Kony 2012 at U of T

Le_Canadien25 · 1 month

I'm a graduate student in politics and international relations at U of T. I'm not going to be reserved by any means: I studied international conflict for 6 years, including the Great War of Africa and its offshoots. I can tell you the criticisms against the KONY campaign are thoroughly resentful, disgustingly cynical, terribly misinformed, and more or less pseudo-intellectual babble that for many is just used to make critics feel as if they themselves are informed about the issue. No, I wasn't a part of the campaign, but I didn't vomit uninformed criticisms from my armchair either. OP's ideas are counterproductive and disenchanting to anyone who may want to get involved in any anti-conflict efforts into the future. Also, don't get me started on that pseudo-postcolonialist 'white man' guilt crap or conspiracy theories.

edubation · 1 month

Generally two reasons. The first is the positive externalities resulting from the construction of a stadium. Just because money doesn't go back into government coffers doesn't mean it wasn't "worth it" for the taxpayer. There are immediately visible short run economic benefits such as business growth for the teams who play there (Giants, Cowboys, etc.), concessions businesses (PizzaPizza, Coca-Cola, Coors, Budweiser, etc.), and surrounding businesses, and long run economic growth. Just because you don't see the money going back into government hands, doesn't mean it's not "worth it" in an economic sense.

But not all projects bring on positive externalities, and cost-assessments should always be done. Therefore taxpayers should be cautious. The second reason public stadium still get built is because citizens demand it. Politicians follow an electoral logic, and if there is widespread support for a new stadium, then populist politicians will promise to build one. Also, interest groups (concessions companies, NFL), may lobby politicians to build. So citizens and lobby groups will ignore the public interest and still pressure governments to build stadiums, despite there being no long run economic benefits.

TL;DR: Don't put on horse-blinders by only looking at the short run fiscal impacts. Also, be cautious of populism, and interest groups (especially in the U.S., which has a political system more susceptible to the influence of outside money).

TheMojaveWalker · 1 month

I'm afraid that the concept of 'choosing a religion' has more or less become a joke nowadays. Although it's a step up from simply taking on the religion you were born into, it's still incredibly problematic.

If you're looking for truth, you will have to understand that the truth will never conform around your needs. Therefore the question you should be asking is how could I best understand and learn about the world and universe around me, and what are the best tools we have as human beings for understanding our world.

If you're seeking religion for psychological fulfillment, you may be holding your psychological needs higher than a pursuit for truth. If you do feel a void in your life, I would suggest reading literature, listening to music, and being with family and friends--or even talking to a psychologist. In that way, you won't have to step over the truth to feel happy and complete.

__BT · 1 month

Thank you for This Binary Universe. I can't express what it means for me, so I won't.

palinomics · 2 months

Did anyone notice that article didn't present any evidence on behalf of BWW to substantiate the claim that cameras don't prevent crime?

Don't believe everything you read, especially half-assed article titles. Unfortunately a lot of people are going to go away believing the cameras don't reduce crime.

vhmPook · 4 months

The Canadian health care system is not bankrupting the country. Nonetheless, it's becoming increasingly expensive for governments. For example, the Ontario's health care system took a 38% share of the province's total budget. In Canada as a whole, the government spends 17% of it's entire revenue on health care. So health care is barely "bankrupting" Canada. The word "bankrupting" has become a war-cry for those who want reform, and for many times good reasons: why not reform a good system to make it great?

We see these costs because they are shown through easily read (and easily criticized) government budget tables. If we consider the entirety of health care costs public or private, we see that the US health care system takes up 17.4% of it's GDP whereas the Canadian system only takes up 11.4%. A lot of people argue that although the American system is more expensive, that's the costs to innovate medicine (a lot of medical innovation comes out of the United States). Others would say these extra costs borne by citizens are for profit-motives, which is also true and unethical depending on who you ask. The reality is that the American system is more expensive, but that cost is not seen as it's passed directly onto citizens. Although healthcare is not bankrupting Canadian governments, healthcare in the United States is bankrupting citizens (quite literally).

magister0 · 4 months

Anyone have a link to the full article?

AeliusMistry · 4 months

Done.

megadriveandflask · 4 months

This may be music, and the message may be real for him, but his message is intellectually immature and not well thought out. Just because he's one of the few people who talk about politics in an industry indifferent to politics, it doesn't make him the greatest mind of all time.

If we want to compare him with other rappers, then sure he seems "smart". The idiocy of what most rappers sing about foils/contrasted to what he raps about makes him seem pretty smart. Take him out of the rap industry and place him in venues where people seriously talk about politics, such as a university, nobody will talk to him because his ideas are simply too stupid.

jack-muff · 5 months

Is this what it's come to? Here's the thing that bothers me about this person. Just because he's regarded as the "most intelligent" rapper, a lot of hip hop fans mistake his lyrics to be intelligent and insightful. To be honest, they're not. The words may be put together to rhyme well, but that does not mean he knows what he's talking about. If you would take his message into a more serious venue, such as a university or somewhere people seriously think about the issues he's bothered with, most likely everyone would dismiss it as stupidity.

Most of his ideas are simply immature.

justthrowmeout · 5 months

Political Science: People are apathetic about politics, then later go around wondering why they're all fucked.

History: History is always miswritten to build pride and power within a group. Studying history allows you to at least be conscious of how people bullshit.

substitute_service · 5 months

It's just a clever, underhanded attempt at a character assassination of Mitt Romney. They've been doing it for a while.

MisterCanoeHead · 5 months

Yes. Yes, he could certainly be more awesome. First step for him is to end his friendship with Hugo Chavez, a ruler who has amended the Venezuelan constitution more times than Putin in order to stay in power, and continues to support dictators like Mugabe the same way he has supported Idi Amin and Gaddafi.

