speaker

I don't know about most people but I think compassion for people of all sorts whether victim or culprit is a good policy. I think that increasing jail sentences for offenders does nothing but fill up the jails and force the construction of more. Not the major consideration here but worth bearing in mind when we consider the costs. I do support the idea of mandatory rehabilitation and a strict requirement for it's success before any parole is allowed. The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

Very interesting stuff guys, the clash of reality and pragmatism. Sustainability and corporate agenda. Lots of good comments on both sides that leave one thinking, we could do with out the strawman socialist communist labour capitalist shareholder designations but I don't know how to avoid them. Human values I think that Hollus did a pretty fair definition for us, maybe a little more in the way of international law since moral strength has such a hard time against greed. Usury laws for example so that interest doesn't consume us. Fair trade laws so that primary producers receive enough so they aren't required to strip mine their farms and forests and fish stocks. Perhaps a little bit of social responsibility taught in class rooms would be a benefit in the future. Right now we need tougher laws governing corruption of the public trust by the corporations trying to maintain their agenda. University level course in economics need to spend more time on ecologics so that economists aren't running around with their head in the clouds. More time has to be spent studying ecologics and socialogy during consideration of government moves or government approvals of developments sought by the corps. We don't have the option the way I see it one way or the other we are going to make sacrifices in the near future. It would be good to have a government in power that understands there is more to life than the Status Quo and the status of power

If it wasn't for the level of sarcasm on this thread...... People who want to justify invasion of Iraq, ,, Syria, ,, Iran, ,, Nepal, I probably shouldn't have said Nepal, aren't going to be convinced otherwise. And vice versa. Which makes this an argument for the great undecideds out there, those people who don't have the information they can trust at their fingertips. Well I'm not undecided. I've no belief that Bush is an evil empire builder, I believe that he's just the pretty face for the conservatives to manipulate public opinion. If someone wants to believe in a puppet, all I have to say is Howdy Doody. It should be a law that we accept propaganda in inverse order to it's nearness of utterance.

I think you can relax about that one, the liberals are naturals for the conservatives. They don't want to tick off the voters, they don't want an election anytime soon and their policies such as they are, are close enough to the cp's that their consciences, such as they are, won't bother them.

in victomhood, recompense

I can't figure out where you get this stuff August How do you figure the American Government plays such a small role in what makes America what it is. Maybe the best way to give me an understanding would be to tell me what you think America is.

As the great Charlie Brown once said, Good Grief! I'm as disgusted with the Liberals as I am with the Conservatives but even I can see the difference between Hells Angels, or the Mafia and a bunch of suburban white guys who are priveldged to serve us and try to quietly skim off a little money that must float in front of them like mannah from heaven. I agree with Wilbur though if there can be accumulated enough proof to do it we better go for them.

I forgot to mention economists in my earlier post. I'ld go so far as to ban them, and if that's too extreme I'ld consider just making them work in the rice paddies for a month or two each year.

Hey, I like it, I know a guy that has an oversized bi-plane.

liberal and hedonistic, lol, but seriously folks, shouldn't we be wondering about the qualifications required to lead a conservative think tank and who in the world hires someone for the position? and their qualifications?

My fears are based on travelling in the country and seeing first hand the effects of the winner take all attitude that prevails there. Your attitude of the power of positive thought isn't as relevant to international relationships as perhaps to personal self improvement. Your suggestion that if someone wants something that we have then we should make an agreement on it and not just be hostile about it would work fine in the event that we want to let them have it. In any event I'm curious to see whether this won't be one of the first of the conservative boondoggles.

Ah... fine , a symbiotic relationship, one in which peaceful co-existence is enhanced by each party taking from the other and giving back in equal amounts so that neither side is diminished. Wouldn't that be great if we were simply two dumb organisms that were regulated by the natural order of symbiosis. Unfortunately I think that that is not true, and the further we allow Canada to be sucked into that relationship the more we will give to the multinationals who govern the States and the less we will get in return. It is not in the interests of the capitalist to ensure the viability of it's prey.

Wow that's got to be the fastest and easiest conversion I've seen since about third grade. I mean that in a complimentary sense. Unless I misunderstood the YankAbroad wasn't talking about Canada sharing the waterway, YankAbroad was talking about sharing the wealth. in return for American Protection, The ultimate in capitalism is the Mafia. Think about this, if the wealth is sufficient to be bought with American assistance why isn't it enough to buy by ourselves? Or think about something else if you'ld rather, but please think.

I think that my prediction comes closer than any. I predicted the cats would win a landslide, and they did. The black cats got 103 seats and the white cates got 124 seats, between them they got 227, if that's not a landslide what is? I predict a similar result next time though depending on how it goes between now and then they may switch roles so that the other party is the black cats.

Liam It would be very difficult to come upo with any form of, or mix of energy that would continue to meet the USA's current power needs including carbon based motor forms. The question then is if it wouldn't be better to reduce current needs, many countries are able to get by on less usage. What are the chances that Americans will be ready to move that way any time soon? I wasn't talking about social problems in the sense you mean, if I understand you correctly. I was talking more in terms of the necessity of funneling all of the tangible resources of society, from agricultural produce, forest produce, and energy, to the intangibles to like security, environmental well being, and health into relatively concentrated little patches of land. And then having to solve the problems of waste of all those resources back out of the cities, and the costs associated with all of that. I'm not too confident of my understanding of the role of education spending, health care, physical training, etc. in American life but in Canada much of these benefits are assisted by the commons, ( from general taxation and revenue). People who benefit from these services the most tend to be the ones who are most successful in life. I look on a graduated tax as a means for people to repay some of their good fortune, so that society can continue to provide that assistance to other deserving young people.

