Machjo

Or another way of looking at it, which would be more useful between a smattering of tourist French and fluency in Esperanto, seeing that the amount of time required to learn tourist French would suffice to learn Esperanto to fluency? There is no correct answer of course, and there are various ways of analyzing it. But in the end, it shows that the question is not so easy to answer. To take some examples: With tourist French, your French would not be good enough to land you a job or give you a salary or help your livelihood. But it would allow you to order food in restaurants and plane tickets and ask for directions and all that touristy stuff in many countries around the world. A drawback though is that after so many years of study to achieve such mediocre results, many get discouraged and so lose interest in further language learning. It also does not allow for any deep exchange of ideas, only basic practical tourist stuff. With fluency in Esperanto, you won't be able to make yourself understood in most restaurants, hotels, etc. On that front, it's not a particularly useful tourist language. On the other hand, unlike tourist French, it could potentially land you a job among the few jobs there are in the language. You could easily use it on internet forums to exchange a wide range of ideas online or at Congresses, read publications, gazettes, websites, internet forums, literstrue both original and translated, etc. And since you'd have learnt one second-language with success, you're also likely to be motivated to learn a third language owing to more self confidence in language learning, and the gramamr and roots learnt in Eperanto will often be transferable to other languages too, including French. Now if you have the chance of going to university to learn French, then tourist French would still give you a headstart, whereas Esperanto would give you a solid foundation. Both could prove useful on that front. But if you decide to go on to university to learn Chinese, fluency in Esperanto will prove far more useful than a smattering of tourist French owing to certain Asiatic grammatical structures of Esperanto. So as you can see, the question of what language is useful or not will really depend on the use to which you intend to put it, your chances of going to university, your disposable income for travel, etc. There are so many factors involved in determining the 'usefulness' of a language, that it's not as simple as you make it out to be. This is why in the end it's best to go to a Swedish-style school voucher system and a Hungarian-style second-language instruction policy and then just let the schools decide for themselves according to market demand.

Just to take one example: in one research study in Poland, it was found that those who'd learnt Esperanto for one year followed by French for three years actually outperformed those who'd learnt French for four years, essentially allowing them to learn two languages for the price of one. Research in Germany and Italy have found the same. For instance, the Italian Ministry of Education found that the learning of Esperanto accelerated the learning of a following language by over 30%! This research has brought about such impressive results that a university in Hungary actually has a department of Eperantology. Why would we want to deprive students of such improvements in our language learning system? The UK is applying this research already: http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf This also brings up the issue of 'usefulness'. Schools teach the recorder not because they want all children to become recorder players, but rather because it's an easy first instruments to learn, and therefore saves time later when teaching more complicated instruments like the piano. Os some parents in China have their children learn simplified forms of tai chi chuan not because they're more effective than the traditional forms of tai chi chuan, but rather because they serve as a useful introduction to martial arts owing to their being comparatively easier to learn. We cannot look at 'usefulness' so narrowly as to say that unless the recorder is useful in its own right, we should not teach it. I could imagine a piano teacher would feel quite frustrated with a student who'd not learnt an easier instrument before going on to the piano. This of course is likely the same frustration many language teachers face now. Certainly propadeutic advantages must be taken into account too in determining the usefulness of a language. Just because French is more useful than Esperanto in its own right does not mean Esperanto cannot be more useful than French as a preparatory language for the learning of other languages later. Again, why not let schools exploit all the the most recent research at their disposal? Europe is doing it, so why not us? http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf

