Bob

The point is that multiculturalism is the mindset that promotes irresponsible immigration policies, which results in brining in people that are more criminally-inclined, i.e. third-world trash and other people who still largely subscribe to inferior cultural/social values. Multiculturalism, as an ideology, has a difficult time screening prospective immigrants on grounds that they will be eligible to integrate meaningfully and be self-sufficient in Canada. This is why immigrants have much higher rates of crime than other Canadians. And if you want to get more specific, and we certainly should, immigrants from certain countries and cultures have much higher rates of crime than immigrants from other countries and cultures. What multiculutralism in its current manifestation does is remove our abilities to screen immigrants in the best interests of Canada in order to please suicidal politically correct leftists like yourself. Consider that you were dumbfounded and demanded "evidence" when I made an obvious observation about the much higher propensity for all things bad (welfare, disease, educational underperformance, higher degree of commitment to hardcore Islam, and dependence on social welfare services) among Somalians in Canada. You were astonished. It's as if you've never met a Somalian, before. Have relatives that don't speak English? No problem, we'll give them subsidized ESL classes because we believe in family reunification! Got a fake marriage with a Canadian? No problem, we won't ask for details or investigate you because you deserve the benefit of the doubt! Are you diseased and certainly going to be a burden on our already braking healthcare system? No problem, just get some fake medical documents from your local desert nomad village witch doctor stating you've got a clean bill of health! To everyone else, bear in mind that Michael Hardner is of the camp that is unable to comprehend the superiority of Western civilization over, say, Islamist societies. According to Michael Hardner and other committed leftists, varying societies, cultures, and political systems are different but equal.

It never gets old how leftists ramble on and on about the evil corporations, never realizing that corporations are collections of real flesh and blood human beings.

Those statistics don't reconcile with my experience with Canadians. Although I am often reminded with how common it is for seemingly educated people to have sub-standard communication levels at all levels (written, oral, and listening), I wouldn't go so far to say that a third of Canadians are at or below high-school level English. Then again, maybe I'm not so sure... I went to private schools, so maybe my frame of reference isn't typical, although of course it was unavoidable that I'd mix with the rabble later in life.

Ever listen to well-known professors from any of these disciplines? Read their "work", maybe? Indulge them with some of your time and it should be self-evident. All of these disciplines are politicized beyond belief. Whether it be Howard Zinn, Cornell West, or that moron professor from Harvard that got arrested for acting a fool who then subsequently partook in the infamous "beer summit" with Obama and the arresting officer. It's the same false historical and political narrative in all of those disciplines, one of a victimized group that is oppressed by "white rich men". Moreover, when people finish these programs, they have no meaningful skills and are unable to contribute meaningfully to the economy - they cannot create wealth. As a side point, these fake educational programs wouldn't exist were it not for massive government subsidies to education. If I recall correctly, about 50% of the tuition costs for undergraduate students is covered by the taxpayer, never requiring reimbursement. Even drop-outs don't need to reimburse the taxpayer for money wasted. Although even graduates from these programs are certainly wasting taxpayer money, given that they are receiving a fake education. If your prospects for future income can't cover the costs of the education you're receiving, then it doesn't make much economic sense to be subsidizing these programs, does it? It's funny, hobbies have now become "academic". Another observation - I saw courses in reputable universities that studied "South Park politics" and other such ridiculous "pop culture research". History may be time-honoured, but since when was political science or sociology "time-honoured"? These are the modern antecedents of these ridiculous disciplines we're talking about. These programs are entirely composed of people who think they can sit around drinking organic chai lattes and outthink all of the world's "problems" without actually knowing, experiencing, or doing anything.

My observation is quite simple, you know very little about Ezra Levant and Rush Limbaugh, as is evidenced by you realizing, today, that Ezra Levant is advocating the case for a morally superior oil product coming from Canada when compared to oil coming from Arab/Muslim majority countries. He's been going on about this for a year, yet you've just noticed this? That tells us that you are very unfamiliar with Ezra Levant. Of course this lack of familiarity doesn't stop you from trying to drop false parallels between him and Rush Limbaugh. Does Ezra Levant look up to or admire Rush Limbaugh? I don't know, you'd have to ask Ezra Levant. I have spent many, many, many hours reading and listening to both Ezra Levant and Rush Limbaugh, and they are certainly not one in the same. Again, don't let your own ignorance stop you from pretending to be familiar with these two media figures. You might actually fool other ignorant posters who, just like you, only know Ezra Levant and Rush Limbaugh through the filter of the liberal media, rather than having spent any amount of time actually listening to or reading their own opinions in their own words.

