carepov

Thanks for the links, I fully agree. The most potent quote was from MLK: ""Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."" If this was even partially true in 1961, then it must be true in 2013. IMO, racism / black oppression is no longer a major cause of high back poverty and crime rates. A good start would be to transfer resources form the war on drugs to social programs for poor people, especially children.

Wow. I very much admire your passion Rue, and thank you for no longer pre-judging my opinions within your posts. I 100% agree that there is not enough criticism of Palestinian and Arab leadership, and much of the disproportionate criticism has and is coming from EU countries. And, yes France does look like the worst offender. The international community must insist that Palestinians/Arabs recognize Israel, and at least make an effort to stop terrorism and anti-Semitism. To save us all time, perhaps you could stop repeating points related to the above, this will cut down your word count by about 75%. Did you agree with the Israeli decision of withdrawing from Gaza? Do you think that it is in Israel's best interest to continue to expand West Bank settlements?

I agree that the mission lacked coherent goals and therefore it is difficult to define what could have been successful. I also agree that the reasons for the mission had nothing to do with protecting human rights. But it is always good to promote and protect human rights, there were great gains made and I can't help wondering how many more gains could have been made. You are right about costs - the amount spent in blood and treasure was not worth it. However in my "what if" scenario, the costs would have been substantially lower. Imagine if the 2009 troop surge took place in 2002 instead. My point is that what has been accomplished in the 11 years could have been in 3-5 years reducing the costs of the war down 50-70%. These costs would also be more evenly split amongst NATO members. Would you have considered the war a success in this situation?

I'm curious, what makes you say that about Turkey? Regarding Malaysia, typically no news is good news, no?

Thank you that was a good read. He does not sound anxious. He does verify that the EU directives are new and have some significance.

Absolutely agree that it was a mistake. I'm not so sure about the reasons but that's another discussion. I will also add that the US also ruined much of their goodwill with most allies and this certainly did not help the Afghan war. I wonder, what if Kerry won in 2000, 9/11 still happened and the US invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq and fought the war intelligently. How would it have turned out? Do you think they would have been successful in this scenario?

I agree that nobody deserves statues, but the results are an indication of at least some very good work by all levels of government - especially considering the Great Recession. I love how the Gazette writer criticises Coyne for cherry picking data and then goes on to do it himself... I wish that these reporters would just post the graph:

IMO, the mistake was invading Iraq in 2003 instead of concentrating military resources and international political goodwill on the war in Afghanistan. The US had the world on it's side and the war could have been successful - similar to Operation Desert Storm. You give good examples of the failures of war. There are however some good examples of successful Western military operations, like Sierra Leone in 1999. Also there are examples where non-intervention led to disaster: Rwanda.

Rue, The link that you provided has proven what I've been saying all along, the EU policy is NEW. (emphasis mine) "A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the new ruling, which was published on June 30, as an « earthquake. » « This is the first time such an official, explicit directive has been published by the European Union bodies, » the senior official said. « Until today there were understandings and quiet agreements that the Union does not work beyond the Green Line [the pre-1967-war border]; now this has become a formal, binding policy. » The official noted that the significance of the regulation is both practical and political: From now on, if the Israeli government wants to sign agreements with the European Union or one of its member states, it will have to recognize in writing that the West Bank settlements are not part of Israel. In the Prime Minister’s Office and Foreign Ministry there is great tension and anxiety over the new regulation and its implications for Israeli-EU relations. The efforts of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin to stop the move have all failed." How significant is the new policy? I tend to agree with the NYT opinion that the significance has been over-dramatized by both sides, but it is significant. Anyways, if we can't even move past the argument of "Is this policy new?" than I can't imagine discussing more in-depth questions like: "what is the significance of this policy?", or never mind questions such as "is it in Israeli's best long-term interests to continue to expand the West Bank settlements?"

Rue, basically, the only thing that I've said is: -I try to be objective, but if anything I am anti-Arab -The EU policy is new I never enen said that I agreed with the new policy and frankly your assumptions about my knowledge and positions are wrong. Please stop assuming that you know my opinions, I find this insulting.

You are correct, that the "call for boycott" is not new, but you seem to be talking beside me as I never claimed that the call to boycott was new. The actual policy is new, as far as I know this is the first time that the EU has moved from mere words to action. If you can show me an EU action (eg: boycott, sanction, etc...) then I would appreciate knowing that.

