Bob

Not sure if you folks saw it, but Tony Blair made a few brief comments about these recent developments. His statements boiled down to one thing - that hopefully, this recent hostage-release agreement might be conducive to a change in atmosphere, which constitutes some sort of opportunity not to be lost. The eternal optimist (or spin-doctor), Blair seems unable (or unwilling) to face the truth - that this recent hostage-release agreement reveals exactly the opposite: that the gaps between Israel and the Arabs/Muslims are unbridgeable, and that this conflict is irreconcilable. As I mentioned above, we're given yet another example of the dominant culture of the "Palestinians", which is the celebration of mass murder, and the rejection of Jewish national rights in Israel. Basically, anyone trying to characterize these recent developments as some sort of window of opportunity for the "peace process" is either stupid or lying.

As expected, the leftists support government subsidies to the CBC to "define our culture". According to Ezra Levant, it's over a billion dollars a year. Beyond that, the leftists are tripping over one another trying to justify the CBC's lack of transparency and how a television/radio/internet media company somehow serves the broader Canadian interest. I think the broader Canadian public, when compared to MLW, would be even more opposed to privatization of the CBC. The fact that about 40% of this board supports such a measure tells me this board is slightly more in favour of free markets than broader Canada. I think this is another example of Canada's hard-left political culture, which in the long-term will be Canada's undoing as it spends itself into oblivion.

The fact that you don't know that post-secondary education is heavily subsidized in Ontario, and to a lesser extent across most of the rest of Canada, is quite revealing. How you not know this? Additionally, we also receive tax credits on educational expenses, and universities and colleges regularly receive all sorts of grants from all levels of government. Really, it's unbelievable that in this day and age you can be unaware of this.

Clearly you're misunderstanding MiddleClassCentrist's use of the term "in demand". He/she was obviously referring to disciplines that are in demand in the job market, not in demand by students. I have explained how government interventions in the market for post-secondary education messes with the demand for these services, artificially inflating the demand and supply for nonsense and largely irrelevant disciplines that have already been mentioned. I have certainly grown accustomed to your regular misunderstandings of obvious points in this forum. Just for fun, I can recall a ridiculous post of yours from the recent thread about selling the CBC where you (perhaps unknowingly) compared the indispensability of roads in our society to that of the CBC. That was funny, and that was classic Shwa.

Who cares what the alleged original purpose was? You do know that the education of other human beings far outdates the modern concept of universities, right? And the purpose of education, always, has been to pass knowledge to others in order to make them more economically viable. Whether it be early human teaching other about tool-making or modern students learning aerospace engineering, the purpose is the same. Even in the modern context, the motivations for students to enrol in universities is almost universally a perception of an economic benefit over time (a higher salary than would otherwise be the case without an education). Moreover, political justifications for "investments" into education are based on the same argumentation - that we as a society benefit economically as a result of these "investments", as a more educated citizenry is typically more productive and more wealthy.

Yes, it is true that the Canadian with the degree typically makes more money than the Canadian without the degree. So what? How does that justify subsidies going towards undergraduate education and grants given to universities? Clearly, you're arguing that since educated Canadians typically earn more money, and therefore typically pay more in taxes, they deserve more from the government. Of course it wouldn't be too hard to expose your own hypocrisy, as a leftist like you would immediately reject such an argument as the basis for giving more money back to certain Canadians ("the rich") that pay more taxes than other Canadians. Essentially, you're saying that Canadians who pay more taxes deserve more assistance from the government. Of course, you don't really believe that, but are desperate for something to say in order to back up your "FALSE" statement. If a particular education has strong prospects of being economically viable, then the student shouldn't need (and certainly doesn't deserve) government support (either through tuition subsidies or grants to universities). Your support for government assistance only going towards in demand disciplines is entirely upside-down, and illustrates your lack of understanding of basic economics. If a discipline is in demand and highly likely of yielding a positive economic return to the graduate over time, why are we subsidizing it? Consider that artificially reducing the up-front costs of an education through tax credits, tuition subsidies, and grants to universities (among many other things) necessarily increases the demand this service. You do understand that lower prices for any good or service yields a higher demand, right? In addition to this obvious consequence of increased demand, universities will respond by increasing their supply. Furthermore, real economic realities in a broad sense are now hidden from the consumer (student) and supplier (school). In other words, if a student were made to pay the full cost of his or her education without tax credit, tuition subsidies, and grants to universities (among other things), then he or she would perhaps think twice about enrolling in "women's studies" or "international development". Who's going to pay over ten thousand dollars per academic year for such a program? Moreover, they would no longer be receiving tax credits on a portion of their academic expenses, and perhaps the costs would be even greater as universities would have to charge more money for their program in the absence of the many millions of dollars they receive every year through various government grants. What would be the end result of such a scenario? Only economically viable choices would be made by students and schools. Of course, with the massive government interference in this market, the market is essentially perverted and the taxpayer is supporting countless students every year while they study nonsense and never become assets to the broader economy. But hey, as the leftist Smallc likes to say, this is the "pursuit of knowledge".