Broad, unqualified statements. Which "top agencies"? Top ten according to what criteria? Moreover, who cares? What matters is whether or not our domestic performance is improving concomitant to our constantly increasing expenditures. Are we producing more or less professionals in valuable disciplines every year from our universities? How have the curriculum standards changed over time - are they more or less stringent? What about the expansion of university program and course offerings into nonsense disciplines? How are our graduation and drop-out rates comparing to years past? What about standards for teachers and accountability on the side of the educational establishment for performance? It's already been acknowledged in here that it is difficult to find these statistics. What hasn't been acknowledged is that these statistics are made difficult to find for obvious political reasons - to obfuscate the truth regarding our massive pouring of money into the educational system which always goes unquestioned as an "investment". Kudos to the teachers unions and other stakeholders for effectively destroying any semblance of fair debate regarding these issues in both Canada and the USA.

Aside from the fact that multiculturalism isn't even mentioned in the video linked in the OP, what does the above statement even mean? Are you suggesting that higher rates of crime from immigrants isn't a direct consequence of contemporary multiculturalism policies?

There was a second part of the interview which I can't find on YouTube, but I saw it last week when the episode aired on Sunday. I remember Zakaria asking this rat whether or not (conservative) Islam needed reformation/modernization, and he referenced an example of savage Islamic law in Pakistan: blasphemy laws for which the guilty as executed. I'm sure you all can guess what her answer was to that question. To be clear, I think it's extremely rare for someone to actually be charged, convicted, and executed for blasphemy in Pakistan (we can probably count on one hand how many people have been condemned in past years). At the same time, however, those determined to be guilty of blasphemy outside of legal proceedings are typically executed by religious vigilantes in line with typical Islamist religious justice. Remember, Pakistani society and culture isn't inferior to Canada's.

Perhaps our American friends in the forum will find this video interesting, where this rat from Pakistan attempts to softly reprimand America (specifically Admiral McMullen regarding his recent allegations of high-level Pakistani political cooperation with the terrorist Islamist filth as well as high-level politicians calling into question the nature of America's current relationship with Pakistan) regarding recent public controversies between the two countries. A few examples of this rhetoric from this Islamist filth: "...public recrimination of any sort is not the answer, we feel that we are allies in this effort", in response to Admiral McMullen's allegation of the Pakistani ISI's cooperation with and support of terrorist groups. "...we need to engage more, not disengage" - translation: give us more money so that we can keep supporting the murder of American and coalition soldiers, and well as support other terrorist interests. She parrots the lie that is so commonly believed by Arab/Muslims and their verminous leftist allies that America "created" the Taliban. As if funding the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union is the same as "creating" these terrorists and others like them. She then implies that America owes Pakistan the three-billion dollars per years it's been receiving since after 2001 (the total dollars is never mentioned by either this Islamist rat bitch or Zakaria), as America is largely responsible for the terrorism Pakistan is dealing with. "We are willing to share the burden", as if Pakistan is doing America some sort of favour by allegedly combating terrorism with American dollars. She actually refers to American aid as "reimbursement". Zakaria does a decent job countering her crap, as he is of course much more familiar with Pakistani and Indian issues than he is with, say, Israel. Basically, this rat bitch is spitting in the face of America. And the show goes on...

