myata

I'm not a cable subscriber myself, thought I'm regularly tempted by Rogers' people. However every time they come up with a nice incentive to draw us in, I bail out after checking the regular price, which is something around thirty bucks for the same few channels we get off the air for free plus a load of crap we never going to watch anyways. Specialty, good channels are extra (discovery, movies, sci fi, good sports channels, bbc) and those packages run in the region of a hundred bucks, and we simply aren't interested in spending that much on TV. BTW here's CRTC site for public input on the issue: http://television.askingcanadians.com/welcome Anyways, I do agree, as somebody already pointed out, that competition, and especially, near monopoly of cable operators on delivery of signal is essential to understanding the issue. In the traditional model of producer / distributor, the two sides (producer of the product and its distributor) negotiate a margin paid to distributor for delivering the product to consumer. This model is not what there's now in the TV distribution industry, and is so only for one reason that earlier on content providers were able to cover significant part of their costs from other sources (advertising, government subsidies). Now that content providers appear to be having a problem with funding for at least part of their operations ("local stations"), they're trying to renegotiate that practice, and I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. It may end up being revised toward the distribution model, common with many other goods and services. Before I even consider buying in, I'd like to see something like "fair bundling" regulation - allowing consumer to select services they want and pay for them fairly. I think there's something of the kind now with the telecom services, and given the near monopoly of the cable providers, same kind of regulation should apply to their business also.

Harper's government does not believe that guns are a problem. They believe in the southern approach, no restriction on guns and lots of "tough justice". Who cares that the crime rates are highest in the civilized world, as long as ideology is served. This is perhaps the one agenda where "small" government a la CPC is not on the list. No, let's not invest into infrastructure, services and the environment. Instead, we'll build more jails and put more police officers on the streets.

And so, unlike us, lowly and humble regular citizens, government officials can accuse anybody of virtually anything, and then hide behind their privilege to not release information that could confirm (or deny) their accusations. Sounds very democratic, open and transparent indeed.

We do know some things for certain though: 1) The government went out of its way viciously attacking Mr Colvin's credibility. and 2) That same government is refusing to release full information pertaining to the case, or call a public inquiry. That's a start, and should tell us quite a bit already. Only imagine the same strategy used by prosecution in a court of law (as it was not uncommon some generations back).

Correct, "democratic justice" is mostly reserved for obscure african dictators. Blair could claim whatever he likes to claim, and will keep on leading miscellaneous Peace initiatives. One of a key initiators of an illegal, destructive war as a world leader of Peace. We get exactly what we deserve and not an ounce less.

Would that wisdom also extend to "influencing" foreign powers? Like giving friendly regimes massive amounts of cash and arms to keep them in power (and our understaing of what "order" should be there, for them, in place)? Would that also qualify as a "swing of fist" that would justify a "retaliatory action"? No, it still does not explain why it has to be us who'll take care of creating order for them (and coincidentally, the one that suits us) And if your understanding of "reality of existence" happens to be different from mine, does it imply that one of us has to impose their "correct" model on the other, ultimately decided by, let me guess, the size of the fist of the righteous winner? No, wrong: if one walks, talks, and behaves like a bully, that is what they are, forget explanations and justifications, look at what they do instead.

Why does it have to be our purpose though? Remember, they had certain "order" that we bumped off because we did not like the way it worked. So, are some people better suited to define, and install "order" on others? I question what kind of "security" and why we have to be defining it for other people (see above)? I'm saying that my understanding of hierarchy of needs does not necessarily coincides with yours and I'd only be trying to impose my hierarcy upon you by force if I'm an aggressive, belligerent, self righteous bully.

Of course, all depends on the point of view. Who defines the "order"? One man's "freedom and democracy" is another's anaphema. So, would #1 be justified in imposing their idea of "order" upon #2? As long as you can be certain, speaking for the people of Afghanistan, what they would want, and should do. And somebody simply has to be around, enforcing their correct and orderly understanding of the hierarchy on others who aren't so lucky?

