carepov

You may be right but I haven't attained your level of cynicism just yet. After all most of what I know of Finland's educational system came from CNN (Fareed Zakaria) there seem to be some smart people still around...

I listened to the audio book in the car and loved it! Some of her ideas are a little extreme for me but she did make some good points. What I really don't understand are the Rand followers (many Republicans) that advocate for the legislation of morality.

Has a similar plan been tried anywhere in the world? If so what were the results? Why not copy the educational system of a smart country like Finland?

Yes, there are very few people that care. Many of the few people that do care are anti-poverty activists - and they do not seem to understand the problem as they are claiming that free trade agreements ( also "greedy multinational corporations") are causing an increase in poverty. This lack of understanding/misinformation is a hindrance/obstruction in implementing solutions that reduce poverty. For example: -They are sometimes calling for actions that will do nothing to improve poverty or may even increase poverty -They loose credibility and therefore their ability to persuade others to care and act Can you please explain?

You are correct. However, the website includes articles written by people that are concerned about poverty. The first step towards solving any problem is to understand the problem. The quotes I provided showed that the writers do not understand the problem because as you say: Why do concerned people wrongly believe that poverty is increasing? I blame groups like Oxfam – the more I read their website on Trade the angrier I get about their misinformation, just after the quote you provided: “World trade rules have been developed by the rich and powerful on the basis of their narrow commercial interests. Rich countries and powerful corporations have captured a disproportionate share of the benefits of trade, leaving developing countries and poor people worse off. Trade rules should be judged on their contribution to poverty reduction, respect for human rights, and environmental sustainability. Instead of robbing half the world of a proper living, trade could help millions of poor farmers and workers in developing countries beat poverty, and change their lives for good.” They are not at all being objective! Who is worse off? The hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty? Do you think that respect for Human Rights has been decreasing? Really? “The United Nations Development Programme (undp) reminds us that poverty has been reduced more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500. Life expectancy in the developing world has risen by over 20 years, and living standards by 190 percent. Literacy is up 34 percent in China, 33 percent in India, 39 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, and 41 percent in North Africa. In the first half of the 20th century, there were but a handful of democracies, and the future seemed a contest between the twin totalitarianisms of fascism and communism. By the century’s end, 120 of the 192 governments in the world were electoral democracies. Never before in human history have so many people enjoyed the freedom of the market-place and the ballot box.” http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipg/02857.pdf This is a bad argument for several reasons: 1. There is no established causal link between trade policies and equality. “While there is clear evidence that greater equality augments growth, there is much ignorance on how greater equality can be achieved.” P.53 http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/lessons1990s/chaps/02-Ch02_kl.pdf 2. There may or may not be an increase in inequality, selecting one country (USA) proves nothing. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg or http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/worldinequality.aspx 3. Equality is a valid concern however this thread is about poverty. What is true is that: “-The proportion of humankind living in poverty has fallen faster in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years. -Literacy levels of adults in developing countries have increased from 48% in 1970 to 72% in 1998; income poverty has fallen from 29 to 24%, and nowadays only 14 rather than 20% of newborn babies are likely to die before reaching the age of 40 years. -Over the past three decades the proportion of people with access to drinking water has almost doubled – from 36 to nearly 70%. -Since 1960 infant mortality rates in developing countries have more than halved, and malnutrition rates have fallen by almost a third. -Between 1960 and 1993 average life expectancy increased by more than a third in developing countries. Life expectancy now exceeds 70 years in 30 countries.” http://www.teamstoendpoverty.org/wq_pages/en/visages/chiffres.php What is unknown is the causal link, if any, between free trade and poverty. Oxfam says: “The additional money does not reach the poorest people – in fact, the agreements have thrown them further into poverty.” Yet, the data convincingly says otherwise! “The reduction of poverty in the 1990 to 2006 period is impressive when poverty is measured in terms of an absolute criterion. The percentage of poor in the year 2006 was only one-third of the 1990 level, which represents a dramatic decline in poverty in a relatively short period of time.” P. 10 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5ksksbtdfshf.pdf?expires=1345477375&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=DD23C438E816329D5E70A63946641D2D Again, this article has very interesting data about inequality (generally flat over 25 years) but notice that the focus is on government income distribution programs – not trade policy. NGOs like Oxfam are wrong and are doing the world and its poor a disservice by spreading myths about trade and poverty. Do you agree or disagree?