Fareed Zakaria, Mr. Harvard Ph.D, stares blankly at Erdogan while being rhetorically asked how many "Palestinians" have been killed in conflict with Israel, "...hundreds of thousands?". Erdogan rhetorically asked this question after asking how many Israelis had died, stating that he wants accurate statistics, implying that the Israeli government isn't transparent about casualties from "Palestinian bombs". Clearly, Erdogan is talking about recent violence in recent years, as the rockets typically increased greatly after the evacuation from Gaza in the summer of 2005. "Ten, twenty, a hundred, two hundred?", he asks about Israeli casualties. "On the other hand, we know that hundreds of thousands of 'Palestinians' were killed", he says with respect to the "Palestinian" casualties. Zakaria stares at him blankly, as if he also believes that hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians" have been killed in recent years. There are a response to this idiocy after the show aired a couple of weeks ago, and Zakaria subsequently corrected the error by bringing in an outside translator. Erdogan brought his own translator, and you can see it for yourself starting around the 5:00 mark on the attached video. Apparently Erdogan had actually said, "hundreds? thousands?". Zakaria apologized for the confusion, but never apologized for his own idiocy. How is it that Mr. Harvard Ph.D, when hearing such crap, and having it translated for him in real-time by Erdogan's official translator, didn't challenge it? Less than two thousand "Palestinians" have been killed in recent years. It should also be noted that these are legitimate casualties and entirely justifiable. Zakaria should've apologized for his own ineptitude. Less importantly, although just as unsurprisingly, Zakaria offered no challenge to Erdogan's typical anti-Semitic bullshit about Jewish people using the Holocaust as some sort of "justification" for our "crimes". We hear this bullshit from the left all the time, as if somehow the Holocaust is invoked by Jewish people in some sort of unjustifiable manner for irrelevant purposes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_IKXFcutM

Since corporations and lobby groups only donate to the CPC, right? I love this reflexive leftist rhetoric where "big money" only supports conservatism. Elections always need to be protected from the evil corporations and lobby groups, because Canadians need to be protected from allegedly dangerous messages. Only intellectuals like bud are enlightened enough to see the truth, and Canada needs guidance from these anointed ones to protect us from being brainwashed by the cunning corporate interests.

Government funding for campaigns is insanity. All money for political parties should be coming from private donations. It's just another example of how far to the left Canada has fallen.

Of course it's an idiotic idea, and it will accomplish nothing. As usual, it's from the left. If you want to punish irresponsible behaviour, just tax people who are overweight, since they are more likely to cost the public health system more. It's that simple.

You wanna know how stupid we've become? Pick up any university catalogue and peruse through the available programs and classes. "Women's studies", "Black studies", "Social Justice", "International Development", and other nonsense programs. Years ago a friend of mine showed me coursework from some elective class he was taking being taught by some moronic African "professor" (probably coming from a third-rate "university" on par with my elementary school) that spent time examining the effect of mobile phone penetration on the romantic lives of Palestinian teenage girls. You can't make this kind of stuff up. And that was being taught at the University of Ottawa. We keep pumping out graduates with fake education, it's an epidemic.

Of course it's an axiom of the left. Only the left believes in some sort of universal human equality in all dimensions, especially with respect to intellectual faculties. Aside from the fact that genetics plays a huge role in an individual's intellectual capabilities, the left likes to believe that in the right environment, everybody can be made into a brain surgeon. Of course this is not true, but the left seeks to make everyone. The funny thing is that the left acknowledges genetic factors as being huge when determining physical abilities (such as singers, dancers, models, and athletes), but refuses to believe that certain people are just born with lower intellectual potential - blaming these differences in imaginary phantoms such as poverty, racism, sexism, or any other ism.

In the Canadian context, you can't use the terms free market and education in the same sentence. There is very little free market action going on in the education scene in Canada. I find it funny that a leftist like you has chosen to define himself/herself as a "centrist". Of course, that's typical. It's still funny, though.

Although irrelevant, there is no question in my mind that the average UKer has stronger English skills than the average Canadian or American. I have had a lot of contact with UKers (as well as Canadians and Americans) and I always notice that their breadth of vocabulary and grammatical accuracy is superior to Canadians and Americans, on average. Being a person who has exceptional communication skills, I am in a position to observe these things.

Exactly, Hudak is pathetic. Capricorn mentioned earlier that perhaps Hudak needed this first attempt in order to fail and improve, mentioning that McGuinty also lost his first run for the office. To me, that reveals how empty and unprincipled Hudak is, and how he is a conservative in name only. A principled candidate doesn't need to fail in one campaign in order to learn what to say and how to say it. To me, that is the epitome of the rat politician, who learns through failure how to lie. I want a politician that speaks on principle and on knowledge, and doesn't formulate his talk on polls and consultants and what went wrong last time. Hudak is pathetic. Conservatism is virtually dead in Ontario.

