Charles Anthony

I understand. I understand. That is the logical next question. Strategically, there is no objective solution. It becomes a power game: might is right. "We" construct "rules" to get around it. No. It stays at 50%+1. The only way to achieve 50%+1 is for the people involved to fraction: they should not be under the same rule. That is where I make the statement that the government is too big. I agree. Practicality comes at the expense of freedom.

No. I am talking about all instances whereby we want to apply "democracy" be it referendum, municipal, provincial, federal, international, unions, Waterbuffalo meetings or lynch mobs. If you want to use democracy because democracy is right, you must accept 50%+1 as the threshold to determine the winner because it is the lower limit of an arithmetic majority. This is the salient point: If you push the threshold higher, you are using democracy as a tool to gain power not because democracy is right. What do you mean by 'too big' ?Taxation without representation. My definition of "representation" is very strict. Every voter deserves it.

Correct but it can be legislated -- albeit in a roundabout underhanded way in the form of quotas, tariffs and subsidies.Anything short of absolute 100% indiscriminate free trade is legislated "buy local" policy in a hidden way. Yes but we can produce similar products or same products of different quality. This opens a grey area within which legislators and lobby groups and marketing boards can mask quotas, tariffs, subsidies and quality standards -- effectively take away consumer choice.

No. In the case of 50%+1 it is objective arithmetic because the definition of democracy requires a majority. Thus, the 50%+1 is arithmetic threshold at which a majority exists. There is an alternate way of looking at it. I would say that it is a clear and loud message that the government in question is unfairly too big.

Some people think it could be even better.The mechanics of what democratic power can do and its results are not being tossed. The proposed change aims only to balance the power more fairly. Some people think that anything EXCEPT 50% + 1 is unfair.

Not once in that article is a reference given to that forum. We can not confirm anything in that article for ourselves. Just playing the devil's advocate.

Some people jump and yell "POLICE STATE" every time the police make a mistake or whenever there is a miscarriage of justice. Some people yell "POLICE STATE" every time somebody suggests that we need to better equip or increase finance to our police and military forces. Some people stop thinking and yell "POLICE STATE" even at the thought of having a police force. Some people stop and panic every time they see a police cruiser. Some people quite comfortably walk up to police officers and ask for directions. Some people yel "We need more police on our streets!" every time their is a violent crime. What do you want (and do not want) of your police? What exactly constitutes a police state? What will make YOU cry out "POLICE STATE"?

That question goes straight to the heart of the matter. The blanket generalization of "buy local" is noble (I do it too, even when the local produce is more expensive) but it is not a wise generalization. For a few reasons: - most of what we consume is FAR from local - many things that we consume CAN NOT be produced locally - for some people, the price difference between imports and local products is unaffordable Therefore, the decision to "buy local" is great so long as you are not forcing it or legislating it. However, forcing "buy local" policies is no longer noble. In fact, it would be more efficient to: - tell local producers to stop working - import the cheaper product - charge local consumers a higher price - give the non-working local producers the extra charge If you expand the principle beyond fruits and vegetable to include everything we trade, it becomes self-evident that "buy local" is not financially viable if we want to maintain our current life-style and consumption patterns.

But why 60%? why not 59% or 61% or 66.666666666666666666%? Why an arbitrary number? is the reason equally arbitrary?

I see. I should have been more specific. I should have written: Calling it a dramatization is too generous when the liberties taken are so bad that the movie has to be pulled due to a law-suit. I call it spreading lies rather than dramatization. I call it a mis-use of tax-payer's money rather than dramatization when the government authorizes it and funds it.

I agree. Now, taking it a step further.... ...what makes human rights issues different? so special?Where I am going with this should be obvious but that belongs to a different thread......

I do not agree with the 60%threshold crowd but I will answer your question: You could give more power to a no vote because it COSTS a lot to change whatever issue is in question. But does it mean that the status quo is right?

Well, would you look at this: Finally! You admit it!!!!! There is hope! I finally feel like I have accomplished something useful in this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My rough estimation is just under $70,000,000,000 in total. That comes to about $24,000 per Canadian -- man woman and child. That is a lot.