No this is not a red herring: "The proportion of humankind living in poverty has fallen faster in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years.” http://www.teamstoendpoverty.org/wq_pages/en/visages/chiffres.php I am not saying that WTO is responsible for this - I am just saying that people and NGOs that want to reduce poverty should stop spreading lies that obstruct us from understanding and solving the problem of poverty.

I stand corrected and agree with you. One thing that I learned from the links you provided is that there is neither a correlation nor causal link between the successes/failures of trade/economic policy and GDP per capita. I am not suggesting there is one with HDI either. All I am saying is that in most countries HDI is improving and therefore poverty is being alleviated. In many countries (like China, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile) the HDI is improving as fast or faster upon the adoption of trade liberalization policies. NGOs should therefore stop claiming that trade liberalization increases poverty. I cannot say most, but there are too many: 1. The Agreement [FTAA] Will Increase Poverty and Inequality http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/FTAA/oppose This website is full of misleading claims about trade, for example Mexicos deep economic integration with the U.S. may have seemed a blessing other governments wanted to share in 1994, but ten years later, it was proven to be a curse. The HDI data suggests otherwise. 2. Since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, it is estimated that eight million Mexicans have fallen from the middle class into poverty. P.23 http://www.canadians.org/trade/documents/making_links_web.pdf 3. To attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources. This has increased poverty and inequality for most people. It also forms a backbone to what we today call globalization. As a result, it maintains the historic unequal rules of trade. http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty 4. …for the rest of the world, international trade arrangements and various economic policies still lead to the same result. Prosperity for a few has increased, as has poverty for the majority. http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world 5. Trade robs poor people of a proper living, and keeps them trapped in poverty. http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade 6. WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people. http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/ These organizations aim to reduce poverty but all claim that poverty is increasing due to trade liberalization. This mis-information is impeding progress. I would argue that, thanks to this mis-information, most people that are sympathetic towards solving the problem of poverty have believe the myth of more trade = more poverty. People and NGOs are therefore advocating counter-productive policies like cancelling trade agreements and/or preventing/killing agreements like FTAA and Doha that could greatly help reduce poverty. Also, we are wasting our time on trade when more important causes of poverty go unaddressed, as per Jeffrey Sachs - End of Poverty. Yes, I agree with the goal of trade justice that is exactly why I am in favour of the WTO. Without the WTO trade would be must less just than it is now. (I thought that we agreed to disagree:)) Anyways, can you point to a country (http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm) where the standard of living declined after joining the WTO?

