tells me all I need to know about your views on this issue.

    Which "soldiers" have ... "holy crap!" .... "[told the court] that Omar was innocent?"

    Yep. I'm sure that's exactly what Obama is wishing.

    I honestly don't think most people are looking upon it as that "nightmare" that you see it as.

    Again, you have no idea if he was "forced into war" or not. You really need to learn to differentiate between "fact" and "personal beliefs" based on, well, nothing, really.

    Read Omar's brother's story (above). Omar knew that if he didn't do what his father told him, his father would make him kill himself by becoming a suicide bomber. That's "force", in my view.

    There sure is, yet it doesn't seem to be stopping you. You are speculating as to why Omar was in Afghanistan, what happened while he was there, why he did what he did, what he thought, and why Obama has made the decisions that he did.

    I am trying to draw a distinction between:

    - the court reports of US soldiers' testimonies under oath, that I believe are closer to the truth, (Dec2008-Jan2009) and

    - the army incident reports that appear doctored for a coverup, as might be expected under pressure of commanding officers, (2002?) and

    - the popular myths that have no basis in fact.

    It's your choice what you choose to believe, but I prefer to try to root out the real truth.

    I've provided the links earlier if you wish to read the media reports of US soldiers' testimonies under oath.

    Apparently I'm the only one here interested enough in the truth to actually follow the pre-trial (Dec08) and trial(Jan09). It seems that others are only interested in creating myths to support anger and desire for revenge. It's also clear that the Canadian media felt the same, as their reports were not nearly as clear and thorough as the US media reports I read at the time.

    I believe the US soldiers actually present at the incident told the truth in court:

    - The adult was still alive and was executed. There was doubt whether he could have thrown a grenade as he was shooting at the time the grenade went off.

    - Omar was badly wounded earlier in the fight, buried under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and could not have thrown a grenade. The earlier report that they had shot him in the back after the fight was apparently a coverup story. Look at the picture: There's dust on top of the blood from his wounds. Those wounds did not occur after they pulled him from the rubble. They were already there when he was under the rubble.

    Also, the day before Obama pulled the plug on the trial (Jan09), knowing it was going to happen, Omar Khadr's lawyer held a press conference and said that the evidence to be presented in court the next day was a forensics report indicating that the grenade was US issue, and Speer's death thus likely accidental 'friendly fire'.

    However, he never got a chance to present that evidence in court.

    Now you tell me that's not suspiciously like a coverup!!

    Again, I have provided the links earlier and I am not interested in arguing with people who haven't read the reports from court.

    Either you are looking for the truth, or you prefer to be part of the coverup.

    That's your choice.

    Me, I preferred to pay close attention to what the soldiers said when they were under oath and not under direct pressure from army command. Afterall, it is their duty to tell the truth, and to refuse illegal orders such as fabricating coverup stories, and I admire them for stepping up.

    I do believe it is a HUGE public relations nightmare for the US and Canada, and I think both Obama and Harper know that, and they are just stalling to avoid letting the real truth come out in court. Meanwhile, Omar sits in Gitmo so the US and Canada don't have to embarrass themselves. Is that justice? No ... it's just sleazy politics.

  9. Children and war crmes ...

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55047.php

    "Shall juveniles committing war crimes be prosecuted? If not, is there a danger that warlords may delegate more atrocities to be committed by child soldiers?"

    "One may argue that child recruitment into armed forces is in itself a war crime, and that child soldiers are overwhelmingly victims rather than perpetrators and should therefore not be prosecuted," the authors say. "Yet such impunity may encourage military commanders to delegate the 'dirtiest' orders to child soldiers. In that way, a decision not to prosecute child perpetrators would indirectly expose child soldiers to more risks rather than protecting them."

    The authors argue that "there may be situations where it could be in the interest of children to be held accountable," but international courts are not the place. "These are not matters for an international court, which is more of an opportunity to bring to justice leaders and architects of crimes who would otherwise escape from justice in unwilling or incapable states."

    For children, "accountability does not necessarily involve criminal responsibility, a wide range of other options exist," including, for example, specialized participation in post-conflict truth and reconciliation tribunals and peace-building exercises.

