CUPE Local 3903 vs. York U and McGuinty

It is no secret that strike action is France’s national sport of choice. It seems that this sport is gaining in popularity. One particular strike that has especially caught my attention is the York University strike in Toronto.

Hubby and I have been following the York University strike since we have first heard of it from our dear friend Melissa. It sparked many memories for hubby, as he lived through an almost identical strike during his last year at York.

I normally try to stay neutral. Hubby is usually found leaning toward the opposing side of unions’ negotiators. Hubby’s recollections in regards to York’s labour relations have made me lean starkly toward CUPE. The recent actions of York, McGuinty, and the police have cemented my position.

Retrospectively, York’s conduct in this conflict has been strategic at its best, and appears as bad faith negotiations at its worst. Their presence at meetings appears to be nothing more than a guise of a supposed intent to negotiate, whilst they waited for McGuinty to step in. It seems they never wanted to collectively move forward, disregarding the cost to enrolled students and academic employees. (Historically, York was always more pugnacious than its GTA competition. With the ascent of Lorna Marsden to the office of the University Presidency, however, these inherent tendencies developed a new quality.)

McGuinty’s conduct has been counter-productive and seems to be driven by blatant populism instead of good policy sense. In my opinion, by introducing the back-to-work legislation he more than merely pushed on boundaries. He has obliterated them with implications that have set worrisome precedence.

BTW-legislation brands a workforce as an essential. However, it appears that what constitutes an essential service is virtually un-scrutinized by the public. As it stands, any striking workforce can suddenly become an ‘essential’ service if they annoy a large enough number of people.

Unlike elementary- and high school, attendance at a university is not required by law. The university has a set of paying customers (the student body) who can freely decide to take their business elsewhere if they find the labour relations eradicate the opportunity cost of not attending an alternate choice. Despite its grave impact on the quality of education (less bang for buck), I see no reason for the government take legislative action in this conflict.

The police’s conduct as ‘keeper of the peace’ during a recent street demonstration of striking CUPE members has been mind boggling. (Not to be misunderstood, I am in favour of the use of tasers and similar non-lethal tools when a situation dangerously spirals out of control.) I believe the police, in their handling of the striking individuals, did not maintain impartiality and acted on public displays of pre-supposed, private opinions. I can easily imagine that there were some disorganized attempts to antagonize traffic flow for the purpose to making a bigger impact but that does not justify open threats to use tasers and excessive police force against people exercising a constitutional right. I doubt that anyone in that crowd fit the profile of a potential violent trouble maker and that the described police action was warranted.

In short; the “negotiators” at York have been stubborn, antagonizing, stonewalling arses. The police have been bullies and thugs. McGuinty and his back-to-work legislation have blown the ideal of collective bargaining back to the stone age. My sympathies go out to the TAs, GAs and contracted faculty at York University. All this seems extraordinarily un-Canadian.

Adultery = Criminal in South Korea

Upon first reading this article, I had to double check which Korea it was about. It may be an over-simplification, but when one thinks of how the two Koreas are different, it can be said the North is backwards and the South is more forward, like the US.

But wait – in parts of the US, adultery is still punishable by law, which leads me to ask: Should an extramarital affair be deemed criminal?

Of course not. The only time adultery should ever be considered in a legal proceeding is whilst negotiating a divorce settlement, as the adulterer did break his/her oath. Anything past that is ridiculously outdated in the western world.

Can the same be said about South Korea? I am not in a position to confidently say that revoking the Anti-Adultery Law would be ‘damaging to social order’. Taking the circumstances in which the law was originally enacted into consideration (namely that it happened in 1953 and only applied to married women), I think the main question becomes: Does South Korea consider itself a forward-oriented country?

Image source: blinkbing.blogspot.com

A musical you don't want to miss!

