capnamerica

Thanks @Negura Bunget, DM'd ya!

Do you have any insight into the barriers OMFS face getting hospital privileges? I wonder if there's just institutional resistance (ie. politics) as opposed to a lack in qualifications.

Thanks Mashmetoo.

How do you send in transcripts to AACOMAS? Do you have to use the Transcript Request Form? My undergraduate institution requires payment for transcripts to be sent out. I'm afraid that they won't send the transcript to AACOMAS since they won't receive payment for the transcipt. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Yeah, that's what I figured as well. Reminds you to always take information you see on these forums with a grain of salt. Thanks Der Kaiser.

Are you able to provide a source for the statement about McMaster only considering your final two years?

The personal privacy of citizens should be protected from government intrusion. The privacy entitled to the citizens of a nation is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society. Privacy is the state in which an individual has the ability to retain personal information from inquirers. A citizen is an individual who has been the resident of a nation for a sufficiently long period of time, and has already pledged allegiance to the nation in some form an oath demonstrating loyalty. Intrusion can be defined as the violation of the state of individual privacy wherein the intruder has extracted information from an individual using force or has simply bypassed the awareness of an individual of the inquiries into their personal lives. Therefore, when the personal privacy of citizens is protected from government intrusion, citizens’ private matters are not open to privy by the government. In the case of conventional law in any democratic society, law enforcement officials or any public officer for that matter is not allowed to carry out search and seizures on the private property of citizens unless they possess a court-administered warrant allowing them to do so. This ensures that the privacy of citizens is not arbitrarily invaded, unless there is reasonable doubt of foul play on the part of the citizen. However, there are periods of time wherein it is generally considered acceptable to bypass the permission and awareness of citizens when accessing their personal information. For instance, just days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Patriot Act came into effect, which essentially allowed various U.S. intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials to bypass the traditional safeguards of U.S. citizens’ privacy, allowing them to access the personal information of citizens without the citizen being aware of such actions on part of the government. The prime example of the Patriot Act in action is the widespread engagement of intelligence officials in the warrantless wiretapping of citizens’ private phone conversations. Therefore, citizens’ privacy may or may not be protected from government intrusion depending on the circumstances involved. Generally, during peacetime within a democratic society, the privacy of citizens is indeed protected from government intrusion. However, during times of war, when citizens are expected to accommodate to the war-time policies of their government, certain safeguards of personal privacy much be removed in order to ensure the overall security of the nation. In the case of the conventional requirement of warrants when carrying out search and seizures on private property, this protocol is generally considered essential during peacetime since no imminent danger is present to the nation at large, and thus, the privacy of citizens should be respected and accommodated. However, during times of war, such as the post-9/11 era, wherein the threats of proliferation of international and domestic terrorism were widespread, certain safeguards on the personal privacy of American citizens needed to be removed in order to better monitor terrorist chatter and ensure the overall security of the nation. Therefore, during times of peace, when a nation is not at war, the protection of citizens’ personal privacy is expected to be protected from government intrusion, whereas when a nation is at war, it is understandable for the government to intrude upon the privacy of citizens since they are only doing so in order to protect the nation at large. Thanks again Pasta!

Plans for achieving social justice can succeed only when those affected give their approval. It speaks to the good in the world when we see people trying to take care of each other. From community services to emergency services, and all kinds of services in between, we see people looking out for the best interest of their fellow man. However, certain forms of social justice, such as liberty, can only succeed if the people who want it are willing to fight for it. For example, countries like Iraq may have wanted to be free of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, but toppling their government without their overwhelming approval was, of course, doomed to failure. This is not to say that it is wrong to help a floundering country with its revolution. After all, America received a great deal of help during our revolution, the difference was that Americans were ready to lay their lives down in the pursuit of their liberty. When we talk about social issues, however, sometimes it is necessary to push for social justice against public opinion. During the desegregation of the public schools, for instance, the changes in people’s lives were perceived to be so uncomfortable that some people would have chose to forgo the process entirely. If desegregation had not taken place against the approval of many people, there is no telling where race relations would be now. The question is whether liberty and desegregation are really on level playing fields as far as social justice is concerned. The greater good must always be fought for, but people must be willing to fight for their causes. Ultimately, the civil rights movement was a success due to the commitment of its participants. They saw that nothing would change unless they stood for what they believed in. Whereas from a revolutionary standpoint, Iraq was not on the verge of overthrowing Saddam. This contrast of a successful movement versus an unsuccessful one shows us that social justice only achievable in a real way in those affected give not only their approval, but there bodies and minds. Thanks Pasta