So the "pursuit of knowledge" now requires government subsidies? Generally speaking, legitimate and meaningful pursuits of knowledge don't need government supports, and have their own financial benefits down the line. Of course, it depends how you define the "pursuit of knowledge". Perhaps a leftist like yourself thinks that the release of rap CDs from Cornel West constitutes the "pursuit of knowledge", who had to do it with the assistance of the public's money, while the development of, say, video calling on 3G networks is something entirely different. The bottom line? If the "pursuit of knowledge" has any meaningful value to people, then it will be economically viable without gorging at the trough of taxpayer money, which is essentially what government grants to universities and subsidies for undergraduate degrees amounts to.

I'm finding it hard to take you seriously at this point. The fact that you're questioning my seemingly obvious statements that a> the primary motivations for students enrolling in universities and colleges is for a financial return down the line, and b> the primary political justifications for "investments" in post-secondary education is to fuel the economy with productive citizens who have the skills necessary to participate in meaningfully in the economy... is baffling to me. Forget about universities and colleges for a moment, let's get right down to the basic social function of education. Even back to the earliest humans, teaching others to manipulate tools or the principles of agriculture, the purpose of education has been for economic benefit. This is really basic stuff. You're trying to tell us that universities and colleges have no need to be teaching students relevant skills for their future participation in the economy, and that universities and colleges are rooted in solely academic pursuits, as if they're both a sort of exclusive hobby. I'll get to my basic position - I oppose government subsidies towards post-secondary education. I think if the the likelihood of a positive financial return exists for a student to complete a particular degree, then he or she certainly doesn't need to be given taxpayer money. I do support an educational loan-system where students can borrow for their education, but I certainly oppose government grants to universities (they should compete on their own, like any other business) and tuition subsidies (which I think in Ontario cover over 50% of undergraduate tuition costs). Such a scenario would greatly force universities to live in the real world, and would certainly greatly reduce their abilities to profitably operate nonsense disciplines as we've already mentioned.

Well, the above post is about 0% true. All prisoners in Israel, "Palestinian" or otherwise are given due process. There are no secret prisons in Israel. This statement about "hundreds of other 'Palestinian' prisoners lost somewhere in the Israeli prison system" is just another in the now endless list of examples demonstrating how much you love to make things up.

I have some somewhat rhetorical questions for you folks. 1. What do we learn, if anything, from the jubilant reception extended from the "Palestinians" to the released prisoners? Bear in mind, over half of the prisoners released today are serving life sentences for murder or complicity in murder. What does the celebration of mass murderers tell us about the "Palestinians" on the one hand, and the prospects for "peace" on the other? Here's a video of tens of thousands of terrorist-lovers in Gaza City expressing their ecstasy over the return of mass murderers. 2. What do we learn, if anything, from the "interview" Gilad was put through immediately upon his arrival in Egypt, prior to even receiving a medical examination, seeing his family or representatives from Israel? Here are a few examples of questions he was asked by this talking head for Egyptian state television: a> “During all that time of captivity, you did just one video to tell the world and your family that you’re alive, why just once? Why didn’t it happen again?” As if Shalit has any say in what communications he could have with the outside world. b> “It was the Egyptian national security that mediated for your release. There were previous failed mediation efforts, including one by the Germans. Why do you think that this time round, the mediation was a success, and what would you like to tell the Egyptian authorities?” Expectedly, here is a transparent attempt to characterize the Egyptian role in the indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas as somehow noble. c> “Gilad, you know what it’s like to be in captivity, there are more than 4,000 Palestinians still languishing in Israeli jails. Will you help campaign for their release?” Self-explanatory rubbish. 3. How accurate is the mainstream media's widespread description of Mahmoud Abbas and his broader Fatah organization as "moderates" and advocates for non-violence when he himself was greeting some of the released terrorists in Ramallah with kisses and statements expressing solidarity with their "struggle"? Moreover, has anyone else noticed how the abduction of Shalit is often described as a "capture"? It wasn't a kidnapping, it wasn't an abduction, it wasn't terrorism... no, it was a "capture" in a "cross-border raid". 4. Anyone else notice the great difference in the conditions of Shalit, who was visibly emaciated, pale, disoriented, and walking with a slight limp, compared to the fat, fully-aware terrorist filth that were excitedly waving their hands out of the buses upon their arrival? The mainstream media has clearly made very little mention of this contrast. There are a lot of other things I'd like to mention about this recent story, specifically with respect to the media's terrible reporting on this story, but I'll leave it there.