Love it!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Democracy: US vs. Canada vs. Germany

But our perfect democracy, which neither needs nor particularly wants voters, is a rarity. It is important to remember there still exist many other forms of government in the world today, and that dozens of foreign governments still long for a democracy such as ours to be imposed on them. – Jon Stewart

With Obama’s overwhelming success in America’s recent election, Jon Stewart echoes an inspiring point. But is the American “democracy” really that enviable? How about other democratically elected governments in the western world, such as Canada’s directly representative House of Commons and Germany’s proportionally representative Bundestag?

The American Electoral College system has a few drawbacks. Primarily, criticism centres on the possibility of electing a minority president, one without the absolute majority of the popular vote. This system also has an inherent tendency to suppress voter turnout due to its indirect nature. You do not vote for the presidential candidate you want to be in power; you vote to show a third person, the elector, how you want them to vote for you. This, in turn, leads to another potential problem: the faithless elector. There is no guarantee that the elector will follow the democratic majority of his electoral district whilst casting his/her vote in the Electoral College. Sounds confusing? I certainly think so.

Furthermore, the American system gives way to a bipolarisation of the political landscape. The winner of any state will take all electoral votes of that state. This prevents any significant showing of a third or independent party candidate. On the other hand, the system gives way to a strong, limited term presidency, wherein a democratically elected president is free to implement politics as he/she sees fit, provided congress plays along. That strength allows for major political shifts with the election of a new President.

The Canadian direct representation offers a bit more accountability. Each member in the House of Commons is elected by a plurality of popular votes in separate constituencies (ridings). The party that gains most seats in the House (parliament) fills the position of prime minister. The advantage of this system is that members of parliament (MPs) needing to vote on any bill can be subjected to direct scrutiny and influence by voters in each riding. If voters pressure their MP to take a specific stance there is a good chance that this MP may vote faithless to party lines – there is a long standing history of voter influence in ridings in Canada.

The disadvantage is, however, the possibility of a minority government such as the current conservative government. This article details very nicely some of the perils of a minority government. Also, similar to the American system, there is a good chance of over- or under-representation in the Canadian parliament. As an extreme example: if in every riding a member of the Conservative Party won a marginal majority, they would fill 100% of the seats in parliament (one of my worst nightmares), thus starkly skewing the make-up of popular political preferences.

Finally, looking at the German version of proportional representation in parliament, the plurality of political representation in the Bundestag makes a seductive first argument in favour of such a system. Similar to Canada, the party gaining an absolute majority or majority coalition may fill the Chancellor’s seat. Any party gaining five percent of the popular vote (barring minor electoral adjustments) will gain the same proportion of seats in parliament. This system, installed by the allies post WWII, has proven immensely stable and truthfully reflective of the popular political fabric.

There can, however, be made an argument that a voter will quickly feel disenfranchised as the impact of his or her vote is not immediately apparent. The plurality of political platforms and virtual impossibility of a majority government by a single party forces the government to negotiate for virtually every aspect of daily business, leading to perpetual compromises. This prevents the occurrence of bold moves and frequently bogs governmental business down in trench wars.

Which system is best? The short answer is very political: it depends. It depends on your set of priorities and political affinities. For me personally, the Canadian one suits best. It allows bold moves within reason. It limits US-like bipolarisation without the paralyzing effects the Bundestag frequently endures. Either way I look at it, any of these systems, no matter how skewed or imperfect they are, supply the best answer to our current political challenges. It is the plurality of ideas – allowing for more than just one idea to be right - that will win the struggle against tyranny and totalitarianism that some people unfortunately have to endure.

As Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried”.

Open to anything but sex

The Catholic Church is not always behind the times. In fact, it has a history of reversing aspects of its doctrine to keep up with the zeitgeist. It renounced usury in the 16th century, slavery in the 19th century and capital punishment in 1995.

When it comes to matters concerning sex, however, the Church shows no indication of budging. Be it marriage of members of the clergy (after having been ordained), homosexual marriage and intercourse or artificial contraception, the Church says NO.