It doesn't matter who they are. We need to be able to defend our property. Honestly I've never heard of Krav Maga. I was thinking a simplified form of tai chi chuan on the grounds that if you're dealing with universal compulsory education for children in this martial art, you're sure to be dealing with a variety of levels of fitness, interest, and motivation. For that reason, the primary objective would not necessarily be to make them all martial arts experts, but rather give them an introduction to martial arts, to wet their appetite for martial arts and introduce them to some fundamentals that could then help them transition more easily should they wish to move on to a more complete form of tai chi chuan or another martial art later. To the best of my knowledge, tai chi chuan is the only martial art that also has a simplified form for the purposes of physical fitness. It might not be the most effective form for fighting, but this does make it the idea introductory martial art for children of varying levels of ability and interest. Does Krav Maga have both a simplified form and a complete form too? If so, then its simplified form would likely serve the same preparatory value as tai chi chuan. Certainly. However this does not negate the necessity of a person being able to defend himself and others and their property. ... OK, I've just read about Krav Maga on Wiki, and from the litlte I've read on it, I get the impression it may face a similar defect as combato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combato). While it was a fine combat martial art for soldiers owing to its specialization in lethal moves, he found it necessary to adapt it for police work where sometimes a police officer might have to be able to defend himself without hurting his opponent, and called the new martial art defendo. I would not be surprised if all the moves of combato are also found in defendo, but clearly lethal moves alone do not suffice. We find a similar problem with the Marine Corps Martial Arts program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Martial_Arts_Program). Initially it was developed as a specialized killing system. It was found later thugh that it was not flexible enough for peacekeeping missions where a Marine might be required not to kill or maim, but to simply gain contorl of an opponent without hurting him. As a result, LINE had to be modified to include less lethal blows too. Without that, a Marine peacekeeper faced with an irate local yelling at him might find himself at a loss as to how to deal with him if the only techniques he knows are lethal blows. At that stage all he could do is stand there looking like an idiot, whereas if he knows some non-lethal moves too, he could subdue his opponent and then hand him and then remove him from the scene. From the little I've read of Krav Magna on Wiki, I get the impression it might face similar flaws. But then I might be wrong. Can you tell me more about it?

After what I'd seen in the news coming out of Toronto last week, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we need to arm all Canadians. For starters, gradually introduce universal and compulsory martial arts classes in school for 9 years starting at the age of five. I don't care if it's a simplified form of tai chi chuan, as long as it's some form of martial art. Secondly, any law-abiding citizen who wants to own a firearm should be allowed to do so as long as he first passes a firearms test. If we did this, I can guarantee the Black Bloc would think twice before endangering the public like they did last week. I'm normally not for universal possession of firearms. But when Canadians' lack of respect for the law reaches a point where even the police can no longer maintain law and order, then citizens do need to arm themselves. That said, Harper was still an idiot for having chosen Toronto as the venue for the G8/G20. What was wrong with CFB Esquimalt?

Fair enough. And who knows which language would be most useful other than the school and students themselves? The Ministry of Education located hundreds of kilometres away? And how do you define 'more useful'? Do you know a second language yourself? I know a number of languages, and I find each one useful in different ways. Who gets to define 'more useful'? I agree that a school might not have the resources to teach more than one second-language, but it might have the resources to choose one among a few. Why not depoliticize the process and let the school decide based on local demand? Better yet, go to a Swedish-style voucher system, and let the market decide. You are making big assumptions here. First off, a language does not need to be spoken universally to be useful. Some people are employed thanks to Esperanto. I'm sure if you asked them, they'd say it's useful seeing that it pays their salary. Just a few examples: http://esperanto.cri.cn/ http://esperanto.cri.cn/ Seeing that these are both official Chinese government websites, you're not going to tell me that the people who designed them work for free now are you, or that Esperanto is not a basic requirement for the job? I'm sure the Esperanto teachers working in public schools participating in the Springboard to Languages programme aren't working for free either. Likewise with the other Esperanto teachers. And what about businessmen who trade in Esperanto? I've met some, and I'm sure they'd think it useful too seeing that it makes them money. Add to that research that proves that the learning of Esperanto helps to develop the language aptitude of those who are not good at language learning, thus proving useful not only as a language in its own right, but also as a stepping stone to other language that they otherwise could not learn well. Who are we to decide what language is useful or not? Let the parents, schools and teachers decide, and depoliticize it altogether like they've done in Hungary. Agreed. I don't know how to answer this one seeing that I don't fully understand your definition of 'useful'. But if I understand you correctly, then I probably agree with your statement. ... or someone lacking the necessary language-learning aptitude for more difficult languages as a stepping stone to more difficult languages later.

Pliny, do you know French? I've read sites in French that express a wide range of views, some from France too. How do you account for that?

Strange that. I've always loved martial arts as an art form, perhaps along the same lines of why some love dancing. It truly is a beautiful art form in its own right dependently of its martial purpose. Watching people fight, especially just for sport, has never interested me though. I can't stand watching people hurting each other for no good reason. I accept fighting, but certainly not for sport.