Only educated people can take advantage of new technologies. Education is essentially what allows individuals to reap the maximum benefits of the technologies which surround them. Education is best recognized as the formal education one receives in North America and Europe from the kindergarten level, all the way to the post-graduate level. A formal education provides individuals with the ability to apply the various ideas and principles they have learned throughout their education to solving the problems they face at any given moment. For instance, at the advent of the new millennium, highly educated engineers from the Unites States, introduced the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) into the realm of surveillance and reconnaissance. The UAV is an extremely sophisticated piece of technology, which requires a team of three highly trained individuals (one pilot and two servicemen) to operate, since everything from the UAV’s maintenance to its takeoff is highly complicated. At some point during the course of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, United States military personnel began equipping these reconnaissance aircraft with precision-guided bombs, in order to reduce the escalating number of U.S. military casualties within the region. Essentially, what used to require U.S. soldiers entering Taliban strongholds in order to eliminate the Taliban, could now be accomplished by UAVs dropping precision-guided bombs on Taliban strongholds, thereby eliminating the need for U.S. soldiers to put their lives in danger. However, within the context of the same conflict, lies the example of an uneducated individual using a new piece of technology to accomplish their goal. Recently, the Taliban – who have seldom experienced formal education – have begun utilizing heat-seeking RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades) to fight off U.S. forces. Already, one U.S. Cobra helicopter has been brought down by them using these heat-seeking RPGs. RPGs require a single operator, and can be launched with the pull of a trigger. Therefore, whether or not only educated individuals are able to take advantage of new technologies is highly circumstantial. In the case of technologies whose operation is quite complex, such as the UAV, only educated individuals are able to use them to their advantage. However, in cases where technology may not be very difficult to operate, such as the heat-seeking RPG, and uneducated individual may be able to use the technology to their advantage. Therefore, it is the complexity of the operation of a technology which determines the ability of uneducated individuals to the technology to their advantage. The less complex the operation, the greater the ability of uneducated individuals to use the technology to their advantage. Thanks again!

In times of war, maintaining public support is often the most difficult battle. When a nation is at war, maintaining public support for the war may at times be more challenging than the armed opposition the nation faces on the battlefield. In the case of the War in Iraq which began in 2003, the president of the United States at the time, told the United States public that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was that there was reason to believe that the leader of Iraq was harbouring weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Understandably, the United States approved the decision to invade Iraq, and Iraq was under U.S. control within a few days. However, subsequent to the invasion, no WMDs were found and public support for the decision to invade largely fell. Add to that the atrocities of Abu-Ghraib, where hundreds of human rights violations were carried out at the hands of U.S. military personnel, and U.S. public support for the war fell furthermore. This has led to the decision by the current U.S. president to withdraw several thousand U.S. troops from Iraq. This illustrates how the U.S. administration failed to maintain public support for the war, and is now forced to withdraw from Iraq, due to lack of public support. However, maintaining public support for war is not always a difficult task. For instance, in post-WWI Germany, Germans were suffering from the weak economy caused by in large because of the sanctions placed on Germany by the rest of the world, due to the actions of Germany in World War I. Adolph Hitler then appeared in the political arena, and rallied the German people to go to war with several countries, promising to relieve them from their economic suffering. The German, swept off their feet by Hitler’s promises of prosperity approved of Hitler’s policies, leading to the beginning of the Nazi Holocaust and World War II. German support for Hitler remained quite strong, and the more challenging opposition Hitler faced was on the battlefield, when fighting Allied troops. Therefore, during times of war, the difficulty of maintaining public support for war is highly circumstantial. If a nation is in a state of economic stability such as in the U.S. at the time of the invasion of Iraq, maintaining public support for war is quite challenging. However, if a nation is in a state of economic collapse, such as in post-WWI Germany, maintaining public support for war is relatively easy, as war is thought to bolster the economy. Thanks!