He accuses Bush of violating the American constitution, but has turned a blind eye at how Chavez has absolutely destroyed the Venezuelan constitution.

zonkeramos · 5 months

This is a very poor analysis on the part of RT. They are making the same generalizations and falling short in the same areas where they accuse the American media of falling short.

They generalize all American news sources here. Does anyone in the United States in their right mind regard Fox News as supportive of the Obama government, as they suggested? What about MSNBC's constant criticisms of American imperialism?

Fox News is horrible, but RT is no better. These are just different news sources dicking around, nothing more.

htb2050 · 5 months

htb2050, there are several problems with this script.

First of all, this talk never happened in real life. This old script was more or less rejected ever since the debate on the Einstein commercial was put to a close. Einstein never had this conversation.

Theodicy is a part of theology that attempts to prove that God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Theologists have had difficulty with theodicy so there were some troublesome arguments. This is one of those troublesome arguments.

This is a version of the straw man fallacy. The professor is artificially built as a 'straw man' in order to easily be beaten down by the person who created it.

So what's the problem with it being made up? The logic is still there, can't we critique the logic? Yes we can, but I doubt you'll find an atheist professor these days that would say that. An atheist professor would say that there is no such thing as cold, that he has seen evolution with his own eyes (the evidence is clearly there). Once you change these two points, the "student" loses his following arguments.

You posted this probably because you wanted to talk about it, so I hope you read my response.

razorbeamz · 5 months

A school "board" in Canada doesn't refer to a small group of executives and/or administrators who make directive decisions, but the entire organization of schools and their employees in a certain jurisdiction.

razorbeamz · 5 months

Unions are in opposition to the free market in the same way major corporations are in opposition to the free market.

razorbeamz · 5 months

Advantages of Unions

Unions empower workers from being exploited by their boss. A boss of a factory will make more money if he pays his employees less. He has the power to pay his employees less because he controls the payroll. Therefore he will pay his workers less. Unions block exploitation.

The workers realized this so they came together--they made a "union". This union of workers are more powerful as a group than any one worker. They say to their boss, "if you lower our pay, we will not work for you". The boss will do two things:

He listens. Here, the workers get to keep the same wage.
He doesn't listen. Here, the workers strike and it is a showdown to see who gives in first. If the boss wants to talk with his workers to agree on a different level of pay, they go into "collective bargaining". Unions could protect both wages and benefits (healthcare, dental care, etc.) through collective bargaining.

But can't the boss just hire some more people if his workers go on strike and refuse to work? Legally, no. By law in some types of jobs (electrical work, construction), you must be in a union if you choose to work in that area. So those extra people that the boss thought he could hire if his union workers went on strike can't legally work in that field because they are not in the union.

This gives workers a lot of power, and helps them not be exploited by their boss. America and European societies have agreed that unions are an important part in the quality of life of many of their citizens.

Disadvantages of Unions

It makes sense to give workers power--so nobody could take advantage of them. But a lot of people don't like unions because this power has many times gone unchecked. The unions have become too powerful, many argue, and unions in-turn exploit their bosses. This is a very real issue.

For example, elementary and high school teachers in Toronto make over $120,000 salaries, the same as many university professors in the city. A lot of people think it is a lot harder to be a university professor, and you would build a lot more student debt on your way to be a university professor (6-8 years extra school years of debt, whereas teachers' college is only 1 year extra debt).

Unions are able to "lock in" teachers from being fired and raise their salaries in collective bargaining sessions. That means even if a teacher is a really bad one, she can't be fired unless she does something wrong. This is why a lot of people (both left, and right) are against teachers' unions, for example.

Because teachers are being paid by taxpayers (me and you), and we're even paying bad teachers very high salaries and cant fire them, a lot of people are against unions in the public sector (paid through tax money).

Why the political right hates unions

The great majority of the political right believe unions are important. But a large section of the political right believe unions should not exist in the public sector, or for government jobs. The reason they believe this is explained by the teacher example. Unions may exploit their power to make government pay more for certain jobs (like teachers and policeman). Policemen, especially constables and sergeants make over $100,000, and there are a lot of policemen. This is big government, the right argues, and they say the taxpayer is paying more than they should be paying to get the same amount of services.

Remember how there were protests in Wisconsin? This was because Governor Scott Walker wanted to get rid of collective bargaining rights for government workers' benefits (not their wages) so the cost to employ them won't go even higher than they were at that point. Basically, he didn't want government worker salaries to increase beyond inflation. Scott Walker and many Republicans argued that the strength of the unions led to the exploitation of the taxpayer, where the taxpayer was being exploited into paying government workers more than a decent wage.

This is why the political right "hates" unions.

ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION: A lot of people on the right do not "hate" unions. They believe unions are essential to prosperity in a modern economy. They hate public sector unions where the taxpayer pays the bill. For example, Bill O'Reilly is proud of and supports the union he is in.

ADVICE: If you want to better understand the "other side", you must come to accept that there is also left-wing bias as well. Just like the right, people on the left choose to gloss over some facts and support some others. The implication is a poor understanding of the political system.

newsens · 6 months

Not only has this been known, but the Bush Administration and PNAC are one in the same... you can't influence yourself.

newsens · 6 months

Bullshit thread alert.

Although the US exercises some influence over the UN, there are an entire bloc of countries that exercise checks over that influence. The UN is not the US.

For example: UN voted against 2003 Iraq invasion. Go and take your sensationalism somewhere else.

Bmart008 · 7 months

Was this not already passed in the omnibus crime bill a few weeks ago? I think you're a little late.

AeliusMistry

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login