    "Forcing children into armed combat is one of the most reprehensible acts imaginable," says UN Under Secretary-General Hans van Ginkel, Rector of UNU. "How best to deal with those involved, warlord and child alike, is a matter of importance for all UN member states and this book makes a major contribution by capturing thoughts on the matter of some of the world's most authoritative experts."

    I agree with this - that there should be consequences for 'child soldiers', with a focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. They had no choice, but nonetheless their humanity has been damaged and needs rehab to ensure they are no further danger to society.

    And I certainly agree that "Forcing children into armed combat is one of the most reprehensible acts imaginable,"

    Like many others, I wish it was Father Khadr in Gitmo. I doubt we'd waste much concern on him! Imagine telling your kid that the best thing he can do for his family is to become a suicide bomber!

    Abduraham Khadr:

    "Three times my father himself tried to get me to become a suicide bomber," Abdurahman says. "He sat me down with the al-Qaeda scholar, he sat me down with, you know, the person to train people to become suicide bombers. He sat me down with these two people and tried to convince me to become a suicide bomber. He's like, you know, you'd be our pride in this family, you'd be our pride, you know, if you do this. But I was totally against it. I was like I believe in fighting, you know, someone on the ground and he shoots me and I shoot him, you know. But I don't believe in blowing myself up, killing innocent people. I don't, I just don't believe in that… I just see that he [my father] really believed in it. And he wanted me to believe in it too."

  10. Mention was made above of paying for transport. On that front, I'd definitely put a cap on spending on transport to school, as spending for this could get out of hand, especially if parents start deciding to send their child to some school at the other end of town for some religious or other reason. THis could cause costs to skyrocket. Also, seeing that many Canadian cities are suffering from suburban sprawl as is, do we really want to subsidize such sprawl even more?

    If we should place a cap on the amount of money the school could spend on transport, then we would be forcing parents to either pay for transport out of pocket if they live too far from the school, or they'd have to move closer to the school. One other alternative would be to register the child at a school near the parent's place of work, so that they could both travcel together. This would pressure parents to take responsibility for urban infrastructural efficiency.

    I'm in favour fo a green tax shift too by the way.

    It doesn't matter how far you go - bus pass costs the same.

    There aren't many benefits of this system for rural areas, though, as pointed out.

  11. In today's Globe, Michael Valpy questions where Canada is headed, and whether our sense of shared unity is breaking down, a victim of the times and a lack of anything approaching a national vision.

    A nation is an imagined community, wrote the U.S. political scientist Benedict Anderson.

    Thought is not private, contrary to what Rodin's statue of The Thinker implies. Thought is predominantly public and social, and therefore a nation is a community of people who understand that those with whom they shop, ride public transit and share the roads and the sidewalks also share values, community knowledge and mythologies.

    It is what enables us to talk to one another with some confidence of being not only heard but, as Isaiah Berlin would have it, being understood.

    Is This the End of the Age of Social Cohesion?

    When you have cities like Toronto where over half the population is foreign born, and where there has been little to no efforts made at social integration, how can we not lose that sense of community he speaks about? Who are these people who live among us called Canadians, but whose values and beliefs are entirely different than ours? And if so many of them are so wildly different in their views and beliefs, then how can we have any sense of community or social cohesion?

    It just takes some time to develop a shared history.

    If you don't live in Toronto, why complain about it? They don't.

  12. :D

    Exactly ... meaning you usurp a righteous identity to try to rationalize your irrational criminal acts.

    Has nothing to do with being Christian or Muslim or environmentalist: They're just criminals trying to disguise themselves.

    Kind of like the financial advisor I went to see, and mistrusted immediately because of his shelf full of religious books and the glint of a snake oil salesman - so obviously a phony. He said he could give me a good deal on some property in Florida. I laughed at him, and left with my money. A few years later he was charged with fraud. Guess the Lord didn't work through him afterall!

  13. Your mish mashing serveral statements to support your argument.....and perhaps confusing your self in the process

    The other man shot in the skull was found only feet away form omar...which according to you he Omar ,was cover in rubble, or as the statement you provided said the top floor of the complex ...anyways alot of rubble....One would assume that the other man would be covered in rubble as well...because he is only a few feet away....but he's not...the defense is saying that this man Could have thrown the grenade....Omar could not have because he was covered in rubble....Can we have it both ways....

