rover1

Well, I suppose that Marx et al studied and found what they found. Marx, at some point, while thinking that the result was inevitable, decided to 'help it along' with various suggestions for implementation. He may have missed something in discovery or analysis, or may have come up with a defective plan of implementation, and/or his followers may have somehow spoiled it. Whatever the circumstances might have been, my observation is that the whole thing has bee unsuccessful on a practical basis. In addition, most of the important provisions have required coercion to implement, and when given a choice have been rejected by those they were intended to help. On a competitive basis, Marx's proposed system has not been up to the mark as far as material enrichment, and providing those things, including choices, democratic and otherwise that people want. Capitalism or free enterprise or whatever it is, with all its warts, seems to have pleased more people more of the time. Marx proposed an interesting philosophy which is bound to be attractive to many, at least at first glance, and will not likely go away--hope reigns eternal-- by seems unlikely to ever be implemented successfully. This theory will continue to cause trouble in the future, in my view.

Yawn

Mr McGinty is turning out to be a bit of a loose cannon.

The problem of child poverty fades into insignificance when compared to the problem of child affluence. These little kiddie capitalists are constantly consuming at an ever increasing rate with their $600 video games frequent Mac Donald visits and their well know disdain of those who can't keep up. The child oligarchs have indeed shown little interest in decent re-distribution of incomes or in any kind of help for the poverty stricken denizens of the ghetto or anywhere else. Until something is done to solve this problem, child poverty will be present and increasing.

Foolish question, in my view.

OMG. rover1, you must put together some money and buy an airplane ticket to Paris or Rome. Then go to a Commonwealth War Cemetery or two. I have done it in Sri Lanka, Crete, France and even Florence, Italy - to name some countries and cities. Canadians should take pride in their strong defence of western principles. As an ignorant, naive Canadian, I was taken to a war memorial on the western coast of France where a bomber fell into a farmer's field. The French have posted photos of the anglophone airmen. In Holland, I was invited into people's homes. Once upon a time, Canadians stood up for justice. The Montreal policeman who shot the psychopath at Dawson College did the same. Canadians are not UN peacekeepers. Canadians have fought to defend civilized liberty - peace, order and good government. Mulroney said it best: Canadians have earned our place at the table. We have no reason to be shy. Couldn't agree with you more, 1991. I too have been warmly greeted especially in Holland, because of these valliant deeds.

Canada is a Western democracy, as is the US, Australia, UK, Jamaica, Barbados, and most other English-speaking countries, plus the Scandinavian countries and, intermittently, certain Old Europe countries. Would one doubt that Canada is, for example, "pro-Australian" or even question it. Israel is a Western democracy. The Palestinian Authority is unlikely to become one. None of the other Arab countries are. Why would anyone rationally not expect Canada to be "pro-Israel" for that very reason? Any other policy is a perversion. These "assimilated Arabs" knew they were coming to a Western, English-speaking democracy when they came to Canada. If they don't like Canadian (or US) conditions, they have a very Canadian freedom; the right to leave. The same could be said for Scottish-Canadians, I suppose, and it would still not be an answer. You might find it helpful. if you read what I said, jbg.

Well, really, so far as I know it is just a term, not my term, that some use to describe Newfoundlanders. To a degree, some affection is included in it, but for most it is just a term like Canuck or whatever. I admire Newfoundlanders all in all, and I see nothing wrong with it. It is true that some people have a way of using any name like this in an insulting way, but it seems to me, that is more to them, than to the term itself. as for Newf, I have never heard it used.

Care to comment on the rest of my post, RB?