I would guess though that if we were to teach tai chi chuan in the public school system, that the school principle would likely hold the instructor and students to the highest moral standards in this regard and would likely insist that the traditional forms of respect normally shown in tai chi chuan are to be observed at all times during instruction. Also, I can imagine public schools not allowing a pupil to graduate to traditional forms of tai chi chuan no matter how well he's mastered the simplified forms until he's also mastered the character expected of a tai chi chuan practitioner. Add to that that in religious schools such as the Ontario separate school system, they'd likely complement it with basic Christian principles of respect. If most private instructors expect such standards of their students, I'm sure public schools would expect at least the same standards if not higher.

Nope. I was learning Karate at the age of 12 and never abused it. And from what I could see, all the others in the dojo, many of whom were my age, always abided by the rules of the dojo and were always courteous, kind and friendly. At school, I was the only one I knew who was studying karate, yet still most of my classmates never knew I was in karate except for a few, and they'd found out only because they'd asked why I was so flexible in PE. Nothing to do with throwing punches. And again, the only time I'd ever used my skills in school was against one student who wanted to fight me for no reason. He was taken aback when I'd thrown a kick with my foot stopping a few inches short of his face. That was the beginning and the end of the fight, and he'd never taunted me again. He too was shocked since he didn't know I was learning karate. I can also say no one around me feared me. Even the guy I'd thrown a kick towards did not fear me even after I'd thrown the kick. He just knew not to fight me, that's all. Again, I'd never come across a karateka yet who'd abused his skills. I believe you when you say you have. I'm just saying though that form my observations, that is not the norm, and it was likely more to do with them having had a poor upbringing, or a morally corrupt sensei.

But dre, you don't get it. The French are, well, French. So certainly anything bad we find on France has to be pointed out as a chance to prove that the French are genetically inferior. Pointing out these kinds of subtleties doesn't help the case.

Funny that. I'd studied Karate years ago, and never once thought of using my skills outside of the dojo except in self defense. In fact, I'd only used them once against someone taunting me, and even then my kick never even made contact with him. I'd purposely kicked far enough ahead of him to just give him a warning, and he backed off. The most he would likely have felt would have been air movement from the kick stopping close to him, if that. At the dojo I'd trained at, we were required to sign an agreement that the sensei had the right to refuse us instruction should we use our skills in any illegal or other manner contrary to the principles of the dojo. So I don't know what kind of instructor was teaching the guys you knew, but certainly we'd expect some the learners to abide by certain principles. While I've never learnt tai chi chuan myself, I can say from having observed a few forms of it, that while some forms are just as difficult to learn as any other martial art such as karate, unlike other martial arts, tai chi chuan also has simplified forms that are easier and so more accessible to the general population. Whether they're as effective as traditional forms or other martial arts, I don't know. But if we were teaching it compulsorily to children of varying levels of ability, then certainly a martial art that offers the option of a simplified form alongside traditional forms would be an advantage for the purpose of an introductory martial art. Karate unfortunately has no simplified forms to choose from, and so would not necessarily be ideal in such a compulsory context where some students might not be particularly interested.

Even if the volunteers could not capture the thugs, as long as they could slow them down enough for the police to arrive and make an arrest. Also, my guess is that the thugs would be outnumbered by volunteers, and add to that that most of these thugs would likely have stopped practicing any kind of martial art by the age of 15, whereas at least some of the responsible members of the community would likely have developed an interest in martial arts as a result of this introductory martial arts education, and some woudl likely move up to either the traditional forms of Tai Chi Chuan or other martial arts and so kept up their skills. Add to that that this would not replace the police presence, but complement it, and if I understand correctly, many police officers are also trained in Aikido, not to mention all the other equipment they have.

From my observations, Europeans have a hell of a lot more freedom across borders than we do. Heck, they can even look for work across the border without a visa. The Canada-US border looks like a military fortification in comparison.

Another question. Why do people care so much about whether these thugs are left wing, right wing, centrist, anarchist, liberation, communist or whatever? I it that if they do this in the name of one ideology it's OK but it's not OK if they do it in the name of another ideology? When one focuses on the ideology of these thugs rather than their acts, this is essentially what he's saying. Now someone who's serious about ending this thuggery won't waste his time trying to blame this on this or that ideology or party, etc., but rather would focus on ways we can all work together to put an end to this thuggery.

Respect for the law has so degenerated in Canada that we need to do something about it. If I had to brainstorm a balance between low-cost and effective solutions, one option that comes to mind would be to make Tai Chi Chuan a compulsory subject in schools for 9 years starting at the age of 5, with schools being free to choose whether to teach a traditional or simplified form. The only reason Tai Chi Chuan comes to mind is since it's one of the few, if not the only one, with a simplified form that exists alongside the traditional forms, so as to make it accessible even to less motivated children as an introductory martial art. Perhaps it could simply be introduced as part of the PE curriculum. Then at such events as the Olympics or G8, the police could recruit volunteers to patrol the streets against anarchists. It would not be the least expensive solution, and not the most effective one either, but it would strike a reasonable balance between the two.