    The photo shows Omar laying on his back with gapping wounds in his chest >>>those are exit wounds, meaning he was shot in the back.....entrance wounds are small and clean, exit wounds are alot larger and messy as the bullet passes thru flesh it expands, or fragments as it hit bone causeing a much larger hole upon exiting.......

    All this photo proves is he was shot in the back....kind of hard to do when your laying on your back buried in rubble....

    I think you are intentionally confusing and misleading people. Did you look at the picture, or are you just winging it?

    Obviously Omar was shot in the back during the fight, fell, and at some point was covered in rubble, presumably from a grenade, since he also had shrapnel wounds in his eyes.

    Other older guy was found alive, and then was shot dead.

    There are so many madeup versions of this around, though, it's hard to get to the truth. I prefer the court reports (under oath), and I think the picture speaks for itself re the sequence of events: Omar wasn't throwing any grenade at the end of that fight.

    I have never said Omar should be "set free". In fact, I believe his best chance was in court. Once there, it was definitely looking like he was innocent, so (I believe) Obama pulled the plug on the trial to avoid the embarrassment to the US in a public court.

    This was a 15 year old, a Canadian in a war zone under the care and control of adults, not by his own choice. A fifteen year old cannot consent to go to war: His father made him. He knew if he didn't obey his father, Dad would turn him into a suicide bomber - ie, have him killed - because that's what Dad tried to do with his son who did rebel.

    Omar Khadr was held for seven years, interrogated and tortured, without charges. He's a worldwide sensation - the black sheep that Canada does not want back - so the US finally lays charges, goes to court ... and holy crap! Their own soldiers tell them now that he is innocent? He couldn't have thrown the grenade?

    I'm pretty sure Obama wishes Omar would just vapourize, and Harper does too.

    This is a 'public relations nightmare' for the US, and for Canada.

    But that's nothing compared to what Omar Khadr has been through since he was 10 years old and forced into war, imo.

    There is great danger in speculation and fabrication, because if it turns out we're wrong, as i believe, then we're real stinkers ... like now.

  14. I think it may be this ...

    http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci...?nclick_check=1

    Garrido and his wife were charged Friday with 29 criminal counts in the alleged kidnapping of now-29-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard from South Lake Tahoe in 1991.

    Investigators say the two girls who accompanied Garrido are daughters that he fathered with his kidnap victim. She and the two girls were held captive in the backyard of his Antioch-area home in a hidden warren of tents and sheds, police said.

    This is a dangerous creep claiming to be Christian.

    I guess that's a problem everywhere.

    Anyone who wants a 'divine' excuse to be violent can claim to be a Christian ... or a Muslim ...

  15. I saw nothing in the article stating that private schools are obligated to participate in the voucher programme though; so I guess any school that disagrees with the rules would be free to opt out, and any parent willing to choose not to use their voucher woudl be free to pay out of pocket. I'd see no problem with that. Though I suppose some already established private elite schools might feel a little threatened by this new model, as it would force them into having to decide whether to stay as is or conform to the rules of the voucher programme, and as we know, change can be scary.

    It isn't clear ...

    Like the Conservatives' proposals in England, the Swedish voucher cannot be "topped up". In other words, any private school participating in the scheme cannot charge any additional fees.

    Nor can the private schools select pupils on any basis other than first-come-first-served.

    Before vouchers there were virtually no private schools in Sweden. Now there are almost 800. They educate around 6% of all pupils.

  16. Huh? You mean immigrants would return to their home country to give birth or perhaps you don't consider offspring of immigrants who are born on Canadian soil "native Canadians"

    I used 'native' Canadians to mean those who are born here. I don't really like that confusing and divisive term, but it is sometimes used when discussing birth rates, and birth rates were under discussion re:

    QUOTE (Mr.Canada @ Aug 24 2009, 09:32 AM) *

    People who were not born here should not be allowed to vote under any circumstances from now on....

    *According to Canada's organic growth rate, under this criteria the last voter will die in about 100years.

