Great Leap Sideways

Until I saw her on O'Reilly's show last evening, I had never heard of Susan G. Cole or "Now" magazine. Now I know why.

Let me get this straight. On one hand, a soldier is just another noble worker who risks injury in his work and on the other he is a mere child who is being sent off to be killed on behalf of imperialist, capitalist pigs. That about right?

Thank god funding was restored to the First Nations University of Canada. Depriving the school of funding was only hurting the students. Further, the Saskatchewan government now has to apply more pressure on the Federal government and Minister Strahl to reinstate their funding commitment.

Is anyone else having trouble with the first link? I'm getting: "Sorry, this url contains an invalid document id."

Funding education should be solely based on merit.
Only demonstrated achievement and proven lack of funds should qualify someone for scholarships, unless they are provided by charity.

Soldiers' orphans qualify for the 2nd part - lack of funds. But IMO only those of them should get scholarships, who demonstrate academic talent and ability to achieve. Dispensation of money should in no way be universal under any guise, including blanket funding of any category.

Otherwise we are going to have hordes more of educated idiots. We have enough.

Funding education should be solely based on merit.
Only demonstrated achievement and proven lack of funds should qualify someone for scholarships, unless they are provided by charity.

Soldiers' orphans qualify for the 2nd part - lack of funds. But IMO only those of them should get scholarships, who demonstrate academic talent and ability to achieve. Dispensation of money should in no way be universal under any guise, including blanket funding of any category.

Otherwise we are going to have hordes more of educated idiots. We have enough.

B M, extra digit at end of url

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2722557

Hey, thanks; you nerds are alright! ;-)

Anyone willing to bet that Jeffrey Webber does not own a Che T-shirt?

Based on these remarks only, I'm forced to conclude that Webber is a useless POS and a disgusting human being. Enough said.

As to the FNUC, what a huge wad of PC bullsh!t. The FNUC has been on a self-destructive spiral for a nearly a decade (or has it been longer?), and I've been watching it almost the whole time. This little funding "trick" is nothing more than an enabler giving an addict another hit from a crack pipe, thinking that it won't hurt (and to keep from being hurt), and that they'll be able to quit after the "one more" hit. Problem is, there's always someone willing to give them one more. Putting people in charge who have no idea how to run a business, let alone an academic institution, is a recipe for failure every time--the stupidest thing they ever did was put Lawrence Joseph anywhere near it. This little assist will do nothing but draw out the inevitable. The experiment failed. Stick a fork in it, etc etc.

Indulgence without improvement or supervision will only be more disaster - they've proved they're not willing to create a responsible structure. Too bad, because maybe this institution could become something valuable other than jobs for well placed natives.

So death in the service of Queen and country is just another workplace accident?

"Depriving the school of funding was only hurting the students."

Wrong again ... as usual ... or, more accurately, as always.

Depriving the school of funding was hurting the directors and administrators who were becoming quite accustomed to dipping into the cookie jar for bonuses, travel expenses, etc.

The students would have continued their education courtesy of the U of R. Leaving them stranded was never an option.

I would note that some people commenting on other sites have tried to express how it is different to be a member of the Canadian Forces relative to say a police officer or a firefighter. The term is "unlimited liability." In the Army, and the Forces in general but I always say Army rather than LFC or Forces, if you are told to do something that will cause your death you still have to do it. No other occupation is the same. If you tell a police officer to do something that will certainly cause his death he can say no. Soldiers cannot. When people ask what makes the child of a soldier who has died in battle different from the child of a civilian who has died in a workplace accident, it is that the soldier accepted beforehand that he or she would die if required with no questioning on their part.

It is not a question of whether or not the mission is just. That's irrelevant to both the soldier and the child of the soldier. You do not sign on to the Army on a contingent basis. "If the mission is good, then I will be willing to give my life for it." You sign on to the Army on the basis that no matter what the government asks of you, you are willing to give your life for it. That is the only way democracy works: soldiers cannot question the morality of their mission and must accept that it is the will of the people.

So a program that provides for the education of the children of the fallen is not glorifying a specific conflict; it is providing the appropriate recognition for those few who are willing to do whatever it takes to serve our country and our people.

The U of R can go FNUC itself.

VancouverGuy

Disagree with you. If a cop is called to attend to reports of shots fired, he does not have a choice to go or not. If he were to choose the latter he'd either be suspended or fired. Ditto for fireman who don't have a choice about what fire they'll tend to.