Mandatory celibacy was not always a must for those wishing to dedicate their lives to the Church – it was made universal Church law only by the Second Consilium of Lateran in 1139. Despite that, there are exceptions. Men who are married before entering priesthood can do so and maintain their marriage. Is the devotion of an unmarried, celibate priest worth more than that of a married one? With fewer men entering into priesthood whilst the global Catholic population grows, will allowing young priests to marry not help to stop this shortfall? The Church says NO.

I am sure that there are those who will quote scripture forbidding homosexual marriage and intercourse. To them I say – I am sure many scripture-quoting individuals have coveted a neighbour’s wife. Amongst all the adultery, murder, lying and stealing, why pick the homosexuality guideline to stick to so closely? Is it not more Christian to grant everybody a legal relationship of mutual love, care and affection? The Church says NO.

Even more pressing is the rejection of artificial contraception. The Church cannot ignore the physical suffering from the AIDS epidemic in Africa, or the uncontrolled population increase in the Philippines, where it still has an overwhelming influence on daily politics. The means to limit the effects of either dilemma giving rise to a more hopeful generation are so simple. And yet, the Church says NO.

On Bishops, Politicians and a tiny bit of bread

I recently came across this article about the aggressiveness coming from the Catholic Church in the Philippines (an overwhelmingly Catholic nation) against the proposed family planning bill, which would require the government to promote artificial contraception.

I could write about the irony. How the Church, who cares for all of the Lord’s people, would allow them to dig themselves into an even deeper hole, instead of allowing legislation to pass that might help provide desperately necessary population growth control. I could write about the families left in abject poverty due to the Catholic abstinence-only dogma. I could write about the deeper problems with the church’s insistence on over-stepping the constitutionally prescribed separation of church and state.

Instead, I would like to address the bishops’ threats of refusing the Eucharist to politicians who support the bill. It seems to be the common Modus Operandi for meddling clergymen.

In Catholicism, one cannot accept the Host whilst in a state of mortal sin. Doing so would compound the transgression, causing eternal damnation. The theological process of transubstantiation gives weight to the argument. In refusing to serve the Host, the clergy is saving souls. Hence, they believe it is their duty to refuse. If this were the full extent of the refusal, all would be well.

Unfortunately, more appears to be at stake. Taking my previous thought further: if said sinner were to go to confession before mass and receive absolution, theoretically he/she cannot be refused communion.

How can anyone then refuse the Eucharist if absolution is already granted? The Church already knows that if any of the involved politicians receive absolution, they are fully eligible for the Eucharist, making this threat unenforceable. So what is it about?

These bishops are entering dangerous ground. Are they spitefully inducing the wrath of God to prevent this bill from going through? Is the Catholic Church prepared to play for politics and influence on the backs of impoverished and malnourished individuals? I certainly hope not.

Tackling young and novice drivers

Young drivers (21 years of age and younger) and novice drivers in Ontario may soon face new laws in regards to alcohol consumption and the number of young passengers with them in the car. I have mixed feelings about them.

The new rules require young drivers to have a zero blood alcohol level whilst behind the steering wheel. This will also apply to novice drivers of all ages for their first year of driving. I am in agreement with this aspect of the proposed laws. Germany already has such laws in place, with the difference that novice drivers must adhere for two years instead of one.

What I disagree with in the limit set upon the number of youth in a car, which makes it illegal for young drivers to drive with more than one passenger 19 or younger with them in the vehicle. Don Forgeron, the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Ontario vice-president, rightly says that saving lives is of more importance than inconvenience. They are, however, essentially making it illegal for young people to carpool to work, or to drive their two younger cousins to their swim class. This also affects the responsible party-goers – the designated driver will no longer be able to chauffeur their friends home. This inconvenience is utterly unnecessary.