I can't help feeling that these boys are being hoisted(hoist?) by their own petards, and in a sense are getting what they deserve. When did extremist language become the norm? Things like 'War Crime' to describe cruel or overactive or inhuman and generally wrong bomb attacks used to be confined to tabloid newspapers and polemics at fringe political meetings. I am not addressing just how I would characterise the attacks myself, but rather to public expression of a situation as seen by a public mainstream figure, Mr Ignatieff, in this case . I sincerely doubt that he is 'anti-Israeli' in general. My impression is that he is quite the contrary a bit too pro Israeli, or has been, at times. Mr Ignatieff is not really a single villain in this case, everybody does it, he just got caught. This whole 'war crime' thing is getting out of hand anyway. Originally dreamed up as a way to charge the Nazis with what they did, it constituted a violation of the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1923( I think this was the year) which 'outlawed' war as an instrument of national policy. Kellog-Briand has been observed in the breach since about 1924 by just about everybody, including the Nazis The way that 'war crimes'( a snappy sounding word-bite) has been expanded in recent times, as some kind of an obvious moral imperative is truly amazing. The concept is nether particularly moral, nor imperative, in my view. I'm not sure just where and how being 'pro-Israeli' came in as being the hallmark of being legitimate in Canadian discourse. It probably relates to the confusion, in many minds, about the difference between being anti-Jewish, and being anti-Israeli. In other words, some people use 'pro-Israeli' to show that they are not anti-Semite. If anybody were to point out that Arabs are Semites too, it would be disregarded, because it doesn't fit. Sure, we are generally sympathetic to the Israelis because they are essentially a western culture, whatever history may say, and we understand them. When they are wicked or good, we more or less at least think that we understand 'where they are coming from'. The Arabs, on the other hand, seem to express themselves from a 'foreign' way of thinking, and we are not too sure, just what they mean, especially morally. Nothing I can see justifies abandoning the traditional, slack-jawed, moderate and uncertain, attempts to be fair and see things in a neutral way, from both sides, characteristic of Canada, at least up to now. How must all this affect the largely assimilated or becoming assimilated Arab-Canadian community? Here they are, having adopted Canada as their home, many second and third generation, having accepted Canadian ideas of fairness and balance, and yes uncertainty, and thinking Canadian thoughts-'I just don't understand how to solve a problem like this-oh well I hope they work something out-to hell with them all'etc- and they are told they must be 'pro-Israeli' to be decent. Not good. Perhaps not intended, but not good. Well, they got themselves into a mess. It will be interesting to see how they get themselves out of it, if they can. Until Canadians can remember how to speak at least to one another, about things which they consider important, debate in this country will be a sorry spectacle.

Well, you could read it in a book, and make your own, or by chance find that an all-wave receiver which you had, could be tuned to a unencoded frequency. Exceptions like this are made all the time. The copyright act allows for certain private usage without permission, indeed libraries can reproduce a certain amount for specific purposes, and critics can quote a certain amount without asking. It's not a new idea.

Hicksey is basically right, but no they don't have to consider whether or not the ruling conforms the the charter. So far as I know, they consider each case in a narrow sense, related to the matter at hand. After all, they are ruling on appeal, and specific questions are asked of them. Rex, ran a distribution company which sold and distributed satellite dishes and receivers equipped to receive signals from an American company which was not licenced in Canada. Since the American company was forbidden to transmit to Canada, they required an American address, before they would allow service. Rex supplied his Canadian customers with American addresses to meet this requirement. Briefly, Rex's activities were found to be illegal, as stated by Hicksey. No mention was made of the situation where a private person, on his own property, decoded signals for his own use, and did not distribute them to anybody else. If such a case came up, I believe that it would be found that the Radiocommunication Act did not apply. One of the reasons that enforcement has not been directed toward individuals is that such private usage would be almost impossible to detect. Additionally, they probably concluded that commercial usage was more of a threat, and that private usage was a small nuisance.

I think the the United Church would do better if they stuck to their area of expertise, that is how to go to heaven, and similar. As for buying and drinking bottled water, my view is that you can't protect people from their own foolishness. Governments and laws ought to protect resources where it is shown that excess depletion is taking place, so as to ensure a continuous supply into the future. Those who don't, ought to be dealt with by their electors.