Some of them will become political/terrorist leaders. Most of them will do well for themselves and likely end up on the Hamas payroll, which effectively means their lives will be subsidized by America, Canada, Europe, Australia, and some other countries.

Relevance of your comment to this thread? None.

They know American operations and conduct and take advantage of them. The terrorists always abuse the freedoms and protections afforded to them in all contexts. Whether it be pre-murder as they're running around the West and using the internet, attending our schools and using our technologies, or post-murder when they're sitting in Gitmo or in some Western prison with a publicly-provided lawyer and staging "hunger-strikes" to oppose "violations" of their "rights". The terrorists aren't stupid.

Public funding for universities has always been about "investing" in the future economy, by giving the future generation the skills necessary to be economically self-sufficient. Moreover, personal motivations for people to pursue academic studies are primarily rooted in perceptions of future career development and financial prospects. This is pretty basic stuff, you must realize this. I oppose public funding, in general, for post-secondary education. A student should pay the full cost of his or her education out of his or her own pocket, with the assistance of his or her own family, and with any bursaries/scholarships he or she is eligible to secure from independent philanthropic/charitable organizations. Many people choose not to pursue post-secondary education, and they are being forced to subsidize the education of others through their tax payments. I do support, however, government loan programs that guarantee money to students who qualify for education, although even such a scenario would lead to losses from the public purse via inflated demand for ridiculous disciplines of the type we've already discusses, with the subsequently unemployed graduate of the fake discipline being unable to find serious work. You mentioning that other disciplines would starve in the context of government withdrawal of welfare payments to universities (grants) and students (subsidized tuition) is exactly my point. The only way all these fake disciplines and courses that keep popping up each year at universities is because of government manipulation of the market through subsidizing tuition costs and giving grants to universities. If students and universities were to pay the full and real cost for these disciplines and courses, they'd think twice. Of course, they get a free ride on the back of the taxpayer. In other words, only through government welfare are universities able to profitably offer fake educations such as "black studies", "women's studies", "international development", and other ridiculous fields. You think a Canadian student would pay about ten thousand dollars for tuition alone each year for four years in a program like "media studies" if the costs weren't cut in half by the taxpayer? Moreover, the costs would be inflated in other areas as well if government stopped giving away money to universities via grants and tax exemptions. It's really ridiculous. And how is this stupidity sold to Canadians by politicians and supporters of these policies? As an "investment" that yields an economic benefit. They actually blatantly lie to us and tell us that the taxpayer money thrown away towards these endeavours is returned in a greater amount from the graduates through "high-paying jobs" that they subsequently secure after graduation and pay taxes from. Of course this isn't true, but most Canadians subscribe to this lie. If it was financially responsible to graduate from "black studies" programs, then there'd be no need to incentivize students further by lowering their tuition costs artificially through government subsidies to students and schools.