I've read the articles and agree they go too far. However, the OP seems to portray not just French lawmakers, but the French as a nation, as a people, as idiots. Are you saying that all French think alike, that all French agree with this? Why the vitriol in the thread title? The thread starts off with bias n the title, thus diluting any possible trust the reader has going farther.

What province? I know in BC the Ministry of Education recognizes French, Spanish, German, Arabic, Mandarin Chinese and Japanese. Alberta's recognizes quite a few languages too, including Cree and Blackfoot. As for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, I have no idea. But n Ontario, a few exceptions aside, all students must learn French. In Quebec, they must all learn English as their second language. While I thinnk Western Canada is on the right track and Quebec and Ontario can learn from their example, I'd say even Western Canada does not go far enough. In the UK, a school is free to teach the second-language of its choice among any of the world's languages as long as the course plan it's using has been approved by at least the local education authority. Hungary's system is actually simply an improved version of the British one (in fact I'd heard that their system is in fact consciously modeled on the British one), whereby a school is free to teach any of the world's languages it wants as its second language as long as the course plan has been approved by the Ministry of Education. In both the British and Hungarian models, any school or organization or even individual is free to create a course plan of his own to present to the appropriate authority for approval based on pedagogical soundness. The Hungarian model goes one step further in that any private organization that meets certain criteria can offer the national test in one of the approved languages, and that each student is also free to request to sit the test in a language of his choice among all of the approved languages. While BC and Alberta are certainly far ahead of Ontario and Quebec in this respect, even they still have a ways to go to allow more options. Again, that depends on the language. Some languages can be anywhere from 5 to 10 times easier to learn than either French or English. This is one reason Italy, the UK, Poland, Hungary, Australia, some US districts, and Croatia allow Esperanto to be taught in their school systems. If any school wishes to teach it, and students can sit the Esperanto test to fulfill graduation requirements if he wishes. Here is some info on the Italian and British models: http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm There is even a high school in Switzerland that teaches in Esperanto: http://www.alte.org/further_info/institutional_affiliates.pdf (go to page 12) There is a college in Poland that teaches in Esperanto, an international research academy (http://www.ais-sanmarino.org/index_en.html), and an international business association (http://users.telenet.be/ikef/ikef_gb.html), not to mention various religious and many other groups. Certainly it does not make sense to force students to learn a difficult second language if there is no certainly that they will have a chance to go on to university. In such a case, certainly an easy language option ought to be included among the options if we wish to be fair to those students who cannot go on to university. It would seem that Canada is falling behind other countries on this front. I know one school in Halifax now teaches it, but it only stated this last September, so it's got a long way to go to catch up with its European counterparts. Also, a number of universities in China teach Esperanto too; we have none. Don't kid yourself. I'd met Caucasian Chinese in China, especially in North Western China, mostly among Chinese of Kazakh, Uighur, Russian, Kirghiz, and other ethnicities. Some Chinese are of Russian blood even though they'd lived in China for generations. I've listened in to Chinese conversations in public in Canada and I can tell you they are cautious in what they say. In fact, most have already come across Mandarin-speaking Canadians. Remember after all that Mandarin Chinese is quickly becoming a major language of commerce in the world. Few Chinese would be foolish enough to say nasty things in public even in Canada with the idea that they are somehow protected by their language.

Ah the worship of freedom. I never even bothered reading the article since the OP is quite obviously biased from the start. However, the idea that we must have freedom, total freedom, at all costs is ludicrous. Certainly there must be moderate limits to freedom, no? Let's not make a religion out of it shall we.