I expect that Jeffrey Webber would be only too happy if a Lenin/Stalin/Hitler clone like Hugo Chavez took power in Canada.

the bear has it right.

There is a big difference Bob. A cop will go to a report where there are shots fired. If you tell a cop that he is going to run through the front lawn of a killer with a machine gun in order to create a diversion but that he will certainly die he can say no. Ditto to the firefighter. If you tell a soldier that he is going to rush headlong into a machine gun nest in order to allow for a flanking maneuver by the remainder of the platoon that's what he does.

The issue is not whether or not there is risk in a job; the difference between being a soldier and being in another risk occupation is that you can order a soldier to certain death.

Those thankless a$$holes.

Here’s anti-Project Hero Assistant Professor Jeff Weber’s webpage from the university:

http://www.arts.uregina.ca/node/1202

Wanna let your thoughts known, he can be reached at:

Email: jeffery.webber@uregina.ca
Phone: (306) 585-4202
Fax: (306) 585-4815

Aaron:

Children of fallen soldiers need to maintain a 75% average to keep the scholarship.

Those professors should definitely be muzzled. I was just about to say that I'm glad I don't live in Saskatchewan (sorry Kate), then I remembered that I live in Ottawa.

VancouverGuy

You obviously haven't seen any documentaries on the firefighters and policemen who went into the WTC on 911. They were telling their buddies who were to remain outside to tell their wives and kids they loved them because they didn't think they were going to get out alive. And yeah, they were ordered in.

And besides, what is the difference between someone ordered in and someone who does it on his own. When the situation on the ground at the WTC started to deteriorate badly, commanders started telling their guys they didn't have to go in yet they did anyway because they believed it to be their obligation.

Last but not least, army commanders don't "tell a soldier that he is going to rush headlong into a machine gun nest in order to allow for a flanking maneuver". They'll order their guys to lay fire on the machine gun nest. Indeed they may die in the process, but the idea they are ordered to run around in front of machine guns so they can be purposely blown out of their shoes is absurd. You've obviously never been in the military.

VancouverGuy

A couple of other points.

1 It has happened that commanders have been relieved of their duties for being overly gratuitous with the lives of their men.
2 There are medals given to soldiers for bravery above and beyond the call of duty.

Last but not least, who is a greater hero. A guy who gives up his life following orders, or a guy who dies without being ordered merely because he feels an obligation to his fellow soldiers. They're both heroes in my eyes, but even moreso for the guy who does it on his own without being told. The line of distinction you have between being ordered or not makes little sense.

Of course the leftards completely ignore the reality of supply and demand. This is why leftards feel free to print more and more and more money regardless of the consequences. Never mind the fact that I might not want to pay for everyone else's education or homes or healthcare.

The ability to recognize the difference between a policeman and a soldier is the difference between a citizen and a resident.

sasquatch;

I fail to see why a policeman or firefighter who dies in the line of duty should not be awarded the same as what is being offered to hero soldiers. They are all heroes in my eyes. I can think of a lot of other things our tax dollars pay for that aren't anywhere near as worthy.

Today I listened to a recording of the esteemed Prof. Webber on John Gormley's show. He sounded exactly as I thought he would as he pontificated in his snivelling, know-it-all tone.

Prof. Webber's actions are, without a doubt, one of the most disgusting displays that I have ever had the misfortune to witness. He is beneath contempt as are the tenured, entitled individuals who lowered themselves to co-sign his letter. As I listened to the list of the co-signers, I recognized the names of two prominent left-wing "causeniks" who have distinguished themselves in the past by demonstrating their utter stupidity and lack of common sense.

For the signatories of this letter, when their time finally comes, there is a special place in Hell reserved just for them.

Bob C, you are 100% incorrect.

Bob C,

I have seen the documentaries. And I am saying the difference is between having an obligation and having an option. Now, if I am wrong and policemen and firefighters can be ordered to their certain death and they have no option, then I am sorry my facts are wrong. However, I was always told that this was not the case.

In regards to whether or not soldiers will tell their personnel to do one thing or another, the point was not the specific example, but rather the concept. Off hand at the time I just pulled that idea out of the air.

"You've obviously never been in the military." I am in the military. I was actually just observing the lecture given to recruits on unlimited liability last week. That is why it was fresh in my mind.

