Machjo

Yesterday I'd read in the paper that a protest in favour of the law was staged in Kabul, and not only men but even women in favour outnumbered those against. This reminds me of some evangelical women who defend the idea that women should not be allowed to work and ought to stay at home. If even women support this law, this could put alot of pressure on Karzai as elections loom. Which will influence him more, his electorate or foreign pressure? It remains to be seen. But then ext Afghan election should be interesting.

So any advice on how to do it? We must consider economies of scale too. In some more isolated Canadian communities, it might take alot of fuel just to ship fuel to a location! Who pays for the fuel used to ship the fuel? The taxpayer? Or do we just let it be swallowed up in company overhead which must thus be passed on to the consumer? Personally I'd rather let it be 'user pay'. High gas prices can in fact be a good thing; they encourage more efficient use of gas, carpooling, cycling, walking, turning to public transit, creating a public transitsystem, building more cycling and walking paths, encouraging people to move closer to population centres so as to profit from mass transit, etc.It encourages more efficient use of our resources. We've been spoilt over the years.

Since I'm not a member of any political party myself, I was wondering if any distinction is made in political parties between card-carrying members and members in good standing. For instance, if a person is a card-carrying member but is in prison, does he still get to vote in pary elections, or does he have to wait to get out of prison before his voting rights are restored? Does party membership automatically guarantee full participatory rights, must must membership be accompanied by good standing within the party?

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn'thelp either. Hummers, tanks, ships and planes aren't the most fuel efficient vehicles on the planet either.

In 1999, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) officiallycondemned Canada for violating international law by granting special prigivleges to members of one religious community over others in its education system: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/b3bfc54...d6?Opendocument The federal government chose not to intervene on the grounds that education is a provincial matter. The Province of Ontario, however, refused to conform to the exigencies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the gounds that it would have to make amendments to the Constitution in order to conform to the UNHCHR's request. The section being referred to here is as follows (bold type added by me): EDUCATION Legislation respecting Education 93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions: (1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union: (2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec: (3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education: (4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section. (50) You can read it here too: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#legislative In your opinion, whould the Canadian Constitution be amended to conform to the exigencies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or do you opine, rather, that tradition is more important.

So what are you suggesting? The world's oil suppy is shrinking while more people want to buy cars. Just look at China. In the last few years, China has been competing more and more with Japan for oil supplies from Russia. Some European countries also rely on Russia. It's only common sence that Russia will ell to the highest bidder. So as China imports more, China, Japan and European countries will have to outbid each other ever more. This also means that some European countries, asthey see the price rise in Russia, will start looking to other cources such as the Middle East. Well, as it turns out, China is now Iran's biggest oil consumer. So that leaves the rest of the world with less oil from Iran. So now we have more European countries competing for Middle Eastern oil. Meanwhile the UK's Black Sea Oil supply ain't getting any bigger either, as Eastern Europeans get richer and consume more fuel themselves, not to mention the economic rise of India. And the US oil supply is shrinking, so it then has to compete more for Canadian Oil. So it's natural that we all now have to outbid each other for the oil supply. This isn't some fanatical religion but economic theory.

Supply and demand. I have a few recommendations to lower the price at the pump, and they all relate to reducing demand. 1. Shift taxes from income to gas. This will give people more disposable income but also make gas less attractive. Though the overall price would increace, the reduced demand woud cause the before-tax price to drop at least. 2. Build or maintain fewer roads. This will encourage people to find more space-efficient means of transport, which will likely mean lighter vehicles per passenger and thus more fuel efficient. 3. Build more walking and cycling paths, either elevated, surface, or underground, perhaps even enclosed ones that can be used year-round. This could enourage more people to walk or cycle instead of consuming gas. 4. If necessary, gradually replace old buses with double-decker buses. They're more space efficient on the roads, thus allowing them to take on more passengers as more people look for alternative means of transport to cars. 5. If that doesn't suffice, build inner-city rail systems, be they subways, surface trains, or elevated trains. This would also reduce demand for gas. If we could do any or all of these, this would help to reduce demand for gas and so push the price, or at least pre-tax price, of gas. The flip side of this is that you'd pay more gas tax and find more congestion on the roads.

I'd be opposed to a 'Fortress America ' mentality. I'm more in favour of multilateralism through intergovernmental organizations such as the Un than bilateral relations between Canada and the US specifically. I'm all for Canada and the US further integrating, but mutually, not one-sidedly. I'd be in favour of sharing a common currency common military, even common citizenship, but only if it involves a large number of countries, including Canada and the US. But Canada and the US only in isolation? I don't think so! Ideally I'd like to see it be more of a world union, or close to it.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washin....aspx?id=125529

And here's a good video on it.

http://www.interped.su.se/publications/ANAFGHANDILEMMA.pdf

18 years old. And how is their knowledge of the local language if it's not their mother-tongue? because he said they're local interpreters, we'll assume it's the other way around. So then we can ask, how's their knowledge of English? And if a soldier can't read local body language, how can he tell whether a stranger is a friend or a foe? When I was in China, I'd found different meanings for body language. For example it's common for many Chinese to smile when nevous. I've seen cases of foreign tourists complaining about something to a Chinese service staff, and then get furious as the staff member smiles ever more. They thought he was mocking them. In other cases, in the beginning at least, before I knew Chinese, I sometimes interpreted certain tones of voice and expressions to be signs of anger, only to find out later that it was a friendly conversation with jokes being exchanged. Now imagine the potential concequences of misunderstandings in a warzone. An Afghan risks being shot to death by Canadian forces for his unpardonable sin of notknowing English.