    I'm not sure that *'s calculation is 'exactly' correct, but the point is correct:

    Mr Canada wants to deny ALL immigrants the right to vote in Canada in their whole lifetime, though presumably in his scheme their children born here do get to vote in their lifetime. (?MrCan?)

    Mr Canada and others who thus would discriminate against first generation immigrants, and whose life and conversation seems to revolves around hatred of the whole concept of immigration to Canada (except for their own ancestors of course <_< ) ...

    ... people with such narrow viewpoints fail to respect that without immigration, Canada's population would be DECLINING.

    Canada's birth rate in 2005-6 was 1.5 children born per woman - well under the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 per cent - or 10.6 children born per 1,000 population. ... This gets to be a problem down the road when there are fewer taxpayers to replace those who retire or die, so there's less money to fund everything from highways to health care.

    But this isn't really a problem for Canada as a whole because immigration is fuelling the best population growth among the G8 industrialized nations. Canada's population growth rate is 5.6 per cent from 2005 to 2006 and four per cent over five years, from the last census in 2001

    http://www.aims.ca/regionaldevelopment.asp...D=4&id=1585

    The post WWII 20-year-long BABY BOOM B) is aging. The biggest bulge in our population, is those now forty-four years old:

    There were more babies born in Canada in 1965 than ever before or since.

    Right now, and for at least a few more decades, there are and will be more elders dying in Canada than there are children being born here.

    Considering only those 'born in Canada', there will be fewer taxpayers to pay for (esp) health care for the aging and dying elders. The baby boomers had the opposite - There were many more of them to look after far fewer elders.

    If we stopped ALL immigration to Canada right now, at present birth rates eventually all Canadians would die off. If denying the vote to first generation immigrants discouraged people from immigrating to Canada, or if immigration was arbitrarily stopped, then our population would go into decline and eventually the last voter would disappear.

    The population of Canada is ONLY growing because of immigration, and that's intentionally so: Governments and most Canadians recognize that we need a larger base of taxpayers to support the huge group of aging elders we have, frankly.

    Denying the vote to first generation immigrants, as MrCan suggests, does not seem like a practical :rolleyes: solution for anything, and of course it is blatant discrimination and offensive, as is this topic and most of the thread.

    (IMO, those who would deny the vote to any Canadian should themselves be tested on their worthiness as Canadians. And boy, have I got a CANIQ test for them!!

    Assuming that the end of the baby boom will be the harbinger of world peace and contentment, perhaps reducing immigration will be reasonable one day, when there are no people being driven out of their homelands by (Canadian) corporations or by catastrophy, or feeling a need for better opportunities elsewhere.

    But I think by then we'll all be so used to all of the peoples of the world, that we'll all be at home anywhere. Just think of it as the legacy of the baby boomers ... world peace.

    We'll die happy then. :D

    But all you forty-three and unders may have the biggest financial burden ever carried by Canadians: Afterall, we boomers have grown accustomed to respect (because we're large and we're loud - Jimi and Janis are still rocking on our stereos) and we expect good services (because we designed them that way for our parents), and we are in our most expensive health care years. Good luck kids!

    On the bright side, we are the wealthiest generations of retirees ever and most of us have provided pretty well for ourselves. The poverty rate among Canada's current seniors is very low and has been reduced substantially with targeted programs (for our parents, see, and there were enough of us to afford it).

    Oh, and we will most likely be the most activist bunch of retirees ever!

    Protesting Vietnam was a cake walk compared to what we will now do for our kids and grandkids!

    Well, excuse me ... I seem to have drifted off topic a bit.

    (The social, financial and political and environmental influence of the baby boomers on subsequent generations of Canadians needs another thread, I think.)

    Restrict the vote ... right ... ho hum.

    no.

    Next some idiot want all of us babyboomers to euthanaze ourselves.

  17. Some people actually read the article and are providing informed opinions. Those who haven't read the article may find that your concerns are addressed if you do - eg madmax.

    There are things I like about this, and things that still concern me.

    Any scheme like this in Britain would attract fierce opposition from the teacher unions. Not so in Sweden.

    The Swedish Teachers Union, Lärarförbundet, supports the school choice policy.