This limit comes as a result of a fatal crash that occurred on the south shore of Georgian Bay. Five teenagers died, three of which were not wearing seatbelts. According to police, alcohol did not play a role in the crash. Speed and road conditions likely did.

I do not understand how that crash would lead to the limit proposed. Instead, I believe that higher fines for speeding and failure to wear seatbelts are in order. Significant speeding should also warrant immediate license suspension.

Obama planning world's biggest harem

If there is a positive that comes out of all the nonsensical fear-mongering from the GOP, it is that they have provided a goldmine for satirists worldwide. Here is a clip ridiculing some of the claims made about Obama during the election campaign.

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

"This is about the human heart"

**sigh**

He is still after my heart. There once was a time when given a choice between Colin Firth and anyone else, there was absolutely no question that I would have selected Firth. Now that I have started watching Olbermann's commentaries, I am not so sure.

Here is his response to the passage on Prop 8 in California - the banning of gay marriage. He is so eloquent and decisive... and that deep voice...

The love-hate affair between Germans and their rules

When I made the decision to move to Germany, someone “warned” me that Germans are, among other things, inflexible and in love with rules (or something similar to that – it was almost six years ago, so I paraphrased it). The warning was only partially correct. It is more accurate to say that Germans are inflexible and in love with rules, as long as those rules do not interfere with their comfort levels.

For example, two Deutsche Bahn conductors, in two separate occasions, essentially left two young teenagers stranded in rural areas far from home because they forgot their tickets at home. I understand that there will always be those who free-ride and ruin it for the rest of us. On these two occasions, however, an exception should have been made. The conductor could have taken note of the teenager’s address and DB could have clarified the situation afterwards – similar to the procedure when charged with a speeding ticket. I, myself, would also be infuriated if my 13-year-old was left stranded almost 50 kilometers away from home by an inflexible, rule-hardy conductor. At least one of the conductors have since been suspended, in addition to an apology from DB.


On the flip-side, you have the one rule that many Germans love to break: the non-smoking rule. It does not matter where you are – a subway station, restaurant, etc. – there will be someone smoking. What’s worse is that those people will argue the life out of you if you decide to point out that they are in a non-smoking area, which I often do. My favourite stand-off occurred inside an elevator on the way up to the train platform. Just as the doors closed, some nutcase lights up a cigarette and breathes out smoke into the faces of two of my children, both of whom were sitting in their STROLLER coughing! I pointed to the big non-smoking sticker on the wall beside him, and asked him if he really needed to blow cigarette smoke into the faces of my then one- and two-year-old children. He shrugged and said that it doesn’t matter because we were going to be in open air in a matter of seconds. I reminded him that the smoking ban also applied on the train platform. That was when I crossed the line. “Why do you people always try to take away our right to smoke!” he bellowed, before he huffed and he puffed all the way to the other end of the platform. Funnily enough, he continued smoking beside another non-smoking sign.

NB – Smoking is a passionate subject for Germans. They used their veto power in the EU to prevent a smoking ban from coming through. The non-smoking ban has been reversed for traditional Kneipen (corner pubs).

Yes, Germans can be very inflexible. I want to make it clear, though, that it is a stereotype, and that not all Germans are that bad – thank goodness!

Gay Gay Gay

Gay TV
All I seem to be running into today is news linked to homosexuality. A new gay television channel called Timm was launched last Saturday here in Germany. It struck me as odd that Germany, a country seemingly more accommodating towards it homosexual population than countries such as the US, launched a channel created specifically for them later than the US. What particularly piqued my interest is the channel’s slogan – “Wir lieben männer”, which translates to “We love men”. Whatever happened to lesbians? Are they not gay as well? If the induction of such a channel was done in the interest of general inclusion in the world of television, I believe that should have been reflected in their slogan.