Education serves to restrict the human mind rather than to free it. Education is the process through which an individual acquires knowledge and experiences growth in an intellectual capacity. Restriction of the human mind, as opposed to its freedom, can be considered as the inhibition of thoughts and opinions which the educator doesn’t want the individual to think and express. Therefore, in a case where education serves to restrict the mind, it limits the knowledge and spectrum of intellectual thought and opinion which a student is able to obtain. For instance, within the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, there is little focus on rational thought and a Western perspective within educational institutions. Subjects such as mathematics, science, and English are not given as much importance as the prevailing curriculum of Wahabist Islam. Wahabism is a sect of Islam with an extremely strict interpretation of religious text, and the principle of loyalty to the King of Saudi Arabia (also known as the “custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”). It is through this curriculum of Wahabism, which intertwines strong religious faith with the political ideology of loyalty to the ruling family, that the House of Saud (the ruling family in Saudi Arabia) prevents any free thought, maintains control over its citizens, and supresses any dissent. However, education is not always utilized in such a politicized and restrictive manner. In Western civilization for example, educational institutions and the constitutions of Western nations themselves, place much emphasis on rational thinking, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. Secondary level education for instance, exposes students to the logic-based subjects of mathematics and science, while post-secondary education allows even more autonomy in the subjects which students may choose to major in. This cultivates a population which is capable of free and innovative thinking. Therefore, whether education is used as a tool to restrict the human mind, or to free it, is highly circumstantial. Education in Western democratic nations exposes individuals to a wide variety of perspectives, allowing them to think more creatively and freely, when compared to the education in monarchy-governed nations such as Saudi Arabia, where education is merely used as a tool by the ruling family to supress the type of free thinking it opposes. Essentially, the knowledge provided to individuals through education is highly dependent on the method through with the nation is governed. thankss

In politics, one's friends and one's enemies are often the same. Bipartisanship has been a key issue in the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, as well as Barack Obama’s political policies. Bipartisanship is the act of reaching out to opposition political parties and political rivals, which are essentially enemies in the political arena, in an effort to collaborate and work together for the greater good of the nation. A friend in a political sense is defined as an individual or political entity with whom one works to achieve political ends. An enemy is defined as an opposition party and all its constituents. Within a democratic framework, in politics, individuals and parties must often work together with their opposition, to ensure fair representation of different points of view, in order to arrive at a generally accepted outcome. For example, the current government in Canada is a minority or coalition government, in which no political party holds a majority of the seats. Therefore, in order for a party to reach at least some of their political ends, they must work with their political rivals, proving appropriate concessions at certain times. However, there are times in the course of politics wherein political parties need not work with their political enemies in order to achieve their goals. The Canadian government from 2001 to 2004 was a majority government in which the Liberals led by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, held a majority of the seats in parliament. During this time, the Liberals did not always provide concessions to opposition parties or take their points of view into consideration when voting on important political issues. Therefore, the extension of the hand of friendship to political rivals is highly circumstantial. When a political entity attains majority power within a political system, such as the Liberal party in the Canadian government from 2001 to 2004, it makes its political decisions with little regard for the opinions of its political rivals. On the other hand, when a political entity does not have majority power, such as within the current Canadian government, it must rely on the support of its political rivals in order to achieve its political ends. This is similar to the prevailing theories by scholars on the formation of society wherein the individual has supressed his animalistic instincts, in order to ensure his peaceful coexistence and survival with the millions of people around him. thanks!