There's a great series of chapters here which I can't duplicate here from Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" outlining and giving several historical examples of the phenomenon that is judicial activism. Even earlier than Brandeis (and Pound before him), we heard undefined rhetoric of "social justice" from Supreme Court Justices in the USA. This is frightening, where certain judges viewed themselves as the anointed ones whose role was now expanded into creating "social justice", rather than their real mandate: implementing the laws passed by the democratically elected government. Judicial activism is when a judge considers him or herself the arbiter of "social needs", without having any knowledge or expertise whatsoever regarding the issues upon which they would arbitrate. Brandeis himself stated that there was a growing trend among judges towards "a better appreciation by the courts of existing social needs". Since when are judges in a position to estimate "social needs"? They are there to interpret the law, and understanding "social needs" is far beyond their knowledge or expertise. This is about elites going above and beyond the the boundaries of their professional competence. Brandeis himself stated that he wanted the law to "reflect the will of the people", when of course the will of the people is expressed through elections. "While there are many controversies over particular aspects of the law, the most fundamental controversy has long been over who should control the law and who should change the law. American intellectuals, since at least the middle of the 20th century, have overwhelmingly favoured expansion of the role of judges beyond that of applying laws created by others to themselves remaking the law to fit the times. Which is to say, making the law fit the prevailing vision of the times, the vision of the anointed intellectuals. Where the constitution of the United States is a barrier to this expanded role of judges, then judges have been urged to "interpret" the constitution as a set of values to be applied as judges choose, or update it as they think appropriate. Rather than as a set of specific instructions to be followed. That is what judicial activism means." This is what we're talking about, and for you to write off "judicial activism" as meaningless rhetoric simply reveals your obliviousness of the history of judicial activism in either the Canadian or American contexts.

"Transitional justice"

Except for the fact that House of Commons and Congress are both political bodies whose representatives are democratically elected. The UN, on the other hand, is certainly not composed of democratically elected members, and don't represent countries, societies, or cultures that adhere to basic standards of modern civilization. Another fantastically stupid comment from our embarrassment of a "forum facilitator". Excuse me? The UN's power is effective insofar as rat politicians are willing to subjugate their sovereignty to the will of third-world trash and Islamist filth societies. Case in point, Jean Chretien's very public statements that he would follow the UN's will regarding whether or not Canada would participate militarily or otherwise in the Iraq War. It's frightening and sickening at the same time, and revealing of just how oblivious you are regarding international affairs, that you would so nonchalantly speak of "world government" as if it's a good idea. No, that's just you rewriting the history of discussions in these forums. We already specifically addressed your fake concerns about starving Somalians. "Humanitarian aid" programs from the UN exacerbate problems, and do not make them better. Aside from emergency aid, which certainly doesn't need UN coordination since only a handful of nations actually contribute, "humanitarian aid" programs worsen poverty, disease, and war. Abolition of the UN would only reap benefits for the very people you claim to care about.

First of all, Ezra is certainly not like Rush Limbaugh. Obviously you know very little about either Rush Limbaugh or Ezra Levant. Second, Ezra's been going on about what he refers to as "ethical oil" for quite awhile. At least a year has gone by since he incorporated this into his regular punditry. I find it funny that leftists like you, who never listen to, read, or watch anything from these conservative media persons who you love to hate feel so comfortable talking about their positions. If you don't know anything about the people or groups you're speaking about, it will be quickly revealed when someone that is familiar with these people and groups (i.e. myself) reads your junk.

I agree with that, and I know that to be true from my own experiences and personal connection to this issue of comparison. Still, unions are a part of the problem that prevent positive changes from being implemented in order to protect their insulation from accountability and ongoing extortion of taxpayer money. They're a part of the problem to maintain the status quo in the worst way.

It's not so much that we're terrible, but our performance is not at all commensurate to what we spend. This is, of course, a product of our leftist politics: politicians, unions, and their idiot followers who know nothing about education and rant on and on about "investing" in educating and the oppressed teacher who makes a killing compared to other professions with comparable educational requirements while enjoying an absurd amount of vacation. This sick political system also vehemently opposes any positive changes, such as introduction of accountability measures such as voucher systems. We keep pouring more and more money into education without yielding any real performance increase.

And yes, it's PISA that I was trying to remember. PISA unfortunately have a very labyrinthian website the last time I checked and it'll take time to look through it for meaningful and unpoliticized statistics.