    According to its president, Eva-lis Preisz, members were "a little suspicious at first" but are now satisfied by the restrictions which prevent private schools from charging top-up fees or selecting students.

    However she does point to reports from the Swedish National Agency for Education which warn that it is mostly better-educated, middle-class parents who [CAN] take advantage of the right to choose schools.

    This can mean children from middle-class backgrounds congregating in the same few, highly popular, schools.

    I like the restrictions. It covers the big issue of equal opportunity regardless of income ... almost. I would add to the plan the two meals a day that CFcaper suggested, and I would add a bus pass or other transportation for students: Specialized programs/schools, even free ones, do not tend to draw students from lower income homes, because parents can't afford the transportation.

    With those two qualifications, I don't mind this model, though I think the schools should operate on a not-for-profit basis. Clearly, I oppose two-tier education, where kids from higher income homes go to more expensive schools. I think that cheats everybody: The research is clear that yes, you can see more sophisticated academic products/results when students with higher skills students are grouped together. However, those products are limited in the range of intelligences they tap: Intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences, however, shine in mixed ability groupings and are absolutely necessary in a peaceful and harmonious society and in workplaces - esp management skills.

    Mixed skill groupings or a variety of groupings provide more variety of models for students to learn from, and do benefit students with lower and moderate skills.

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=14_K5WpKQa...ity&f=false

    I see problems in implementing this model in Canada, however. First, Sweden had no private schools before implementing this model with its restrictions. I'm pretty sure our private schools would not accept those restrictions. Maybe they would just go out of business, though, and be replaced by others who operate within the restrictions.

    I think there would be greater skepticism among unions here too, since we already have expensive elite and specialized private schools and it would be hard for them to grasp that this is a different model. There will be concern about schools in lower income areas being drained of all their better students, and that's not good for anyone, imo. However, if funding is equal, those schools should be able to design new programs to draw students back or keep them there too, following the open and individualized model of Sweden.

    Most importantly, though, I think the two meals a day should be mandatory in all schools and meet Canada's food guidelines, regardless of whether we change the model or not. Far too much of the 'disadvantage' experienced by many students is due to hunger and malnourishment: Kraft dinner is just not a balanced meal. Schools that can implement a nutrition program notice the differences immediately: Students are more alert, less volatile, and have better concentration, more interest, and just do better work.

    We don't need to change our system much to do that, and I believe it will have greater and faster benefits than the complicated changes proposed.

    I would assume, then, that people in Sweden who want to send their kids to 'elite' schools would send them out of the country to private schools. That happens here too.

  18. Thanks, Canada: Facebook's 4 Big Privacy Fixes

    Jared Newman

    Aug 28, 2009 11:07 am

    Pick on Canada all you want, but this week the country did good by muscling Facebook into making privacy changes. Our northern neighbors took the lead on scrutinizing Facebook's privacy policy and required alterations in accordance with Canada's privacy laws. Here are the four major privacy fixes we'll be seeing from Facebook, plus a couple privacy concerns that remain:

    Third-Party Data Mining

    Account Deactivation

    Privacy for Non-Users

    Privacy for Dead People

    Concerns Remain

    See details here:

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/171030/than...vacy_fixes.html

    I use Facebook but don't trust it. I removed my photo. I never use 'applications' because they pull my 'friends' personal data too, for what purposes I don't know. Someone tagged a photo of me in some application and I won't go and look, but it bothers me.

    I'm glad to see some action from the Privacy Commissioner, and look forward to more from our US friends.

  19. Yes, it is; well done!

    As such, the very first clause of the Charter must be taken into consideration for any Supreme Court ruling:

    Given that a $1 trillion settlement would bankrupt the Crown, thereby destroying our free and democratic society, I highly, highly doubt anyone will ever get such a ridiculously astronomical amount of money out of the Queen-in-Council.

    Given that we've taken the money over a period of a few hundred years, it is time to start returning it.

  20. That's not what I was speaking to, but the SCC, does not only decide on the basis of law. There are many considerations to their rulings, not the least of which is the ability to govern the country as also mentioned in the Charter (you know, the section that you deny the power of).

    The Charter is law.

