Charles Anthony

How ridiculously arbitrary!

I would like to see that specific email instead of reading Major-General Politician Lewis MacKenzie's interpretation. Again, I would like to see that specific email instead of being told by Major-General Politician Lewis MacKenzie what is obvious. Oh! Here is the email: Hmmm.... Where does Lewis MacKenzie get the "obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics"???????? There is nothing in that quote that suggests his interpretation. For those who may not remember, retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie was the commander of the UN forces when Serbs over-ran Bosnia with the help of a United Nations arms embargo in their favor. His neutrality and credibility is dubious. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N29/serbs.29w.html

I do not own any property. Thanks for the diversion and avoidance of my pointed and direct questions... What if YOU are not willing to answer direct questions that deal with issues YOU raised?You are wasting bandwidth.

The people who own the land today purchased it in good faith and were not in any way responsible for any historical wrong doing.Correct. I understand they purchased it in good faith. They are in possession of stolen property. That is still a crime, albeit not the same as theft. Interestingly, I actually agree. I do not think "possession of stolen" property should be a crime at all in any instance. However, it is. Thus, we have an inconsistent double standard. It either holds for everybody or nobody at all. No. Compensation should start by giving them their property back. But they didn't.Duh!!!!! The white man took their land and forced them off!!!!!!! Do you have no understanding of my "force you out of your house and rent it" analogy? Do you just skip it? I am now starting to think that marxists are right about class-mentality!

The land has already been transferred to third parties who have increased the value of the land by developing it.Stop. Is that your reason??? Your argument is absurd and arbitrary. Your argument says nothing about WHY they have a right to money but not the land. If I chase you out of your house, renovate it and rent it while you live on the street and give you your house back next year, will it be fair for me to keep your "additional value" and just give you back your house?????????????? What if you planned to do the renovations too? and rent it out at the same time? What if you thought my renovations were ugly? What YOU call "increased" or "additional value" some people would call raped, pillaged and polluted. The white man's additional value is only additional to a select few white men. Even if the white man's additional value was a universal an objective observation (like increased wheat production or increased oil production or increased fresh water) you are DENYING the natives the opportunity to develop the same land in a different manner of their own choosing. Nevertheless, your "additional value" argument is even more absurd because you are suggesting that the natives could not have done the EXACT SAME development. If this is an issue of a treaty between nations then there is no issue: international treaties are political documents - not binding contracts.What makes a contract binding???????

You are confusing two different things when it comes to personal responsibility: charities and "governments". If they ask you to do it, then what's wrong with it ?You as an individual can not claim any credit for what the United Nations does. In fact, you can not claim any credit for what "Canada" does either because you have no voice and you have no power. You can not opt out of your taxes going to fund either organization. Yes. This is a charity and their funding is through free donations. If you contribute to the United Way, you deserve credit (and possibly blame) for what they do. That is not the case with "governments" such as the United Nations.I would rather the United Nations operated more as a charity.

Instead of having parallel services doing the same thing, overlapping, you can create an organization above them to organize it all.Not everybody agrees.

Bureaucracy has a bad reputation, but it is required sometimes.I disagree. I believe that its bad reputation is often deserved. I disagree. However, even if you are correct, how righteous is it to spend other people's money to do good in your own name? CAVEAT TROLLUM: I am on this anti-multiple-thread kick. I am having fun tying threads together! If you can not close them, then join them! Correct. Where is the redundancy eliminated???? I observe all of the above organizations and naturally say: "They make sense! If you can not convince enough people in the UN, form a different collective! If you can not twist enough arms in NATO, form a different collective! If you can not bribe enough people among the G8, form a different collective!" All of these organizations are masks and covers. They will eventually disintegrate until we see obvious collusions between heads of state acting with absolutely no regard for the people they represent. I believe that it is natural.

Bureaucracy has a bad reputation, but it is required sometimes. I disagree. I believe that its bad reputation is often deserved. Where is the redundancy eliminated????