I believe the Libs have suffered another cycle of arrogance, corruption, incompetence, and promise breaking. The same malaise that hit the last Conservative government, and the liberals before that, and the conservatives this time around. And all because there are people out there who are so partisan that they don't care if a better candidate comes along in their riding they will vote for a party. And a party will come to rely on that blind stupidity to protect them from the law, ethics commissioners, and the voters in the next election. Cycles keep going around and around but their is only one party on the wheel. ... it is the libcons. I am a little dissapointed before the results even come in.

I can think of a couple of other ones, one would be that they have incredibly short memories. If you disagree explain why they keep going back and not only voting conservative but actually trumpet the cause.

Just a few questions Liam, why would you throw nuclear in with the renewable alternatives? the cleaner, less expensive options are already there. Why concentrate the population in cities? The bigger the conglomeration the greater the problems the country has supporting that part of the population. With your obvious concern for the weaker members of society why would you want to perpetuate that misery by opting for a flatter tax system. One persons wealth is anothers unfortune.

I'm really worried about the environmental degradation going on anywhere I've travelled and by all accounts every where that i haven't travelled as well. Population control is one means of affecting the rate of degradation, and one that will happen at some point whether we want it or not. Canadas population control has been pretty good over the last thirty years. Other countries have had to introduce much more drastic measures than we have and have had lesser results. However I have become more confident in other options such as reduced consumerism, efficiency, moral suasion in the case of some of the bodies that are too big to have any actual contact with the earth, like governments, multinationals, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Okay maybe not Rush... but surprisingly enough for people who have been watching the wanton slaughter of endangered species, forests, air, and input resources, there aren't many of the people who are actually responsible for it that want to destroy the planet. Certainly there are a handful that think we can squeeze this planet enough so that by the time it is dead there will be enough rsources in their pockets that they will be able to sneer at the fools who have allowed them to succeed and get into a boat that will take them to the next score. I personally don't see a lot of future in going to Mars. Leave a dying planet to fly to a dead one? I don't think so. Most however really are ignorant by way of their removal from reality and don't see a future deriving from what our consumption of the planet will bring. Ignorance can be corrected. The positive thing and the difficulty is that people can really survive on amazingly little. As the third world countries other than Canada realize that they should be able to survive on our level of consumption, the crunch will come that much quicker.

shhhh there's an election on!!!

And yet on other threads the conservatives opponents have been attacked because they have used Harpers long held beliefs and values to give evidence of his direction. A procedure that throws light on the dark and frightening nature of Harper. Saints preserve us from people who must have it their own way at the expense of self honesty. Scriblett I'm not sure if you were responding to my post or simply filling up a blank space. However, why does it matter to the Americans if we have a minority or a majority? If all the politicians are just trying to get re-elected it is at least better than having a party in power that has enough votes to thumb their noses at the public and concentrate on reaping the benefits of being in power. At least from my point of view, so again why would the Americans want it the other way. perhaps it makes it easier to pander to the fools.

Sad is the word all right. Here we have two parties slugging it out in the public forum, using low blows every chance they get, talking about the inadequacies of the other, whether corruption, or lack of patriotism, incompetence or hidden agendas, and you hit the nail on the head. The Conservatives are liberal lite and the Liberals are conservative lite, and there is less difference between them and the genetic differences between white cats and black cats. Frankly I find the whole scenario unbelievable in the sense that I can't believe anything either one says, and I find it way too believable because both parties have shown signs of being envious of the American two party system where each has to be exactly like the other in the peoples minds in order to win. Once victory is achieved that mid term foresight disappears and politics becomes mere,ly a vehicle for improving the conditions for the politicians and their respective friends. There is incidentally some governance but more by chance than by good intent.

If I have to undergo heart surgery I am likely to have little say in who does it. However when I meet that surgeon and don't like his/her attitude I will certainly try to find an alternative. It would be my hope that politicians who are elected because they can lie through their teeth and look you in the eye with all the sweet sincerity they can project will be the ones weeded out in time. Lies do have that ability to be seen at the most inappropriate times. "Who has the time to determine who is the best candidate and why bother going to the trouble when you only have one vote that will make no difference? You are better to spend your time looking for a better job, or looking for a better place to live, because then your research will pay off to you personally." I think the point of the post is dedicated to superficiality at election time and that is a serious contribution, we are trying to do a little more than that, at least some of us are. There was nothing in the original post to indicate that people had not heard what the politicians are saying. Perhaps they listened quite attentively, and watched, and perhaps even smelled the candidates and the cumulative decision was best expressed in the knowledge that a particular candidate looks like a puppet. And therefore perhaps is one.

Curses, fooiled again!

Actually the reason a lot of people, not just the young, are turned off by the political process is that we see again and again how good people are either subverted by power or are shouldered aside by people who have been subverted by power. There is no point in suggesting that there have been good governments. More positively the political hacks on here might promise that they will renege on their party allegiance if the party that gets elected turns out to have been seriously corrupted. That way in four or max six elections we wouldn't have to put up with the constant biased blather and could concentrate on electing good people to positions of serious authority and feel somewhat more confident that what is going to happen will be for Canadas benefit.