That's truly shamfeful. We would have been helpless in Afghanistan if it weren't for them. Yet only now do we start to recognize it? They have to beg like dogs for it? And that still doesn't answer to their linguistic qualifications. Even if they know the local language well, do they know English well?

I'd like to read stories from Canadian soldiers and especially Afghan locals with their experiences in cross-cultural communication. Where interpreters available? Could they interpret easily? How many interpreters do we have per soldier? What linguistic qualifications do they need? I'd also like to read from interpreters themselves. If I remember correctly, one video which I believe was titled Iraq for Sale, did in fact interview an interpreter who'd complained about the poor language level of many of his colleagues. If a soldier can't communicate, then the only language left to him might be to fire a bullet to the chest where a common language could have resolved a misunderstanding more peacefully. Besides, we're on their soil, so it's not up to them to learn our language. Our soliders are the furriners, so its up to them to communicate with the locals.

Forestry worker. We all know that even native speakers of a language don't always know it well and don't always know military jargon. It would seem that the DOD is more cocerned about security checks than with whether interpreters are truly qualified to interpret.

I found it, but it's been only after international outcry, and that while Afghanistan still has many foreign troops on its soil. I hope hope the law is shelved for good, especially with an election looming.

But for those First Nations or Inuit who fail to learn either, they're in a tough position. Do we provide their ballots in their language? May they run for federal office? If so, woud they have an interpreter on hand in Parliament? They're democratic rights are infringed upon with the current Official Bilingualism.

I have a few issues here. You mentioned immersion French. Yes, that can raise the chances of success considerably. But think of th ecost. The teachers in an immersion programme must all be bilingual, which means higher salaries. Try emulating that province-wise without busting the Ontario budget. As far as I'm concerned, immersion French should be paid for out of the parents' own pocket. If not all pupils have access to it, then it's not fair that some get to benefit from it without having to pay higher taxes. So that definitely ought to be privatized. Then you mentioned focussing on the spoken language only. That's cheating. I'm reasonably fluent in spoken Mandari, but I still don't know how to read Chinese. I can speak Mandarin all I want, but that wtill won't hep meto write a letter in the language or read a book in it. Considering Canada's vast geography, it is more lkely for the written language to come of use than the spoken, especially with modern technologies today. So if we wer to take shortcuts like that, I'd say focus on the written, not the spoken, language. Yet even that's not a good idea since some people will need the spoken language too. In the end, if we can't teach the whole language to a decent level of mastery before the end of compulsory education, it simply ought not to be compulsory. Or if we can offer an easier alternative language, that could be an option too. Or in some cases, the school can teach pupils to write the language they speak in the home if it's different from the regular school language. That way, school and parents would be working together as a team.

So then how would you expect them to learn English? Clearly English is not and never will be the universal language. An international language? it is already, among others. The universal language?Not unless we reform the spelling, pronunciation, grammar, and other aspects of the language so drasticlally as to make it unrecognizable. Add to that, that according to the lake Kent Jones, an expert in aeronautical communicaitons, about 15% of aircrashes are caused by the language barrier alone. he adds that English is unsafe for aeronautical communications by design. Too many dialects, accents, homonyms, homophones, exceptions, etc. You can read about it here: http://www.kordynet.com/docs/Plane%20Speaking.pdf And if you look at the dates, you'll see that these plane crashes are recent examples. And here's another close call, albeit more fortunate: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/ne...icle4116523.ece And that's from 2008! A Polish pilot's poor English nearly caused a crash near London Heathrow. Some might wonder why we tolerate such low quality English. it's political. Do you honestly believe, especially in a recession, but even without, that the world would hand over hundreds if not thousands of highly paid pilot and ATC jobs to native English-speakers the world over? If so, I've got a cruise line to selll you for a dollar. Any Canadian should know how political language is, not only in Canada but worldwide.

Where'd you read that? I just scanned the CBC and have found nothing on this yet. yes, there's intense international pressure, but with an election looming, Karzai's been proving especially resilient, ironically enough! Wouldn't want to lose votes now, would we?

That's relative. According to Statscan 2006, about 55% of Quebecers claimed to not know English. And in Nunavut, 8% claimed to know neither English nor French. Accroding to a study in Europe in 2001, about 6% of Western Europeans could translate a basic English sentence properly.