This is indeed good news and shame on the media for not reporting it. This is not however a sign of media bias as provincial government policies have as much or more effect on poverty than the federal government. Also, poverty activist groups should be speaking out, congratulating government programs and policies that are working and pushing for more progress, perhaps with a focus on aboriginal children.

On what basis do you make that claim?

No one has suggested that European criticism of Israel is new. However this specific EU policy focussing specifically on settlement expansions looks new to me, as per the headline: "EU’s new policy on Israeli settlements: The full guidelines" http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.536155" also: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/EU-officially-publishes-settlement-guidelines-despite-Israeli-objections-320384 The link you provided was from December 6, 2012. The article was about "sources" predicting that the new guidelines would not pass the EU vote. Well, it looks like the "sources" were wrong. Here are the new guidelines: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:205:0009:0011:EN:PDF This objective article is a view that I appreciate: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/opinion/global/the-eus-new-guidelines-on-israel-are-not-a-boycott.html?_r=0

Perhaps the targets are set based on achievements of investigators in previous years? Also, don't forget, there is an appeal process and I would assume that every investigator has a goal of 100% accurate and fair rulings, in other words a 0% rate for decisions overturned on appeal.

Well, the first sign that thereis a problem with fraud is that every investigator is expected to save $500,000 per year. "EI fraud threatens the effective operation of one of Canada 's most important social programs. Our investigations reveal that fraudulent claims result in approximately $142 million in EI overpayments and approximately $61 million in penalties on average each year." http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/fraud/fraud_serious.shtml "In 2011–12, the department processed 2.9 million claims and paid out $16.1-billion in benefits. While the government knows it overpaid $295-million, it also recognizes that it hasn’t yet identified all the mistaken payments. Estimating those could be worth as much as $578-million, the report found." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-needs-to-crack-down-harder-on-ei-fraud-auditor-general/article11629844/ Your turn: can you show me what evidence you have that setting targets for EI inspectors creates a serious problem for legitiamate EI claimants?

The thing is, most people, including men, have absolutely no say is establishing the laws and if you stand up against the government you're f...ed as per the source that I cited. There is no point is saying "men benefit from the laws" (which I disagree with anyways) when they have no power to change the laws. IMO, women's rights world-wide is one of the most important issues, if not the most important issue that needs improvement.

If only the most radical Muslim countries could model themselves after Turkey and perhaps Malaysia and Indonesia...

No, it is my opinion that the majority of men do not bennefit from the laws, and therefore have no advantage with the backwards laws. Most men would change the laws if they could. Violence of women is the most widespread abuse of human rights and it is not isolated to any one culture. The primary vicitms are of course women but they are not the only victims, all people suffer, especially children (boys and girls) and other relatives of the victims (men and women). My opinion is that most people, including most men are like us, they are looking out for the needs of their family and have no desire to hurt anyone.

The majority of men do not enjoy any such priviliges. They see their mothers, sisters and daughters suffereing and are powerless to stop it.

Yes. Not necessarily. What if the government also implemented a targets to discourage cutting off legitimate claims: -Target: no rejections of valid claims -Target: no appeals Good there is no problem yet. How long have these targets been in place? Well, this is a potential issue but for now it is mere speculation of a possible issue. And IF it does become an issue we will see a spike in the number of EI ruling appeals - not a huge deal - but we can react and adjust to the actual problem IF there is one. The REAL PROBLEM is fraudulent EI claims. Don't you agree that this is a serious problem? How would you address it?

Yes. When men or women criticize the government of UAE they face serious repercussions: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-uae-we-expect-anything-authorities-we-are-afraid-everything-2013-05-24

Yes, parts of their cultures are different from ours, but there are also similarities, I have to agree with The Squid: My guess is that most ordinary UAE residents are as outraged by the case as we are (if they even know about it), it's just that if they speak out against their leaders they face a risk of punishment.

Yes, it's part of their culture, it's looks like we are in full agrement. When you asked earlier: What point were you trying to make with this question?

Yes, but the key word in your first sentence is "part". I am not sure how the people of Dubai reacted. If you lived in the UAE, how would you react? http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-uae-we-expect-anything-authorities-we-are-afraid-everything-2013-05-24