Gay on TV
My enthusiasm for Grey’s Anatomy has been wavering this past season, but I was happy when the show introduced homosexual relationships into its storylines. Portraying normal, ordinary people in homosexual relationships on screen is a wonderful way to counter the obtuse belief some have that homosexuality is an aberration. For that reason, I am annoyed that Brooke Smith has been written off the show. (Her character, Dr. Hahn, was exploring her homosexuality with Dr. Torres, played by Sara Ramirez.)

The official reason behind her dismissal is that the character was not received well by the majority of the viewership. Many people believe this to be a prevarication and feel the producers have submitted to the will of homophobic America. Whatever the rationale, I mourn the exit of a storyline that finally entered territory that is, for the most part, woefully unexplored on mainstream television.

Gay in Real Life
Arizona, California and Florida have taken a big step forward with America in the election of Barack Obama for President. They, however, have taken a big step back when they became part of thirty states that ban same-sex marriage. Arkansas has also passed a measure banning parents in homosexual relationships from adopting children.

This has been called a victory for religious conservatives. That very description exemplifies why such bans should not even be pursued at all - the propositions were put forth by religious conservatives, who appear to enjoy scorning the principle of the separation of church and state.

I do not agree that issues surrounding homosexuality should be left to be dealt with separately in each state. I believe politicians take this stance with the sole purpose of avoiding disapproval in certain states. There should be a country-wide acceptance, not intolerance, of homosexuals, and because the rejection claims it roots in religious belief, there should be no place in the law for such discrimination.

Obama won. Now what?

Now that I have had a couple of days to let the words “Obama is the President-elect” sink in, my feelings of elation have given way to those of concern and worry.

Yes, Obama is the first African-American President of the US. I do not mean to detract from the significance of that. What worries me is the high expectation that America, and the world, now have of him. His predecessor has done an absurdly effective job destroying America. The damage incurred is of such colossal magnitude that the road to recovery will likely be painstakingly long. Obama inherits an America that has lost a fair share of its friends and most of its respect internationally.

It is imperative that we remember Obama is also human. He cannot work miracles, which is what people seem to expect of him. Mistakes will undoubtedly be made. One can be certain that these mistakes will be magnified to ridiculous proportion by the opposition (and Fox News) – you only need to look back at McCain’s election campaign to see that.

In fact, the radical conservative revolt has already begun. They are composing “Obama Administration Survival Guides". They are advising people to transfer money offshore for fear of being robbed by the government. They are calling for the impeachment of Obama, and this man has not even been sworn into office, yet! One statement in particular affronted any sensible political awareness:

“There are a lot of Americans out there that do not fully understand the concept of Socialism or Communism which is why they’ve elected Obama as president.”

Obviously the authors of the ignorant statement do not fully understand the concept themselves. (If you follow my blog, you know how much the misuse of the “S” and “C” words infuriates me.) They continue to call for Obama’s impeachment because of his support for “various unconstitutional programs such as the assault weapons ban, universal healthcare, and various schemes for wealth distribution”. Obama wants to elevate American society and Americans’ social responsibility to the 21st century! Oh no! Run for your lives! Candidly speaking, we are no longer in the Wild Wild West, where everyone needs guns to protect themselves from the unpredictable, potentially around the corner, savages.

I am veering off point. In this post I am trying caution Americans of the danger in raising their hopes too high. The groundbreaking, history-making outcome of this year’s US elections must not overshadow the reality-based possibilities in policy-making. It is easy to become exuberant and maintain exuberance about someone’s accomplishments when there were low expectations. Disillusionment can set in very quickly, and unjustly, when expectations are as high as they are of President-elect Obama.

ACORN and the perils of the uninformed vote

Kaffeetrinken with my in-laws always comes with the guarantee of a fun-filled discussion about politics, religion, the economy and/or ethics. (Well, perhaps not always fun-filled, but definitely interesting and passionate.) Today’s get-together did not disappoint.