Both of your points in your second post are true, but I do not think they have any relevance to the argument. The question is not whether or not someone is a greater hero because they volunteered or because they were ordered to die, but rather the question is whether or not someone agreed, without foreknowledge of the situation, that they would die without question for their country. To me, the point of distinction, if indeed my facts are correct, is that one group of people stated upfront that regardless of the situation they are willing to give their life for the country, rather than making a choice at a later point based on the situation. To me, making that commitment prior to knowing the situation is fundamentally different from choosing at the time to make a personal sacrifice.

I have nothing but contempt for these U of R has been profs.

"T", your comments regarding Sask FNU leads me to believe you're not from Sask and have no backgroung history on the mismanagement of this institute? Local polls still show great majority of those actually putting up the dollars are hesitant to say the least. Throwing more dollars into a money pit is an understatment.

before someone jumps on me, my 2nd post (Bob C wrong) is a reference to his 1st post.

the bear

"Bob C, you are 100% incorrect."

If you care to put some meat on that bone I'd be happy to respond.

Vancouverguy;

For starters, thanks for your service. As a soldier you should appreciate this story. A bunch of soldiers in Iraq were clearing out some houses. When one of them opened a door he took fire from someone in the room and was mortally wounded. While on the foor, a hand grenade came out of the room and he rolled over on it taking the full blast and saving his comrades.

Now this guy was clearly not ordered in that split second to do what he did. It was his instinct to protect his buddies. Am I to infer from your distinction between being ordered or not, that this guy is not every bit as entitled to be seen as a hero as the guy who was carrying out a specific order?

How about a cop who answers a gun call and ends up running down a dark alley in pursuit of the criminal and ends up eating a bullet for his trouble. There would just be him, his partner and the criminal there with not one superior ordering him to do what he did.

I honestly don't see the distinction you're trying to draw between those who die because they were ordered versus those who die simply because they had a sense of duty and thought it was the right thing to do. I respectfully submit that you've got it backward. While they are both heroes, the guy who goes above and beyond any expectation or order is even more a hero.

the bear

Sorry, I was typing my 5:39 post while you were doing your 5:04 post. In my first post which you disagree with I said, "Disagree with you. If a cop is called to attend to reports of shots fired, he does not have a choice to go or not. If he were to choose the latter he'd either be suspended or fired. Ditto for fireman who don't have a choice about what fire they'll tend to." What part of that do you disagree with.

Bob C,

I am not drawing a distinction between those who die who were ordered to do so and those who die voluntarily. I am drawing the distinction between those who indicate at their entry into service their willingness to die for any cause or in any situation versus those who choose to make a sacrifice at a later point.

My original point was just that unlimited liability for a soldier is the reality of the situation and it is a choice at the outset and then that as a result there is no way this could be glorifying any specific conflict. In no way did I intend to minimize the commitment of police officers or firefighters, but the commitment is certainly different, and I do not believe any other service explicitly gives up their right to choose their own life at some point in the future. In your first course in the Army (not having taught the BMQ equivalent for the other arms I cannot comment on their lesson plans), you are taught that you have given up your right to choose to live and must do what you are told regardless of the cost to you as an individual.

I am not going to try to judge the extent of one person or another's heroism, and I was not making a point about heroism to begin with. As I said, my point was merely that there is a distinction between those who have choices and those who have made a commitment to follow orders regardless of the cost or cause.

BOB C

The point of my post is that there are many issues that require attention, but limited resources; therefore dispersion must be focused. For example, many Bush haters argued "Why Iraq and why not Somalia?"

Since we can't or haven't done both, should we do neither?

Quit playa hating Bob, you're too bright for that .JMO

Indiana Homez

Are you sure you're addressing your 7:35pm post to the right person? I haven't commented on or responded to anything you posted here today.

VancouverGuy

I still don't see what the distinction is that you're trying to draw here. A cop who receives a call to respond to a bank robbery in progress has no option but to answer it. They have no idea in most cases what they will be confronting, perhaps just an unarmed guy who slipped a note to a teller, or maybe a guy walking out of the bank with a loaded 12 gauge.

In the latter case, cops feel it is their sworn duty to deal with this guy and that they run a signifigant risk of not walking away from it alive. No, they don't have a sargent standing over them giving specific orders, but they feel there is a standing order based on the oath they took when they took the job.

Anyway, we can argue this forever so I'll sign off agreeing to disagree. Thanks for the civil discussion. It's appreciated.

Hey, a university professor wants universal university education available (to all of course). Could he just be demanding a guaranteed job ... oh, wait, he's already got a job for life.

Just wondering.
Does "T" stand for tit or twat?

First Nations University of Canada

Acronym

FNUC U