I think that some have an inflated idea of just what international law is. It is not the same as national law, and would probably be better termed 'international conventions or agreements.'

Well, betsy just asked the question, not Arar. Nothing wrong with asking a question, is there?

So far as I know, Decima is a respectable polling organisation, at least it's quoted a lot. My impression is that a large number of Canadians are at least sceptical about the prospects in Afghanistan. Considering the past history of the area, and international press reports as to the success or failure of the operations there, there is good reason for the scepticism, in my opinion.

I certainly agree with the chocolate argument, but I'm not sure whether the moral breach is breach of trust. or 'freeloading' or both. I have to say that my guess is that many people subscribe to satellite fees because it is convenient, and because they are not technically competent to effect other arrangements. They may or may not take a moral position on the matter. Could you let us know what the definition of freeloading is. I feel at a disadvantage not knowing just what you mean by the term. My observation is that some people define it differently than do others.

Um, I would say that you could receive the cellphone signals, but you could not answer them, that is transmit without a licence. It would be nice to know what people mean by 'freeloading', just to make the discussion clearer.

It appears that we are confusing the moral and the legal here. Sometimes they coincide, and sometimes they don't. The satellite signal business is fairly recent, and the questions about 'black market' or 'grey market' are legal ones. I am not a lawyer, but I have opinions on the matter, just as others do. The moral question is a different story, and it is up to each of us to come to a decision on the matter, and to defend that position where necessary. I don't think that it is a settled matter, and new information is likely to be forthcoming.

So far as I know, the CRTC rules applying to television sets and radios have to do with seeing to it that they do transmit with stray radiation, thereby ruining your neighbour's reception. They are not a licence or permission, or anything like that. In Canada, the 'airwaves' are controlled by the CRTC in terms of transmission. I don't think that they control reception, nor could they. My opinion is that the airwaves, in general, are a kind of public highway, and it is a good idea to have this kind of regulation. When the airwaves come onto my property however, they cease being public, and are at my disposal. Since the CRTC controls the public part, they should keep any signals they don't want me to have off my property. Some seem certain that capturing unintended signals constitutes theft, but this is an oversimplification and is wrong. The telephone companies all used to maintain that having your own phone at home and not theirs, or wiring an extension on your own, was theft, but the courts disagreed with them. What is really being asked, it seems to me, is whether or not it is right to use a signal, on your own property, that was not intended for your use. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with using such signals, provided that you don't transmit them or sell them to others.

I take it that you don't much care for Hallowe'en then.

From what I can gather, many here would not buy a used car from Mr Mulroney.

All kinds of people have all kinds of problems, and many suffer different kinds of abuse from various sources. Very few of them, take a gun or knife and kill or injure others, usually who have little connexion with any grievance. Those who do, usually turn out to be deranged one way or another. Police may use one tactic or another, and may be more or less successful in dealing with the situation. Gun control measures, and parenting courses have little effect on the problem because madmen(and women) are not acting on a rational basis, or heeding warnings and hints as to acceptable behaviour. On a practical level, we must deal with these rare occurrences as if there were no mitigating circumstances. Sadly, this sort of thing will always be with us, it always has been. It seems unlikely that the societal factors mentioned have much to do with these occurrences, ordinary people just don't kill others in this way. Whatever effect societal factors have, it would seem likely that they affect the way the news is received by the public, but not the actual doing itself.

They used to say that Mulroney was quite likeable close up, but that from a distance he appeared a bit less enchanting. They said similar things about John Turner. Whether or not one would like to buy a used car from Mr Mulroney, no credible suggestion has been made that he misbehaved in office. The suggestion which was made, cost the accusers a lot of money, and was declared false. The most damaging thing about this affair was that the RCMP got information from the Swiss under false pretences, thereby damaging Canada's reputation amongst security services abroad, and lessening the possibility of informal cooperation in the future.

Grumbling amongst fairly prominent NDP members of my aquaintance, and general comment I have heard. My sense if it is that this resentment exists, by I could be wrong.