Displaying intelligence can sometimes be a politician's downfall. Displaying intelligence beyond that which the citizen expects from a political may lead the politician’s downfall. Intelligence is the ability to form thoughts which deviate from the conventional wisdom of a population. Downfall can be thought of as a politician losing his political position by some means. Therefore, the displaying of thoughts which deviate from the conventional wisdom of a population can sometimes lead to the politician losing their political position. For example, the previous leader of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, had once said that the Islamic world is currently living in the dark ages, and that they are the most backward in the entire human race. He went on to say that Islamic nations should begin to improve the education provided in their countries, and focus more on science, technology, and mathematics being taught in classrooms. This statement was received with widespread disagreement and anger throughout the Islamic world, especially in Pakistan, as Musharraf was seen to be insulting his own citizens. As a result, Musharraf’s approval ratings went down significantly, and ultimately resulted in him losing his position in office. This examples illustrates that sometimes, when a public official such as Musharraf displays intelligence, such as when he said that Islamic nations should improve the education within their countries, the politician may be causing their own downfall. However, not all politicians are met with political downfall when they display intelligence. For example, Dubai’s ruler Sheikh Al Maktoum, has largely deviated from the conservative and anti-Western ethos of Arab nations, by severely Westernizing his city. This has included the introduction of five-star hotels, bars, nightclubs, etc. in Dubai. However, Sheikh Al-Maktoum continues to hold his political position to this day, largely because his followers approve of this deviation from the Arab norm. Therefore, whether the displaying of intelligence by a politician leads to the politician’s downfall is highly circumstantial. If the politician’s intelligent thoughts go against those of his citizens, such as in the case of Musharraf, the politician will very likely lose their political position. However, if the citizens approve of the intelligent thoughts of the politician, as was in the case of Sheikh Al Maktoum, the politician may very well continue to hold onto their political position. In conclusion, whether displaying intelligence by a politician leads to the politician’s downfall depends on whether the citizens approve of the thoughts of the politician. If the citizens approve, the politician will very likely continue to hold their position. If the citizens disapprove, it is very likely that the politician will lose their political position. Thanks!

A person's first priority in life should be financial security. Attaining financial security is certainly the main priority of billions of people across the world as they progress through their lives. A priority is something which takes importance over other things in one’s life. Financial security is the financial state of an individual in which they can live their life at a decent standard of living should a financial crisis occur later on in their life. Therefore, when one’s first priority in life is financial security, that individual’s main goal in life is to ensure that they can live their life at a decent standard of living should they face a financial crisis in the future. For instance, in India, where there is a large majority of Indians living in widespread poverty, with the social security systems in place unable to provide a decent standard of living for Indians living in poverty, the main goal of most Indians in life is to work hard to get a good education and excel in school, enter a rewarding profession such as engineering or medicine, and earn a decent wage, forgoing fun and entertainment at times in order to secure a stable financial future. However, financial security is not the first priority in life for some people. For instance, in Canada, many Canadians’ main priority in life is not financial security but rather enjoying life itself and pursuing the things which truly interest them. The majority of Canadians are simply not concerned with entering professional careers such as medicine, and have other interests, such as art and music, a career in which does not ensure a prosperous financial future, since many aspiring musicians fail to reach their goal of becoming a successful and famous musician. This is due to the strong social security program in place in Canada, which allows Canadians receiving monetary aid from the program to live their lives at a decent standard of living. Therefore, whether or not a person’s first priority in life should be financial security is highly circumstantial. If the country in which they live will provide them with financial aid allowing them to live at a decent standard of living during times of financial distress, such as in Canada, it should not be expected that a person’s first priority in life who lives in that country, should not be financial security. However, if the country in which an individual lives is unable to provide them with sufficient financial aid to allow them to live at a decent standard of living, such as in India, it should be expected that the first priority of individuals residing within that nation should be to attain financial security. Thanks for doing this!