They can when white men write treaties.

Here is a question for you to ponder: What do you want if the results are even split? exactly 50% for and 50% against I realize that it is a ridiculous statistical improbability but please ponder the question. It forces you to go straight to the heart of understanding the validity and righteousness of democracy.

Yes, they can.

It's not a documentary. It's a biopic. All biopics take some liberties. That's why they are called "dramatizations". When the government authorizes it and funds it, I call it spreading lies and a mis-use of tax-payer's money.

Enough with this "ethnic racist rights" fixation! It is getting tiring.... Look: if you get it on with a native man, your kid will inherit the rights of that native man. Inherit is the word and the rights are attributed such. Your kid's aboriginal rights are not because of ethnicity but due to inheritence. Your kid will also inherit what his white mother bequeathes but NOT because she is white. Inherit. Inherit. Inherit. Stop the racist fixation.

Yeah, I want to know what that word means too.... In fact, I do not ever remember hearing it before in my life. If the same author can describe a woman who "was reportedly held captive by bin Laden and forced to have sex with him. She said she was forced to live with him in a hotel in Morocco for four months" as a womanist, I wonder why the use of a non-existent word??? Hmm.... Is a womanist a good thing or a bad thing? what opinion is that writer insidiously reluctant to actually state directly.... Hmmm.....

I am proud of this position. It takes diplomatic balls and risk to make this statement regardless of whether anything can be done to apprehend Mr. Mortazavi or not. If Mr. Mortazavi is apprehended, I hope he is not the only one charged. It is important to understand that it was not he who beat Mrs. Kazemi, it was jail guards -- people lower down the echelons of power. I point this out, not to absolve responsibility from Mr. Mortazavi but to expand responsibility to more people. If Mr. Mortazavi's apprehension does not root out any people below him, the institutions of Iran will not change and not enough justice will be served. He will just be replaced by somebody else.

I am starting to imagine this callous disregard for his privacy turning to his advantage.... Viagra hiring Limbaugh for its next advertizing campaign!!! Rush Limbaugh: "I am what I am!" I can hear the music in the background....

I think we (non-natives) need to hear everything. There are too many non-natives opening their traps and saying what they think natives need or want. I think we need to hear it directly without any non-native spin or filtering. I think you must do it. That is why I started it off by asking "province or region" so that non-natives can STOP stereotyping. I would hope that the non-natives do not interject into this thread by twisting other people's words but I doubt it.

To all of the spies listening in on my cell phone conversations: "Can any of you help me change my TIME settings and show me how to find the REDIAL button on my new cell phone???" This wacky new technology is getting so complicated that I can not even get it to work myself!!!! In all seriousness, I think the concerns of privacy violations are very valid. However, I have no (or very little) power to oppose it personally. Therefore, I resign myself to accepting it mainly because I am not afraid of it. Maybe I am naive but I think there are more important things that my municipal, provincial and federal government do that need to be changed -- whereby I have more ability to have make an impact on things that matter and things that I can see. My parents came from totalitarian communist countries. They told me and my siblings stories of people getting wisked away at night in the old country. Also, my grandmothers do not know where my grandfathers are buried. We thought our parents were crazy and we did not believe them when we were younger. It is only as an adult (and hearing similar stories from other adults from other countries -- in fact, some posts on this forum!) that I realize that maybe the evil stories of totalitarian communist governments are in fact valid. Compared to what happens in other countries, I feel safe in Canada. I am glad my parents left their old country. On the other hand, I will not dismiss the fear that these potential privacy violations are just a crack in the door that can open up into something more severe. One may say that at these early stages, it may be easier to nip it in the bud before the hidden bureacracy behind it all becomes too big. Exactly how or even what we should do, I do not know.

It would make sense to me to have a criminal charge against the over-ager (18 year old) and just exempt th under-ager (13 year old) from being charged. That sounds like a simple amendement that could be made, could it not?