My step-father-in-law, like most Germans, used to be crazy for everything American – the food, the buildings, the culture and, yes, the politics. Blinded by this love, he zealously shot down hubby’s doom-filled predictions for US economy and foreign policy after “Dubya’s” reelection. “Bush may not be the smartest, but the GOP would never allow for the decline of their country,” he said confidently.

He is now so turned off by recent American political events, that he followed this past election campaign without his usual level of interest. Among other things we had to explain all about “that ACORN business” – which solicited this question: Why would anyone court the vote from the uneducated, uninformed and uninterested?

ACORN’s aim to “get-out-the-vote” is fundamentally a noble one. Theoretically, the more people vote, the more democratic the outcome. The alleged “potential election fraud” by false vote registration cards was nothing more than a political manoeuvre. I would pay to see Mickey Mouse to show up at the polling station with valid identification in order to make use of that “fraudulent” registration. Hence, there is no way these false registrations will have any effect on the outcome.

With some of the recent, outlandish remarks by likely voters, my step-father-in-law raises an interesting aspect. Why is it beneficial to a democracy for people to cast a vote, and therewith influence the course of politics potentially substantially, based on utterly uninformed opinions and/or currently less central or irrelevant issues such as:

• Obama is a one-man terror cell.
• Obama is a Muslim.
• Obama is anti-American.
• Obama is a Marxist.

(I tried to find equally bizarre rumors about McCain, for balance. I was unsuccessful. I am not surprised.
UPDATE: LeftLeaningLady supplied me with a few; they are listed in the comments section.)

• Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
• The fact that Obama would be the first African-American President
• The fact that Palin would be the first elected female VP
• The fact that one candidate fought in a war and the other did not
• How many homes a candidate owns
• A non-American middle name

It disconcerts me that in the current economic climate some voters, such as Kevin Sheen, are solely centering their vote on abortion. I respect that to some people this is a very important issue, but I find it difficult to understand why this issue is so heavily weighted against the economy and foreign policy. Such debates find their roots in religious belief, and should stay there. For that very reason did the Founding Fathers of the US insist on the separation of church and state.

An uninformed vote adds no value to a democracy; in fact it subtracts, regardless of the political affiliation of said vote. But who would get to choose which vote is informed and which is not? The aim must be to educate, as comprehensively as possible, eligible voters of the political platforms out there. Desisting from perpetual attack ads one way or the other would be a first step. Instead, entering into an in-depth, respectful debate is far healthier and democratic than fear mongering.

The message should be: Get-out, get-informed, then vote.

Making money by not having any sex/babies

No Sex

In Georgia there is currently a marriage contest in progress. An engaged couple can win $10,000 provided they open their wedding ceremony to the public, live separately before getting married and undergo premarital counselling. Oh, and they have to abstain - as in no premarital sex. Supposedly the goal of the contest is to promote marriages which will "really last a lifetime". That some people actually think preventing premarital sex is preventing divorce is beyond reason.

The contest is run by a non-profit organisation called MATURE - Marriage Appreciation Training Uplifting Relationship Education. (I wonder how long it took someone to come up with that?) Since 2006 they received yearly federal grants of $455,510, which will continue until 2011. What a preposterous way to spend tax revenue. Given a choice of having their tax dollars spent on health care or teaching abstinence, I believe most Americans would choose health care.

So how many couples have signed up for the opportunity to replace premarital sex with premarital counselling?

Zero. Shocker.

No Babies

A Louisiana legislator has suggested paying $1000 to women on welfare and food stamps if they have themselves sterilised. This is just WRONG. Never mind the fact that this is a lawsuit of discrimination against the poor waiting to happen. Dangling money in front of the poverty-stricken is not the way to go. They will make the decision based on the fact that they need the money, not thinking of possible future consequences.

Again, this is potentially a waste of tax revenue. $1000 is not going to take the destitute off of welfare or eradicate the less fortunate. This money is better spent on education.