No, I am not saying it should all disappear. I believe it can exist on a smaller scale without the charade of a UN bureaucracy. Every example you mention can exist effectively by individual member states without world government. Remember, the UN is not a person. It is a label for a group of select people. The UN can only do what that select group does. You mentioned the UN does a lot of good. I have a second question for you: what "good" can the UN (a great big government) do collectively if the individual member states (small governments) do not each want to do? In other words, if each member state of the UN wanted to do "good" why do they need the UN at all? What is it in the bureaucracy that makes the "good" active? We can all do good without being forced to do so. Charitable organization manage to do so as collectives without the need of an outside "government" to help them. Taking the "good" of the UN a little further. Some people claim that the UN has managed to hide and perpetuate a lot of "bad" as well. Everytime the UN (or any other group) imposes an arms embargo, they do so under the deceptive pretense of maintaining neutrality while hypocritically disapproving violence. The precise effect is inherently the opposite: the victims become crushed by the agressor. An arms embargo is horrifyingly evil and deliberately taking sides in a conflict. I can not say that the UN has done "good" and ignore everything else it has done. I believe that arms embargoes are the quickest, easiest and dirtiest method of sweeping trouble spots under the rug.

That's not what you said above. You set some criteria for relevance, which you're now dropping. Why is the UN not relevant, then ?The UN is not relevant because it is not respected. I did not mean to set criteria for relevance. I indicated how it was not respected and thus, irrelevant. Nothing. I see no legitimacy for its existence in the first place. It does do a lot of good, though.What good (that would not otherwise be done without the existence of the UN) might that be? I agree. If I walk in the middle of ongoing traffic, I am to blame for my misfortune. Can I claim a moral high-ground that traffic must stop? That may have been the desired effect of the accidental attack.

Not exactly. What I am saying is that objectively it makes no sense to suggest that the UN is relevant. Regardless of where the "bar" is set, I would also point out the other side of the coin: it suggests that something is NOT working too. This is going in the direction of arguing for or against democracy as a principle. I would not say that the UN should be abolished. I am more cynical. I say that eveybody should ignore the UN and stop funding it -- kind of like the hoola-hoop. Much like the hoola-hoop, I believe that the UN will eventually become out of fashion or in other words, irrelevant. The unfortunate problem with the UN is that it makes dictates as if it were a world government but it does not concretely represent real people. A government that big can not possibly represent anybody.

Give me an example (either real or hypothetical) of how a "government" can legislate for the benefit of society but NOT legislate the behavior of citizens.

And you can sit back and throw out the Bush administration line that the UN is irrelavent all you like. I doesn't make it so. As for being partisan, that's another empty accusation.The partisan issue aside, what would we say if more and more countries disregarded the UN and its resolutions? Just looking at a balance of numbers, imagine if only a minority of UN member countries upheld their resolutions. It would then be fair to say that the UN was irrelevant. Now, does the relevance depend only on the number of complying members? Alternatively, we can forget about the numbers and just look at enforceability or authority. Why should the UN be accepted as an authority? If the UN makes a resolution but select member states do not comply or the UN does not enforce it, what makes the UN relevant? Together we can organize the MapleLeafWeb Nations and stick our noses in other people's business and extole human rights. That does not give us supreme authority over anything. Together we can organize the MapleLeafWeb Nations and stick our noses in other people's business and coerce other nations to comply with our resolutions. Does that give us authority?