The prevalence of suicidal leftism, particularly with respect to ignorance of Islamism and associated terrorism is much greater in Canada than in Israel. Again, this thread serves as exhibit A for this phenomenon, as we can see the typical leftists (those who reflexively hate wealth and those who hold it, who support great government encroachment in the economy and personal freedoms, and are the true racists by believing that only their ideas can pick up certain groups of people into equality who otherwise wouldn't be able to make it....) voicing support for Khadr. They are not just spinning a different narrative, but blatantly lying about facts. It starts with the predictable questioning of Khadr's guilt (which I expected, as it's the been the typical narrative of the left about Khadr for years), as if there was any question about it. Then, inexplicably, the left continues the narrative in an attempt to justify his actions, stating that he was "only a child", and is protected by "international law", trying to remove his responsibility for his actions. The left even tries to advance the argument of the context of a murder, as if Khadr is a lawful combatant in any sense. Khadr's mother and one of his sister's advance the same contradictory argumentation - initially denying his guilt for the murder, and then praising him for doing so and asking rhetorically, "what would you do if you were in that situation?".

Although of course the video you've posted, which anyone whose been following this story has surely seen years ago, is video of an interview. Of course you prefer to describe it as an "interrogation". CBC demonstrates a schizophrenic approach, with the lead talking head lady using the term "interview", and a subsequent lady correspondent choosing the term "interrogation". By the time of that interview shown in the video above, Khadr had already been at Gitmo for quite some time, and had been well-advised by fellow terrorists how to conduct himself. The USA of course isn't immune to stupid behaviour, and allowed these terrorists to fraternize with each other rather than keep them all isolated indefinitely. Khadr's brother Abdurahman discussed how terrorists at Gitmo all worked together to advise each other on how to deal with interviews and interrogation (how to obfuscate, how to lie, how to falsely argue on violations of their "rights", etc). Gitmo essentially became a type of terrorism college.

There is no question that there is a unique experience for black people in the USA in the context of slavery and subsequently under segregation. Even contemporarily, there are some elements of cohesiveness to what might be described as "black culture". It's certainly not enough to fill a degree. The degree is certainly worthless, for the most part, economically (without government subsidies for these program, of course). Still, it should be studied as part of American history, and not as some sort of separate history. Truth is, of course I think people should be able to study whatever they want, and universities should provide programs that students want. What I can't stand, however, are government supports for universities that don't offer, broadly, an economic benefit. If students didn't have their education subsidized by the government, at no risk to themselves, then how many students would actually enrol in programs like "women's studies" or "black studies" if they knew they'd half to pay the whole way on their own with no realistic prospects for a career? We've essentially elevated hobbies into academic disciplines.

I considered that, but I still found it suspicious. I am well-aware that the political culture of Canada is left-wing, with some sort of perverted admiration for a culture we know nothing about - Europe. Even though there is, of course, nothing too meaningful about "European" culture, many Canadians have an artificial sense of what "Europeanism" must be like, and somehow think they can strive towards achieving that by supporting self-destructive leftist political policies.

Just take a look in this thread and look at the apologism from the typical leftists. You can see here how he is characterized as a good and naive child worthy of a "second chance". I guarantee you that Khadr will benefit greatly from his crimes monetarily. There was some condition placed on him preventing him from profiting if he released a book, requiring that any income he earn from such a work would go to the Canadian government, but of course that can't stop him - he can open up a business outside of Canada and distribute the book through alternative methods. He will give speeches, interviews, receive donations. He will become a millionaire. And why? Because of the left.

Go to 5:00 to view the typical perspective of religious Muslims towards the terrorism of 9/11. Notice how this devout Muslim woman prefaces her happiness with the results of 9/11 with, "I am 'Falasteen'", which is Arabic for "Palestinian" (a fake identity manufactured after the Six-Day War to give the Arabs/Muslims something to galvanize around). In other words, expect this type of attitude for "Palestinians". Remember what the left told you when the "Palestinians" were jumping with joy in response to the events of 9/11 in "East Jerusalem" - that they were actually celebrating something else, that the ecstatic people in the videos were actually hired actors from the CIA, or some other lie.... By the way, this is typical of the third-world trash that Canada, the USA, and the broader West continue to import into our countries. We import this trash, and they actually think they're better than you. Desert nomads who wrap themselves up in cloaks and follow barbaric religious beliefs and subscribe to a perverted political and historical narrative are being brought in by the truckload to abuse social welfare services, pump out tons of children, and destroy the culture of their new countries. In the next video, at 3:50, it tells the story of Khadr's brother Abdurahman being disowned from his family after it was revealed that he had worked as an informant for the CIA at Gitmo. It also states that he felt ostracised by the Muslim community in Toronto because of his collaboration with the CIA (surprise, surprise!). It then mentions that his mother came back to Canada to do her patriotic duty as a member of the third-world trash that Canada loves so much: to bring another of her crippled sons to get medical care. This is how far Canada can fallen.

