Violence never serves its master... yet one has to ask if access to higher education should be based on money or merit. I think that after some thoughts most would go for merit. We should take time to define merit as a society but at the end of the day, money is a criteria that through history has led to much sufferings. 

 As for the feasibility of it, well, many countries do not have tuition fees as they based their right of attendance on a mix between passion, hard work, and talent and decided that for those individuals, they are willing to pay the price. This has the great collateral of having those who attend higher education strictly for the pedigree it confers to them, do something more adapted to their calling.

Spreading the word that is changing the world

Whistleblowing is not for sissies

GAUSSIAN ETHICS

The value of life

Society still hierarchize the value of life. I would like to propose that this "societal policy setting" is a direction at the root of several human pains and evils.

While most of us agree that in general we should not attribute a hierarchy to life, we all know that when it comes to loved ones we will do everything to support them. It is a noble human trait in itself at an individual level, so that one gets the best available environment for our loved ones.

The problem is when a society applies the same policy setting.

We are making progress in this respect as we are working toward eliminating racial and sexist hierarchies: the time is unfortunately not gone yet of putting more value to a specific race or sex but we are improving in terms of society.

\However, still present is societal hierarchy applied to other attributes.

Case in point:

As a society we still prioritize functions: more energy will be invested to save a president than a construction worker.

We still prioritize productivity: by investing more energy to save a middle-aged man than an elderly person.

We still prioritized those who do what we hold as appropriate: by investing more energy in saving a non-obese or on-smoker than an obese or smoker respectively.

And let's not forget the wild card, we still prioritized one with money.

The impact on the individual self-esteem (and consequences thereof) are enormous: the knowledge that society as a whole cares more or less depending on certain attributes is of tragic consequences, either as an unhealthy driver or as the ultimate deprecating power.

I would like to argue that a societal policy without a hierarchy of life value would solve fundamental lack of trust in individuals which ultimately drives a long serial of urges such as lust of power, abuse, materialism, competitive meanness, etc.

One more meaning to Global Village

Continent, countries, provinces, regions, towns, sectors... and their governmental legitimity...all with good intentions but mountains of laws and their red tapes can't cover it all. The rising of "shared consumption", the capacity through internet to exchange goods based on trust (a rating that is attributed to you) is to the image of one's place in the "historical" village. However, this time our honesty rating or absence thereof will be built and known by people who will never meet you but will engage into trading with you.

By exchanging a book that you read for one you are interested in, people who share something with you will learn about you. They will learn to which degree they can trust and for what, in a way equivalent to your credit score but this time at a people level: accountability at the level of your action, and because it is computationable, also for the sum of your actions.

What you do and do not do becomes your e-profile.

Once again, after thousand years of innocence we are to become accountable!

Citizen complacency and The Government of Canada

The daily importance for each and everyone of us to work on the development of ethics, value , and compassion can never be blindly and entirely delegated to a third party, even if it is the government you elected. Here is an example of where we end up as a society when we limit our involvement to a vote every 4 years.

Former diplomats speak out the Conservative government's treatment of Richard Colvin, who spoke out on the treatment of Canadian detainees in Afghanistan

The Letter

The issues raised by the Richard Colvin affair are profound. Colvin, a Foreign Service Officer dedicated to discharging his responsibilities to the best of his ability under difficult circumstances, was unfairly subjected to personal attacks as a result of his testimony provided in response to a summons from a parliamentary committee.

While criticism of his testimony was perfectly legitimate, aspersions cast on his personal integrity were not. A fundamental requirement of a Foreign Service Officer is that he or she report on a given situation as observed or understood. It is only in this way that any government can draw conclusions knowledgeably and make its considered decisions, even if at variance with the reports received. The Colvin affair risks creating a climate in which Officers may be more inclined to report what they believe headquarters wants to hear, rather than facts and perceptions deemed unpalatable.

Serge April, Marc Baudouin, Michael D. Bell, Rod Bell, Eric Bergbusch, Fred Bild, Marius Bujold, Robert Collette, Jacques Crête, Brian Davis, Anne Marie Doyle, Paul Durand, James Elliott, Nick Etheridge, Marc Faguy, Robert Fowler, John M Fraser, James George, Donald Gilchrist, Stan Gooch, John Graham, Nick Hare, Jean-Paul Hubert, David Hutchings, Jeremy Kinsman, Rick Kholer, Gabriel Lessard, Daniel Marchand, Patricia Marsden-Dole, Émile Martel, François Mathys, Carolyn McAskie, John Mundy, John Noble, Gar Pardy, Gordon Riddell, Jacques Roy, Michael Shenstone, Joseph Stanford, Howard Strauss, William Warden, Peter Walker, Christopher Westdal, Jack Whittleton, Tim Williams, Ron Willson

Former Canadian ambassadors