You Have Two Cows: Politics and Social Principles Simplified

This is one of those jokes that I got forwarded to my email. I do not remember who sent this to me, but I thank them nonetheless.Politics Simplified
Feudalism:
You have two cows. Your lord takes a significant share of your milk.

Pure Socialism:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

Bureaucratic Socialism:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need. You go hungry.

Fascism:
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

Pure Communism:
You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them and you all share the milk.

Russian Communism:
You have two cows. You have to take care of them but the government takes all the milk. You go hungry.

Cambodian Communism:
You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you. You would've been hungry, but you're dead.

Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalism:
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Social Principles Simplified
Dictatorship:
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

Pure Democracy:
You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.

Proportional Representation Democracy:
You have two cows. A panel reflecting your neighbours' views argue at length who gets the milk and comes to no agreement. Months later, a compromise is drawn up where everyone gets orange juice.

Direct Representation Democracy:
You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

Bureaucracy:
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you enough to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Pure Anarchy:
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you.

Surrealism:
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

See? SEE? Even the cynic who penned this joke knows there is a difference between socialism and communism!!!

(photos from farmpower.com and tlarson.com respectively)

Mariecel vs. A flamingpoodle - Round 2

I'm happy to say that flamingpoodle, a.k.a. Garg the Unzola, has continued the interesting exchange of standpoints. For his original rebuttal, click here and scroll down to comments. Here we go!

In fact, taking the Hippocratic Oath is no longer a requirement to become a doctor.
The oath is no longer a necessity in the US? Interesting. This speaks of a sad change in the culture of the US medical community, but is also very telling. In a quick search I was not able to find support for your statement. Would you mind providing it?

Give it a try. Claiming that there are logical fallacies in my statement and actually indentifying them and pointing them out to me are two different things entirely.
Perhaps you did not notice that I indeed address and rebut every position of your statement. But far more interesting is that you ignored a good portion of my points. Perhaps, somewhere deep down, you agree?

You are assuming that someone who suffers from cancer would necessarily be reliant on a social health care system and won't be able to afford private health care.
Either you are ignoring selective phrases or I recommend for you to take a class in logic. I do NOT assume that the patient would not be able to afford private health care - this is indicated with the use of the word 'should' in conjunction with 'on the basis of financial ability'.

By your logic, it is entirely acceptable for me to get a yacht by virtue of the fact that I can't afford it. Or for me to have someone do my accounting for me free of charge, by virtue of the fact that I can't afford an accountant. Where do you draw the line between a fundamental human right and a privilege?
I draw the line where the issue at hand no longer directly affects my physiological and mental well-being. As I said previously, long hair will not kill you, but a cancerous tumour will. Not having a yacht will not kill you, but untreated diabetes will. Not having an accountant will not kill you, but untreated heart disease will.

Are the fundamental rights of those who can't afford health care not the same as those who are qualified to provide health services? If they are, then you can't say the doctor has to provide his services to someone who can't afford them any more tha you can deny me a haircut because I can't afford it.
Yes, I believe they have the same right to health care. That does not mean, by any standard of logic, that I can therefore force my hairdresser to cut my hair. You cannot equate the right to life with a wish for comfort.

Even though I think everyone has the same right to health care, I do not think everyone has the right to the comfort of private hospital rooms or medical practices that are not necessary to the physiological and mental well-being of the patient, such as medically unprompted cosmetic surgery. In most of continental Europe, general health care does not pay for your random nose job, unless it has become medically necessary, i.e. due to an accident.

If they aren't, then all are equal, but some are more equal.
We should all be equal with respect to basic, universal access to health care that treats medical ailments in full according to best practice.

It is a matter of basic equality that anybody, regardless of their financial background, who is in need of a specific medical treatment ordered by a doctor (be that dialysis or a simple break away from stress factors), should have access to said prescribed remedy. If you are lucky enough to be affluent, you can add comfort factors, such as private rooms and exclusive attention from the head doctor of the department, at your own cost.