I understand the left of Canada very well. I know how their worldview and their basic view of human nature. It is natural that they would feel a kinship with Khadr and engage in incredible feats of mental gymnastics to make excuses from him and obfuscate the truth about who and what he is. Unfortunately, the left in Canada is a bigger part of our political culture than their American counterparts. Well, unfortunately for Canada... Although not as digusting, but getting pretty close, there are political elements in the USA that I saw doing similar things with Major Nidal Hassan. At first they did everything they could to lie about the Islamist component of the motivation for this mass murderer. Conversely, they accused to media of focusing too heavily on the fact that he was a Muslim! Then, they began to obfuscate th truth further, attempting to tell us that Major Nidal Hassan somehow indirectly suffered from PTSD via the stories he had to hear from soldiers he treated as a psychiatrist. What did he do with the stories he was told by soldiers in confidence? Well, he tried to bring charges against them for "war crimes", of course! Basically, America also has its share of verminous leftists committed to destroying America. It's just worse in Canada. Allahu Akbhar!

Not sure if anyone's interested, but the PBS Frontline "The Al-Qaeda Files" episode, "Son of Al-Qaeda" is available on YouTube divided into parts. Here is a part that shows the Khadr family, the rats that they are, with one of their sons, Abdurahman, telling everyone, "I want to show people... that I was raised to become an Al-Qaeda, was raised to become a suicide bomber, was raised to become a bad person, and I came out, I decided on my own that I do not wanna be that". Basically, this is Khadr's brother completely destroying the lies from jacee and Diana1976 about Khadr not having any choice in his actions and therefore not being responsible for murder. Oh wait, Khadr probably didn't even murder the American soldier. Lastly, Khadr probably didn't murder any other Americans when he was assisting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in constructing IEDs and other operations. Oh wait, Khadr was probably just in Afghanistan being a peaceful tourist. Go to 3:00 to see his rat mother and one of his scum sisters (Zeinab) talking up the patriarch terrorist and endorsing Jihad, while remaining Canadian citizens in Toronto.

There is no question about this being an example of judicial activism. As soon as the SCoC references "studies", "research", and "evidence" regarding what it perceives as positive social outcomes, and perceptions of similar successes from similar programs in other countries in order to define the right to life, liberty, and security of the person - we know we're dealing with a radical departure from the law and textbook judicial activism. In other words, we're now defining foundational legal rights with politicized sociological research. Don't you see how absurd that is? Basically, any healthcare expenditure, masquerading as an "investment", that tangibly reduces the likelihood of harm or death befalling certain people can now be defined as an inalienable right - forget about the cost, forget about the opportunity cost, and forget about negative consequences/externalities. All that matters is the benefit that certain people reap!

False choice? It's a very real choice. Every dollars spent in one place is a dollar not spent somewhere else. And although leftists like you don't seem to realize it, dollars are a limited resource. Although your "example" has nothing to do with a "false choice", I think that's a great way to add much-needed responsibility to Canadians with respect to their own health, considering all Canadians have access to a public health care system. Don't pay for injuries in car accidents caused by drunk drivers. Send a bill to smokers who develop lung cancer. Refuse to pay for alcoholics with cirrhosis. There are many opportunities to hold people accountable for the repercussions of choices they make that affect the broader public's purse.

What are you talking about? He will be revered here as a hero by many on the left. Jacee and Diana1976 will be waiting for his departure from the plane with flowers and will pre-order his biography and even buy VIP tickets to the speeches he will give. He will live a very good life when he comes back to Canada, and will profit greatly from his actions. That is how sick Canada has become, and it's sad to see. As I've already said, there is no question whether he was guilty. He was witnessed by the American soldiers throwing the grenade, and then, strangely, saved by the very people he was trying to murder. DogOnPorch said it right, that this story should've been ended with a bullet on the battlefield. Perhaps, however, Khadr provided some important intelligence to America when he was at Gitmo.