By the way, though I'm not fluent in Mandarin, I can speak it, though I am essentially illiterate in the language save for a few characters that I can read and write. I also speak 2 other languages fluently besides English, and am fully literate in them too. I hate to say this but there is some work that I do, especially involving translation, cultural interpretation, etc. that most just could not do. So, do we make it illegal for such jobs to exist or for employers to advertise for those jobs? Different jobs need different skills, and in the modern world, language is an increasingly important skill. If you look at the percentage of internet sites in English in the world, it's been shrinking the last few decades. A number of countries in Europe have been de-emphasizing English as the second language in the school system in favour of more diversity (now in Hungary students can choose from 20 different languages; in Italy, 5; in Poland, 4, and this has been an upward trend compared to a decade or so ago where the range of language options was more limited). I hate to say this, but English is now experiencing a slow and gradual decline on the world stage. It will certainly continue to be a major world language 70 years from now, but most likely like French today. Remember, most English speakers in the world today are second language speakers. It would not take much for them to just abandon English altogether. I'd done some work in the Chinese tourism industry before, and some companies were struggling to find Spanish interpretors, Polish interpretors, etc. In fact, in China today, a Chinese-Polish interpretor can earn 5 times the salary of a Chinese-English interpretor, and companies in need of Spanish-Chinese interpretors advertise nation-wide and offer to pay for moving expenses, etc. England has already started to feel the pinch, as its schools have started ramping up second-language instruction in the last decade after having pushed it almost off the curriculum a decade earlier. Now it's desperately playing catch-up. If Canada were wise, we'd be doing the same thing in our school system. The idea of all English-Canadians learning French and all French-Canadians learning English just doesn't cut it anymore. We need to give students more second-language choices so that they can reach out to the larger world market. I can guarantee that as the economic reality shifts away from the English-speaking world the rest of the world won't bow to our wish to speak loud and slow. If they have the money, and we want it, then we have to speak their language if we want them to buy our product. That's the reality of the game.

Maybe they do business with China, or have a large Chinese-speaking clientèle?

Well, the US illusion lasted a good generation after all, no? Hmmm... No, don't give politicians any ideas. I see this as a catch 22. On the one hand, we ought to be fiscally responsible. On the other hand, that naturally makes our currency an attractive reserve currency, thus risking complacency later on. In the end, if it's a choice between the to, I'd say let's be fiscally responsible anyway and try to stave off our arrogance as long as possible. Or, alternatively, let's promot a world currency so as to avoid such asymmetrical trade. My guess is many Canadians would welcome such asymmetrical trade seeing that it could likely last a generation at least, as had happened with the US dollar.

I won't deny the US was underhanded with Breton Woods. But here's the thing; No one was forced to buy US dollars, and the US has jurisdiction over its currency and so is free to do what it wants with it, even if it is less than moral, technically speaking. And yes the US benefited much from its position, but it also suffered in a less obvious way. This sudden wealth allowed the US to print much money with impunity, making it arrogant, resulting in more spending, addiction to wealth, and now it's coming home to roost. Let's not think for a moment that Canada would not be immune from the arrogance rising expectations that would come from the wealth resulting from a Canadian fiat currency. It would not take long for us to increase our spending and bask in this new found wealth, only to pay later when it all comes crashing down. Small and stable is the way to go.

Agreed in part. But if everyone starts to buy Canadian dollars, then Canada has to print more dollars to counter deflation. In the short term it looks good since we can print more money with impunity, making us seem richer than we really are. But when the day comes where we become arrogant (and certainly that day would come as we become spoilt by this), we would start to spend beyond our means and so sooner or later it would come crashing down. Part of the reason for the US debt is that they'd become used over the years to living beyond their means on the illusion of wealth brought on by the US dollar as foreign reserve. Sooner or later that has to catch up. The bigger they are the bigger they call. I'd rather Canada never fall into that trap.

Countries were never 'forced' to buy US dollars in any legal sense. That said, the US also put them in a difficult bind, granted. Clearly the US understood mass psychology. If they all dumped the US dollar, they'd all lose much in the short term but would recover afterwards. If they held onto it, they'd lose less in the short term but of course keep losing as long as the US dollar inflates. Most politicians think short term, and so the US dollar stuck and the US benefited. However, a countries turn away from the US dollar, the US will find its currency falling in value. The trade off was that the US currency is now much more vulnerable to the world market. I'd hate to see Canada fall into the same trap. Tempting in the short term, makes Canada wealthier too, but sooner or later it will come crashing down, as will happen with the US. It's better to stay small and stable than big and tipsy.

The Canadian dollar as a reserve currency also brings with its its own problems. On the one hand, with more people buying it, it becomes possible to print more Canadian dollars without risk of inflation, thus making Canada seem richer than it really is. The problem though is that eventually people catch on to the illusion, and once people dump the Canadian dollar, all the cards come crashing down and the value of the dollar collapses. The US is facing such a risk now. Do we really want to follow in the same footsteps?