That's all for now. =)

(images from i-hostels.com, bluebuddies.com, and cartoonstock.com respectively)

Health Care is the Same as Hairdressing (nur auf Englisch)

Browsing the discussion forums on blogcatalog, I stumbled upon a debate on health care as a right versus privilege. One of the first responses was written by a flamingpoodle:


Health care is not a right, it is a service, just like hair dressing. You have to pay for any service, because someone had to invest their time, money and effort into acquiring the necessary skills to perform that service.

If you can't pay for a hair cut, then you should grow your hair long. If you can't pay for medical services, then you should ensure that you don't get sick.

To say that health care is a right implies that the state has the right to enslave certain health care workers in order to provide this service.


He equates health care with hairdressing! Take a moment to let the outrageousness of that statement sink in... There are so many fallacies in his logic that I don't even know where to begin!

Health care is not a right, it is a service, just like hair dressing.
In short, long hair won't kill you but a large, untreated cancerous growth certainly will. Should this patient be refused treatment, or not receive full treatment, on basis of financial ability, then this amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

You have to pay for any service, because someone had to invest their time, money and effort into acquiring the necessary skills to perform that service.
Of course health care providers must be reimbursed for services rendered. That's what we pay taxes for.

If you can't pay for a hair cut, then you should grow your hair long. If you can't pay for medical services, then you should ensure that you don't get sick.
Wow. What a way to say "F**k Off" to those with cancer, Parkinson's, severe physical and neurological paralysis, etc., as well as to those who are forced into situations that make them more prone to sickness (i.e. needing to work multiple jobs and long hours in order to make ends meet).

To say that health care is a right implies that the state has the right to enslave certain health care workers in order to provide this service.
Because something is a right does not imply that the state has the right to enslave. There are countries where health care is a right such as France, Sweden, etc., and nobody there will tell you that they are enslaved by the state. In fact, when you become a doctor, you consciously "enslave" yourself to improving health in society by way of the Hippocratic Oath. Some doctors, most notably in the US, appear to be choosing to forget it, and practice medicine for obscene amounts of profit. I'm not against profits in the health care industry. I'm against refusal of complete treatment on the grounds of your financial/insurance situation.

A society that hails health care as a privilege tells me two things: they haven't evolved since the Industrial Revolution, and they impose cruel and unusual punishment of the less fortunate for being just that.

(images from iremind.co.uk and distractible.org repectively)

My Abbreviated Take on Social Policy (nur auf englisch)

I realise I already had my “rant” about taxes on this blog, but I have just come across two articles which I believe need to be read.

Socialism and Taxes = Not Necessarily a Bad Thing
I always find an argument to be stronger when put forth by someone who has previously opposed it. Christina G., who was Republican when she moved to Germany over six years ago, explains eloquently in her blog why she now calls herself “a believer”.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives contends that betterment for society does not necessarily lie in tax cuts, but in the re-arranging of revenue distribution. And yes, with that I mean implementing policies into government that slightly lean towards the left of the political spectrum. Currently the implementations of such policies appear impossible for a country such as the US, where McCarthy, Nixon and co. have done a brilliant job fostering the irrational phobia of socialism. Decades later, many Americans are still allergic to the mere thought and theory of socially conscious policy-making.

Socialism ≠ Communism
At this point, I need to point out that the word socialism needs to be used with great caution. There are many shades of socialism. Communists frequently hailed themselves as inherently socialist. Obviously, I’m not talking about that kind of socialism. I’m talking about the “socialism” of free-market, western countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France and, of course, Germany. I sincerely hope that those individuals who falsely equate socialism with communism realise that adopting a couple left-leaning ideas into government does not turn you into a raging red Communist. It will likely improve the societal quality of life.

NB – I wonder how many Americans realise that by comparison within the G-7, the Democrats are not at all left-wing, or even centre-left, but find themselves in centre-right territory.