Last I checked, the Iraqi government's alliance with the US is lukewarm at best. It's already begun feriendly relations with Iran. And US troops are still needed there. We could possibly argue that there is a victory in that the regime has at least luke-warm relations with the US. But that's nothing new. Saddam Hussain was even getting help from the US before. So we're not talking about anything new here that wasn't already applicable before. Democracy? That could be viewd as a victory. bear in mind though that Saddam Hussain's regime tended to be more secularist than the current one which now wants to be more decidedly Muslism. The will of the people have spoken. Hussain's regime was not on friendly terms with Iran. This one is. So it might be a democracy, but likely it will turn out to be a very much Muslim-based democracy with closser ties with Iran. Now as for Afghanistan. Let's look at the new law out concerning women. It likewise was established by a democratically elected government. Now I'd like to say that I don't necessarily see closer ties between Iran and Iraq as a bad thing. But in terms of its being viewed as a bvictory for the US, especially when we consider that a US presence is still needed, is premature tat best, depending on our definition of 'success'.

According to Statisics Canada in 2006, only about 15% of Canadians assessed themselves to know both of Canada's official languages. According to a European study in 2001, when a group of Europeans were asked to identify their second language, if any, about 50% (I can't remember the exact rate) claimed to know a second language. This was a self-assessment. But when they wre given a test in the second language they claimed to know, the rate suddenly dropped by about 10%! So it's reasonable to supppose that if 15% of Canadians claim to know both official languages, fewer still really know it. As for chances of success, I would not consider 15% a reasonable chance of success. I don't know where exaclty the cut-off rate should be, but certainly above 15%! I'd say at least 70%. Now as for 'success', I'd say that the pupil should be able to have reached a basic level of fluency in the language allowing him to function in every aspectof the day to day life of his new language community, not just be able to pass a test. I'm not saying that he should know every word of the language. Even native speakers can't do that. But he should know the language well enough that if he doesn't know a word, he can learn it by having it explained to him in the target language. In other words, he should be fluent enough in the language to be able to use it independently of his mother tongue. This is not an unreasonable standard to meet. Research in schools in those European countries that do allow Esperanto have shown that even a dull European pupil can in fact reach this level of fluency by the end of his compulsory education. One possibility that I could see would be for Canada's ministries of education to follow the European example and allow each school to teach the second language of its choice. This way, if the school deems French (or English in the case of Quebec. yes, it's true, they're no more succesful in learing second languages than the rest of the world) to be too difficult to learn, but that another language might be more within the pupils' grasp owing to local conditions, it could teach the second-language most appropriate for those pupils, taking either the local or family environment, or the comparative ease of another language, into consideration. Failing all of this, then certainly the school should not be allowed to make any second language compulsory. There is no point forcing pupils to learn a second language unless the school can guarantee a reasonable (let's say 70% or more) chance of success in that language, even for the dullest of pupils. After all, this is a democracy, and all citizens should have a right to communicate. I'd like to emphasize here though that this is byno means inspired by anti-francophone sentiments. I'm a native French-speaker myself. This is inspired by my belief in justice, and that involves an acknowledgement that: 1. not all pupils go on ot university. 2. schools have a moral duty to ensure a reasonable chance of success in any course it makes compulsory. The objective of education should always be to help pupils succeed, not ensure their failure. I disagree that compulsory courses should aim so low. Instead of having so many compulsory courses all aiming at a mediocre level of mastery, it would be preferable to have fewer compulsory courses, each aiming at the highest level of mastery and perfection, with al other courses being facultative, chosen by pupils according to their own aptitudes, abilities and interests. Second-languages should be no exception. Either the school ensure a decent chance of mastery of the language, or it forfeits its right to make it compuslory, simple as that.

Never mind higher education. Just look at the state of our elementary education. Not everyone goes to university, but everyone can vote as an adult and everyone is supposed to go to high school at least. If we want more responsible voters, we need to improve our compulsory education before we can even begin to worry about higher education. We really are nose-diving right now.

Here's another book on a similar topic but in English: http://www.amazon. com/Translation- Conflict- Mona-Baker/ dp/041538396X/ ref=sr_1_ 9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239657546&sr=8-9 I know little of the book beyond its summary, but the summary itself was a fascinating read, and does deal with translation issues in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Kosovo, and also brings up the issue of the growth of political activism within the field of translation and interpretation itself. I don't know how much the book deals with the Canadian military in Afghanistan, though, but it might be a good read for those who are interested in the relationship between language, war, and the surprising power the translator yields in such an environment. What many don't realise is that, if the soldier doesn't know the local language, he has no choice but to trust the interpreter. After all, if he can't understand the interpreter, how can he know if the interpreter is being truthful or not. This can be a potential vulnerability for troops, especially in light of research that shows that the learning of another language does in fact affect one's sence of identity. The bad news is that, based on such research, a tranlator who knows Arabic or Pashta is likely to identify more with other speakers of that language. The good news is, his knowledge of English is likely to give him a stronger sence of identity with other English-speakers too. But then all kinds of other factors come into play that can influence his sence of loyalty to either side, both sides, or neither side in any conflict.