1. Moore was referring to the achievements of the WTO/GATT and the entire international trade system 2. There have been awesome HD achievements since 1994 3. Moore also said: “The existing system of international rules is not alone responsible for this world-wide march of freedom.” I get your point; the big powerful countries screw over the weak small countries – always have and regrettably probably always will. You say the WTO amplifies this screwing over, I say it dampens the effects. I see no way to prove the point either way – how about we agree to disagree. Sort of but my main point is: Trade liberalization is a minor factor in the reduction of poverty when compared to other government policies. In many countries trade liberalization can help reduce poverty. NGOs whose goals are to reduce poverty should stop demanding and end to all trade liberalization policies! Please consider these points in favour of HDI vs. GPD growth per capita data: 1. Let’s say you could choose to be born today – you choose the country but your mother is random within that country. Would your choice be based on HDI, GDP, or other data? 2. As I mentioned earlier, per capita data is going to be distorted by changes in demographics. An easy way to double your GDP per capita – kill half your population – 100% GDP per capita growth! 3. Also mentioned earlier, law of large numbers – it is easier to achieve a high growth rate when dealing with a small numbers. 4. Have you read: Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, 2010? I haven’t, but the title alone seems to refute your last sentence. 5. “Enormous changes in growth rates occur in nearly every developing country… growth rates have now been found highly volatile over the medium run (10 to 20 years).” p 45 “The main point to be learned from this literature is that the empirical findings of growth accounting do not have any particular policy implications. The findings did not resolve the question of causality or of the determinants of accumulation.” p 49 http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/lessons1990s/chaps/02-Ch02_kl.pdf I am using HDI data to refute the common NGO claim that “trade liberalization has led to an increase in poverty”. Or “poor keep getting poorer”. Many people believe that the free trade is causing an increase in poverty and therefore we should “dismantle the WTO” and “tear up NAFTA”. The truth is that world-wide poverty is decreasing – overall we are going in the right direction, of course we can do better but scraping the current system would be a huge step backwards. Again, you are not understanding me. I am not arguing the opposite. As I tried saying it a previous post, the fact that the WTO admits that it made mistakes is a sign that the WTO is learning and adapting. Now, go back to what the Council of Canadians et al were claiming would happen in the US-Canada free-trade agreement was taking place. Will they admit they were wrong? How about the NGOs opposed to NAFTA saying that poverty would increase in Mexico – I showed data from 1994 - clearly they were wrong! More importantly, going forward, Doha is a huge opportunity to help developing countries by addressing the grossly unfair agricultural subsidies of Japan, EU and USA – yet NGOs are carte blanche against all multilateral trade agreements. IMO this is reprehensible! Again, the WTO has listened to NGOs and leading developmental economists. Their website is full or statements that you and I both agree with like: there is no universal developmental model. It is time for NGOs to acknowledge their mistakes and start working cooperatively with the WTO. Good one, you are saying “These are well known economic conclusions about free trade in the developing world.” and yet earlier you provided both sides of the debate. I will say it again, I am not arguing for neoliberalism and the WTO is not either. Some “neoliberal” policies have however worked and will continue to work for some countries. An example is NAFTA for Mexico. Many NGO are the ones now being ideological and this is counter-productive towards reducing poverty. Thanks but your sources are becoming stale.

It is certainly happening in Canada and it is certainly a big issue to some people: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/06/12/ultrasound-gender-testing.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/13/third-child-male-india-mothers.html Intuitively I feel that sex-selection is wrong - but why?

Thank you to everyone making some very thoughtful posts - I am trying to decide where I should stand on the issue of abortion and this thread has been very informative. I have a question: What should we do in Canada, if anything, to prevent abortion that is based on sex-selection of the fetus? I am especially interested in a response from for American Woman and cybercoma. Thanks.

I do not accept the premise of "freedom vs security". Yes, in some cases it is a trade-off like you say, but in other cases safety can be increased with increased freedom. I would argue that in most cases government policies that limit freedom result in no benefit to safety.

Introduction: The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had. The US people, government and military do many great things and I am thankful that we Canadians (and the rest of The West) enjoy the peace and prosperity we do in large part from the protection of the US. This overall support for the US does not mean we should not criticise some policies and actions – au contraire! Getting to the truth - who do you trust?: Signals.Cpl called me naïve for trusting sources such as Amnesty, HR Watch, the US Supreme Court, the Red Cross, (also not mentioned were various other European parliamentary committees and courts) when I claimed that detainees are being processed illegally and being tortured. I am going to turn the table and call those people claiming that the US is adhering to all international laws, including the ban on torture, naïve. The US administration and military are masters of propaganda and only suckers would blindly believe them. I will put my trust in multiple sources dedicated to impartiality. Winning the War on Terror – who’s side are you on?: Of course no reasonable person would support the repressive/terrorist regimes of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (wait a second, didn’t the US support these groups in the past…) Of course we want to defeat terrorism. The US is doing many things right but have made several major blunders that IMO have been counter-productive. 1. The War in Iraq 2. Breaking international laws (torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay) Boiling it down to “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” is simplistic, ignorant and wrong. I am with the US, against terrorism, but I am not going to agree with counter-productive policies. The enemy does not follow international laws so neither do we: IMO, one of the keys to winning the ideological war on terror is the West’s respect for the law and all human life. The US has squandered a big part of this advantage we have over the terrorists. This ideological war is not to be directed at he terrorists – the purpose is to isolate terrorists from as much support as possible. Conclusions: -This a not a choice between doing the right thing (protect human rights) vs. winning the war – it is more like: protect human rights to help win the war! -After 11 years, how would you judge the results of the War on Terror? What policies and tactics worked and which ones backfired? Were resources wasted needlessly? What is the enemy thinking and planning? What should be the next steps in the War on Terror? These types of questions need to be addressed objectively.