    I would like to see our government produce an accounting of Six Nations trust fund.

    I think that is a reasonable request, and I'm not sure how or why they get away with not doing that.

  21. A return to fallow ground, for now

    Posted By MARK BONOKOSKI, SUN MEDIA

    Posted -18 sec ago

    /Power to the people, right on"

    -- John Lennon

    WYEVALE, Ont. -- At the coming of dawn of the morning after the night before, earth-moving equipment began making their exodus from Site 41, the power of a democratically forced moratorium having taken hold -- achieved in the end by protests, demonstrations, blockades, civil disobedience, arrests and, just maybe, a little common sense.

    The determined will of the people had overcome the bureaucratic will of the municipality's corporation. Democracy had somehow won.

    The controversial landfill known as Site 41, perched atop a vast aquifer of unsullied water stretching from Georgian Bay to the Oak Ridges Moraine, was finally a no-go -- at least for a year, and quite possibly forever.

    Simcoe County Warden Tony Guergis, uberboss of the 16 municipalities that form his realm, as subtle as a bulldozer, had the stuffing sucked from his shirt when the weighted majority of the 31 councillors under his rule decided at Tuesday's council meeting in Midhurst that enough was enough, and that dump site needed more reflection.

    But, oh, how he railed.

    He railed against his council for not having the brass of his balls to vote in favour of the dump's continuance, of caving to grassroots public pressure, and of having no ability to make a tough decision in the presence of the hoi polloi.

    And he kept on railing until Coun. Mike MacEachern, the mayor of New Tecumseh, once an ally of the emperor but an ally no more on this issue, decided that Guergis' condescension and belittling had gone too far.

    "I am not prepared to sit here and be chastised," he finally told the warden. All to cheers from the public gallery. It was this public gallery, jam-packed with concerned people, that Warden Guergis threatened to have cleared if they did not sit silently while he pointedly provoked them.

    "Anyone with five minutes of education will wade in with an opinion," he dismissively said at one point.

    "Shame, shame, shame," cried the gallery. And rightfully so.

    The emperor, who ran for warden on an anti-dump ticket, only to flip allegiances once elected, was not necessarily caught without clothes. But his stuffed shirt was certainly deflating. And his bully-boy act had worn itself thin.

    http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDi....aspx?e=1719265

    I think every county has a 'Guergis' who forgot that democracy elected him.

    I hope they are all sitting up and taking notice today.

    I think the people of Simcoe County have shown that you can fight 'county hall' ... and win.

    I hope more communities are encouraged to protect their water, earth and air.

  22. Your right Tango case dismissed, one statement over rules all others.....but now we have some other problems....like who threw the grenade....the other only possible terrorist alive in the compound was found only feet away from Omar....was he buried under the same rubble...how could have he possiably thrown anything....so now we have the case of the magical bouncing grenade.....was there even a grenade....who knows now....

    one more question how did omar recieve the gunshot wounds to his back if he was buried in rubble....and whom did the other two soldiers see on his knees...

    and who did they shoot on thier knees and thru the head........remember 2 soldiers claimed they see someone on his knees.....and since there was only 4 men , one was killed, another was performing medical aid to speers the medic .....that claimed they seen Omar, or someone in omars postion someone has to be lying..... or we are missing 2 bodies....

    From previous post:

    Ground forces moved in to find (according to the original report) at least two survivors. According a U.S. Army officer’s statement, “I remember looking over my right shoulder and seeing (name redacted by government) just waste the guy who was still alive. He was shooting him.”

    Another survivor was a 15 year old boy, Omar Khadr, found underneath a pile of rubble, his eyes bleeding from shrapnel, three bullet holes in his back, and a gaping chest wound where witnesses stated, “I could literally see his heart still beating.”

    “PV2 had his sites right on him point blank. I was about to tap him on the back and tell him to kill him (Omar), but the SF guys stopped us and told us not to,” stated the same U.S. Army officer.

    So ... perhaps the grenade was thrown by the man who was still alive until they shot him, or perhaps it was a friendly fire accident.

    I don't know why they originally concocted the story about shooting Omar in the back. Pretty weird.

    However, the photo seems pretty clear to me.

×
×
  • Create New...