Your proposal is an application of that same theory. You are talking about more than one thing here: the efficiency of collecting the financing; managing a collective resource; governments existing; goverments can do good. I will not dispute that the current format of collecting taxes is generally efficient. I will say it is still wrong. I will not dispute your proposed method of managing the roads. In fact, I will not dispute any other method because it is a waste of time and equally arbitrary. I will dispute the right to manage this "collective" resource by pointing out who among the "collective" is falsely being represented but still forced to finance. I will not dispute that coercive governments will exist. People tend to covet their neighbor's belongings. I will not dispute that coercive governments can do good. I can steal from you and donate to charity. Interesting thought. I actually have a radically different idea for dealing with traffic..... ....quite the contrary. We need to leave people to their own devices. Ever see a four-way flashing red? They work. People stop and act with courtesy. People slow down to a crawl if they can not see what might hit them. Commonly, the traffic intersections that have the fewest accidents are ones which have hegdes (or some other visual obstructions) around the corners. The largest and widest intersections where I live are notorious for having collisions. People always wonder why the seeming paradox. There is an interesting underpass in the city of London, Ontario (I doubt it is the only one that exists in the world) that is so narrow that only one car can pass at a time. Imagine that: four lanes of traffic reduced to one lane. Signs on both sides say "Yield to oncoming traffic" and people stop, look both ways and proceed. All for the sake of preserving an historic bridge of the city. No collisions. If I owned a road, I would not have traffic lights. That is a waste of electricity. If I could not afford to build freeway on-ramps and off-ramps (no need for anybody to stop) I would have my intersections elevated onto slight hill, reduced lanes or bottle-necks at the intersections and visual obstructions that can only be safely overcome by stopping. I would also throw in a few speed bumps along the way. Understandably, that does not address the financing for maintenance. Financing is easy. I would set up a PayPal acount. I miss him too... the 'rightest of the right'...a real 'philosopher', even though I often disagreed...He also took a lot of bait just for the sake of argument. I guess that made him fun. Half of the posts that taunted him should have been ignored. I pray that he returns because I disagree vehemently on certain current affairs issues he explored, particularly warfare. You would be amazed. In my city, the bicycle delivery service keeps going throughout the winter. They are still faster than the drivers.

On what basis do you state this?I realize this is going to start up the whole racially-based-rights thing again but your statement sounds completely arbitrary. Keep the race-card out of it for now and focus on what YOU believe is a right in this case. If you agree that they have a right to money why deny them a right to the land? why the difference?

I agree! The Pink Power Ranger would try to hit on the Incredible Hulk AND Chuck Norris would win the battle. Now, I will just go feed the pigeons.

First, my insanity will be able to counter any level of sanity that comes within a block of my home. You would be surprised: I have people on my street thinking that the Bloc Quebecois is running in their riding and (hint, hint) I am not living in Quebec. Second, if the police want me to pay a bill, they can use the same tactics they employ now when people do not pay their taxes. No need to be original there. Third, with the elimination of income taxes, not only will I be able to pay for tolls but I can also give money away to the people who would otherwise invade my house and rob me. In fact, I would be happy to pay them protection money. The rise in personal wealth will be that high.

Forget about due process. Guelph MercuryBy-pass the bureacracy. CBC.caNo wasting tax-payer's money. The Globe and MailHonest and efficient justice under mob rule -- I mean, democracy.

I'm not saying it should, but merely engaging in wishful thinking for this one case. In that case, I understand. However, I will still play the devil's advocate and err on the side of due process. I honestly prefer letting criminal scumbags free than condemning people without beyond-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence.

What you are suggesting is not reasonable. In fact, the article suggested that she was hospitalized before and released more than once. I will not dispute the possibility that he could have exacerbated her state and thus, contributed to the murders. However, how in the world could he be assigned blame in a court of law? That will never happen. I will take your point of view a step further and dispute his level of responsibility. I can not speak about her jurisdiction but where I live, somebody must attempt a criminal act before they are incarcerated. Mentally ill people can refuse treatment. You said "ignored numerous and obvious signs" but what should he have done? Called the "authorities" to get her committed? Remember, the prosecution tried to PROVE that she was guilty of murder and DISPROVE that she was insane. Unfortunately, your method of attributing responsibility to the husband puts him in a catch-22 and is not practical.

Whether she is actually mentally ill or not and whether she knew her actions were wrong or not, it is a good thing that she is locked away. What crime has he committed beyond a shadow of a doubt? The article cited refers to no hint of culpability on his part. Too bad they are not locking up the neighbors across the street or the milkman or whoever .....

What would you call it? An accidental-laser-guided attack?

Slow down! You are jumping all over the place. That is not evidence and you know that. A lot of jurisdictions refuse guilty pleas for people accused of murder for many reasons. One of which is to avoid a fall-guy taking credit or blame for an other person's crime. What I think does not matter. I am talking about evidence. There are several Canadian soldiers at war and dying in Afghanistan and we do not even know why.

You have evidence of that?