OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Sunday, November 23


OMG: I am getting concerned at the apathy of our generation. I don't mean to sound "edgy", but there are some really messed up things going on.

Our current government is planning to cut public healthcare by 36 billion in the next ten years.

Meanwhile tuition fees are rising faster than incomes and inflation.

Canada's richest 10% own almost 50% of total wealth.

Fears of "Terrorism" are used to justify invading other countries for capital gain. These "Terrorists" are mostly just people fighting back against foreign invasion.

If a brown guy goes on a shooting rampage, he's a terrorist.
If its a white guy, he's mentally ill.

What I'm trying to point out is that our system of government is not doing what's good for us, but for their own interests and the interests of corporations.

We need to start thinking about how our information is presented to us, and what the objective of that information is.

We need to start looking at our system of government, and thinking about what is the best method of representing the people.

My apologies if this sounds like another "Wake up sheeple" sort of post, but I am really disappointed at the lack of understanding of current events in my peers.


  1. Replies
    1. seriously, OMGUW doens't need this cancer

  2. "Our current government is planning to cut public healthcare by $36 billion in the next 10 years."

    You're gonna need a citation for this one, buddy. Last I checked:
    -> Healthcare was a provincial issue, not a federal one.
    -> No cuts were currently planned to healthcare TRANSFERS by the feds - just a decrease in the number and size of the annual increases.
    -> The neat trade-off to the above is that (unlike in the past) the money goes to the provinces with no strings attached, so they have far more freedom in choosing how to spend it - leaving the decision-making power over regional issues in the hands of the people we elected to make those decisions.
    -> Provincially, it is true that the Liberals have frozen spending INCREASES on all public services for the next 3 years, but I haven't heard plans to cut anything, and the current freeze is because we have a $250 billion deficit whose interest payments is making it rather hard to grow the local economy.

    "Canada's richest 10% own almost 50% of total wealth."

    And pay about 90% of total taxes. With the combined rate for the top tax bracket currently sitting at about 56%, you basically have to make 2 dollars in order to hold on to 1.

    "Fears of 'terrorism' are used to justify invading other countries for capital gain."

    Example? I can't think of any countries we've invaded recently. We're in Iraq, but that's at the Iraqi government's invitation, and we have no soldiers actually on the ground over there.

    "If a brown guy goes on a shooting rampage, he's a terrorist."

    Only if his actions fit with the criminal code's definition of terrorism.

    "If it's a white guy, he's mentally ill."

    Michael Zihaf-Bibeau (pardon me if I misspelt that) was white, and he was a terrorist. He attacked the government, for the purpose of inciting chaos and fear on a national level. That absolutely qualifies as terrorism. Sure, he almost certainly had mental health issues too, but while that's important the two things are separate issues to consider.

    But if you don't agree, feel free to cast your vote in the next election - it's only 11 months away. Hell, stand for election yourself if you think you can represent our interests better. Maybe the Marxist-Leninist Party would welcome somebody with views like this.

    1. OP doesn't have the slightest grip on reality, this guy has got it right ^^^

    2. 3 here again. I will add one more thing - the part I agree with. Tuition rates are rising faster than they honestly should be. This is, in most cases, because of agreements with profs and staff on university campuses to maintain annual salary increases beyond the rate of inflation (for UW profs, the current agreement is 3%/year, IIRC).

      Right now, universities can offset the loss in revenue in basically 5 ways:
      1) Increase enrolment, thereby increasing gross revenue.
      2) Increase tuition (maximum allowable is 3%/year), thereby increasing gross revenue per capita.
      3) Cut staff/faculty (drawback: less support for students).
      4) Decrease spending on academic programs (drawback: less support for students, quality of labs/materials/classrooms etc. decreases).
      5) Decrease enrolment enough to justify selling land and infrastructure, thereby lowering costs (downside: university becomes smaller overall, reputation decreases, gov't funding for research drops... this is the worst outcome).

      And within the next few years option 1 is expected to be taken off the table by the province. Soooo pick your poison.

      Yes, the way universities are funded is unsustainable. Yes, it needs dramatic change in the near future. Fortunately - people are working on that. Change is coming down the tubes, at least in Ontario. And it's actually very interesting! If you want to know more about this, ask your faculty's undergraduate Senator, or contact one of the At-Large Senators.