Good one Vic Toews! If the comment was not so ignorant I would be offended! Of course I don't support the terrorists! Of course the Red Cross doesn't support the terrorists! Do you think that Romeo Dallaire supports terrorists?! It is you and other blind supporters of the US military that are unknowingly and unintentionally supporting the terrorists by squandering away our most valuable assets in the ideological War on Terror.

I am also typically sceptical. However, I tend to believe the a Royal Commissioner when he writes:

So much to debate and so litle time... I'll start with one point: One of these time where there was Western - and almost worldwide - consensus was September 12, 2001. The US proceeded to flush their goodwill down the toilet with their idiotic policies.

Do you even consider the possibility that a detainee has actually been tortured? Also, the solution to this problem seems simple: 1.) don't torture and 2.) allow the ICRC to verify that you do not torture. I agree with you, this is a real bitch of a problem. It should have nothing to do with handling of detainees though.

I do not have the knowledge to provide proof that laws were broken, including torture, in Guantanamo and specifically in the case of Khadr. I trust my sources and think that detainees were processed illegally. You have your opinion and that's fine but let me ask you this: given that Guantanamo stinks of injustice was it a strategic blunder for the US to handle detainees the way they did? Consider: -Many credible sources are calling the processes illegal: Romeo Dallaire, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch... from wiki: "The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."" -Consider also the US admin led by Rumsfeld and Cheney were saying that water-boarding was not torture, and other "torture is OK" memos -Consider that, from wiki: “Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.”” -Consider Abu Ghraib -Consider that Khadr was under the age of 16 -Consider that it has been over 10 years... At best, the US handling of detainees is as innocent as OJ Simpson! Regardless of the legalities, it stinks of injustice, has divided Western opinions and I suspect it has fuelled Taliban hatred of the West and helped in their recruitment. I can imagine jihadi’s saying: "The West has a double-standard fro Muslims and non-Muslims, due process for them and torture for us". It does not matter if it is true, the perception is their and the US Military created that perception. Why did they not just do like everyone suggested: classify detainees as POWs or non-POWs. Handle POWs as per Geneva, and try non-POWs in the US courts? Perhaps all detainees could have been classified as POWs.

Yes they are established facts. There is no evidence that he is guilty or poses any threat. Don't you believe in the concept innocent until proven guilty?

I do not know enough of the details to answer your questions - but I know that the US Supreme Court ruled that many ongoings at Guantanamo Bay were illegal. That was the point - the West is breaking the Law.

Mainly international laws. 1. Rendition 2. Torture 3. Lack of due process 4. Illegal detention - effectively holding someone outside the law IMO it does not matter what the enemy is doing, we should always follow the law It seems easy to me: don't render, don't torture, and treat all captors as POWs. What do you mean when you say laws are used against us by our enemy?

Sorry if I was not clear earlier, the subject is not "whether or not it was illegal for a 16 year old individual [to volunteer] to fight". It is the illegal treatment/processing of Omar Khadr since his capture and Canada's inaction in addressing this issue. If I am not mistaken, all other Western foreign nationals held in Guantanamo (UK, France, Spain...) have been repatriated many years ago.

The way that he was treated by his captors was illegal.

Here is my source: http://www.pch.gc.ca/cs-kc/arar/Arar_e.pdf Again - this commission established that: 1.He was and still is an innocent man 2.He was tortured What do you have to dispute these facts?

-Various laws in the 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War -International juvenile justice standards -Various international laws banning torture -Others?