Is George right or is he wrong ?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18100.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18100.htm
Last edited:
Who owns you?
- Thread starter mrmom2
- Start date
Is that a prayer, a poem or a lament? The thing about fools, their job is to say, in a ridiculous way, the things that cannot be said in polite society.
Is there a single thing in G.C.'s rant that was untrue? Just one? Nope.
So what does that mean? What does an educated and empowered populace do with that kind of information?
Pangloss
Is there a single thing in G.C.'s rant that was untrue? Just one? Nope.
So what does that mean? What does an educated and empowered populace do with that kind of information?
Pangloss
Well, assuming there is such a thing as an educated and empowered populace--and I don't see much evidence of one, in the United States or Canada, and I don't know enough about any other country to comment--it kicks ass. One thing it doesn't do is elect people like George Bush and Stephen Harper, but when around 40% or more of eligible voters don't even bother to vote, it's hard to know what to conclude from election results. Elections may be when the voters speak, but what they say is often garbled and incoherent. Too many politicians are beholden to too many special interests. I've no doubt that many people enter the political arena with high hopes and ideals about making a real difference (though I strongly doubt that's what motivates people like Bush and Harper) only to find themselves co-opted by a system that pays lip service to the needs of ordinary folks but in fact serves mainly to enrich and empower its friends.
There's a debate been going on in the pages of the Toronto Globe & Mail newspaper lately, for instance, about 2-tier health care, which however you slice it, really means that people with more money get better service. I don't understand why that's even an issue; that's simply wrong to me. Basic health care, in societies as wealthy as the United States and Canada are, ought to be freely available to all citizens regardless of ability to pay, an insured service whose costs are spread over the whole society, not charged against individual users of it. It's a public good that benefits everybody, not a business that has to make a profit to survive, and that idea is at the heart of the Canada Health Act. I've no problem with people with more money being able to buy a Lexus rather than a Corolla, or a 5000 square foot mansion instead of a 1200 square foot bungalow, nor would I call myself a socialist in any sense of the word, but health is about as basic an issue as there is, and we can certainly afford to take care of each other in that context. To me that means we should.
Dexter,
First, the thing about voting is that you can complain all you want about voters not being engaged politically and the low voter turnouts, but what other option would you suggest? In Australia you have to vote by law, is it better to not vote because you don't care about politics or live with the results of decisions that are made by people who don't care one way or the other. At least politicians care enough to get involved and put themselves on the line. Would you accept a job that was as insecure as in politics?
As far as healthcare goes, there is a real need for debate on the issue and reflexively accusing anyone that is interested in improving the system of pandering to US interests is unhelpful. There is a whole world of different healthcare options but for some reason the only thing people seem interested in is to be different than the US instead of trying to be better in a uniquely Canadian way. That is trying to find a system that works the best for us. It is clear that Canadians are willing to contribute to a national healthcare system. It is what we have had and I am sure we all breath a little easier knowing that we are covered by our system. However taking realistic options off the table because we are ideologically opposed to looking at them is shortsighted and sad. If we just look at the Europeans (especially the French) we can see that a government funded system can incorporate the private system. We are shortchanging eachother by not considering all options.
First, the thing about voting is that you can complain all you want about voters not being engaged politically and the low voter turnouts, but what other option would you suggest? In Australia you have to vote by law, is it better to not vote because you don't care about politics or live with the results of decisions that are made by people who don't care one way or the other. At least politicians care enough to get involved and put themselves on the line. Would you accept a job that was as insecure as in politics?
As far as healthcare goes, there is a real need for debate on the issue and reflexively accusing anyone that is interested in improving the system of pandering to US interests is unhelpful. There is a whole world of different healthcare options but for some reason the only thing people seem interested in is to be different than the US instead of trying to be better in a uniquely Canadian way. That is trying to find a system that works the best for us. It is clear that Canadians are willing to contribute to a national healthcare system. It is what we have had and I am sure we all breath a little easier knowing that we are covered by our system. However taking realistic options off the table because we are ideologically opposed to looking at them is shortsighted and sad. If we just look at the Europeans (especially the French) we can see that a government funded system can incorporate the private system. We are shortchanging eachother by not considering all options.