    3. Nothing more gratifying than coming to the comment section to tear someone a new one and seeing someone has already done so. Internet props to you, 3.

    4. @3 - I think that you're being a little disingenuous. I don't want to come out and defend OP entirely, but I think that you are being selective in how you frame their points.

      Your assessment of the tuition debate is fair, I think. I'm not sure that smaller universities are necessarily the worst outcome, or that commensurate declines in 'reputation' or research funding will occur.

      As far as healthcare funding, I'm honestly can't find the figure OP mentions, so I won't comment on that. However, I will address your response. As far as budgeting goes, a decrease in planned increases is effectively a budget decrease, such as these things go, so to say there is no budget decrease is a semantic point, either way.

      Arguing that the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of tax is not acknowledging the reality of income disparity. Your point about a top tax rate of over 50% may well be true, but someone making enough income to be taxed in that bracket will still end up with more after tax income than those on the poverty line or only just above it. In Canada, as in many democratic nations, tax burden falls more heavily on those most able to afford it. I am certain that, all things being equal, there is nobody in Canada impoverished as a result of their high-income taxes.

      There may not be Canadian soldiers on the ground in Iraq, but as much as Canada is part of the larger Western power block, and a member of NATO, we are complicit in military action undertaken by other Western nations. The Harper government in particular has taken a supportive stance.

      Terrorism is a pretty free-wheeling area, but I think that by framing it in terms of criminal code violation, the intent of which was simply to incite fear, is to fall into a fallacy that has been perpetuated in the West. Zihaf-Bibeau may have been suffering from mental health issues, but the question of motivation is more difficult to answer. If you dismiss his actions as terrorism with no greater purpose than to incite fear, what does this say about our own actions abroad? What if you reframe this attack as the actions of someone representing a people (broadly, Muslims of the Middle East) who feels that we have violated their sovereignty and right to self-determination? Does this mean that in the West we claim that only we have the right to intervene in the affairs of another country? That only we can undertake military action against someone we identify as a threat? There is a way of understanding "terrorism" in a broader historical and political context that a lot of the mainstream media in the West are reluctant to do. But certainly I think that OP is correct in suggesting that we need to reasses how we understand our role in the global affairs and what it means for the West to be the bringers of democracy, while those who oppose us are only terrorists, who don't represent legitimate concerns.

      Finally, your ad hominem attack on OP at the end of your comment is disgusting. I suspect you would argue you were being serious and not sarcastic, which I don't believe from the tone of your comments. A vote for the Marxist-Leninist party is a valid democratic act, and while neither you nor I might support that party, every person in a democracy has the right to cast their vote for any candidate on the ballot. By belittling the OP's views as only fit for that party, and dismissing the party in the process, you are stating that there is no room for dissenting voices in a democracy. Many people who share THAT view claim to be staunch defenders of democracy, but in practice, they are only defenders of their interpretation of democracy.

    5. 3d,

      That's all fair. OP's views were presented in a fairly extreme way, so I gave a response that was similarly unsubtle. I fully acknowledge and admit that the reality is that these are complex and multi-faceted issues rooted in very real problems, which cannot be solved by black-and-white rhetoric. I have my thoughts on these matters, but don't feel like discussing them in depth in this setting.

      I'll concede further that my closing paragraph may have also been a little *too* sarcastic, and more than a little bit of overkill. Ultimately, it was rooted in my own personal political bent. I'll admit - I *don't* take the Marxist-Leninist Party (or really any of the fringe parties - Greens included) seriously, but I don't begrudge them for existing. I'm not... *particularly* sorry for my extreme sarcasm in this situation, but I'll agree it probably wasn't necessary.

    6. > fringe parties
      > Greens included


  3. #occupythedeansoffice

  4. #occupythedeansoffice

  5. thank god im rich lol faggots

  6. This is why I plan to kill myself soon. The world is in bad shape and is only getting worse.

    1. Yeah, don't do that.

    2. -_- Dude... there's always something worth being alive for.

      Sure, the world is an ugly place. But that, in a sense, lends it a sort of beauty. Look to yourself; live life for its precious and beautiful moments, and appreciate them all the more for the fact that they won't last forever. Don't let your life go to waste because you don't like the state that the world is in - live your life well in spite of the shape that the world is in (and take comfort in the fact that, on average, quality of life is still better than it was a century ago, or a century before that, or another 100 years before that, pretty much ad nauseum back to the dark ages).