Don't you love how our freedom rights loving conservatives are so quick to jump up condemning rights abuses in places like Iran or China (which "court of law" have those been proven in - I wonder?) but when spotlight falls on friendly places like Afghanistan (and a bunch of others), things suddenly become so complicated (not to say, obscured) by legalities (such as "allegations not being proven in the court of law"). Proven, really, where, in Afghanistan? Gimme a break, you must be kidding, only who?

And that's why they should be thankful for people like us, who'd never leave them to "their own devices" and will drag them, even if kicking and screaming, to the benefits of our way of life. After all, it's been our mission for such a long time, like since middle ages. The burden...

"Strategy and Operations" such as what we're doing with the prisoners, and whether it complies with the internatinal law? Indeed, now we only need to figure out whether it's wrong to question the government in principle, or only technically impossible for the lack of documentation on it (government's) actions? All welcome the new age of transparent democracy, we'll see more (and better) of it when Harper's folks finally get their coveted majority.

Wow! Look at this iron clad strategy from our majority-in-waiting government: first we accuse whistleblower of the lack of evidence; then, as he's ready to present the evidence, we block him from doing so (on any plausible pretext; "national security" is one great reason). CBC: Colvin prevented from handing evidence of prisoner abuse to parliamentary commettee (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091125/national/afghan_cda_abuse_documents). Get ready for more of this transparent democracy folks. With no real opposition to keep them in check, these people will show us the new meaning of "responsibility", "openness" and "transparency". Just what we wanted though, no complains, as long as lower taxes are assured (or at least promised).

Sad reality. We aren't really going anywhere with all this "peaceful democracies" after all. Same old, same old, only under a new name. Balfour declaration and Queen Victoria was all about a slightly different law though, let's call it "colonial" if it matters (unless in essence it's still the same thing - "us" making "laws" and "justice" for them, if under a new name). I know. It's a neverending story. La-la.

So what projects would you consider worthy of our attention and effort? Moving %% points around? Cutting on "unnecessary" government services and investments, while growing its bureacracy? It's all there before you right now, in Harper's agenda, and identical to it Liberal one. Understand, where consumer neither wants nor needs a choice, there will be none. It's simply counter productive to these parties' runners. They'll wait for their partner-opponent to screw up majorly (and it will happen sooner or later, in the system devoid of transparency, or effective checks and balances on the actions of government - for example, in the form of proportional, multiparty representation), and take their turn at the helm as their rightful due. Ideas, policies, principles and vision aren't really necessary in this setup, and would fade into the past, painlessly and unnoticed.

I already said that in the current situation, all sales of arms to Israel, as well as crediting it to buy those arms, is an encouragement of its government's aggressive policies. The term applied strictly to all people and places with strange and unusual to me practices (like "settling" you neighbour's home in Texas) without a hint of moral or otherwise valuation of such. I really can't see what made you unhappy. And because these things happened about a century and several generations back, we are simply bound to repeat the same logic over and again. Should we start moving into caves now, after all, it's also been a venerable practice for many many generations back? As said, parently / brotherly understanding mixed with pride. That's what this democratic civilized alliance should be (is?) all about.

As it appears, Harper's stealthy approach to government (do little; say a lot; show nothing, unless absolutely have to), is all that we, collectively, need (and deserve) at this point of our history. We don't want anything new in our system to think about, and we don't like new projects to invest in. What choices are left out there that we could possibly have a serious debate about, like take 1% off GST and move it to income tax? Iggy tried to imitate Harper, but he is just so much better at his own game. Between them is all the choice we need, so we're getting what we want deep inside and subconsciously, why complain?

My views are based on the recent experiences, rather than rhetorics though. 1. (Very limited) mixed proportional referendum in Ontario -> "confusing" and "toooo complicated" 2. Green tax -> "tax grab" and "confusing" and "complicated" 3. Democratic coalition -> "unusual" and "suspicious of power grab" and "confusing" (while pretty much all the rest of the world has long learned to live with, and understand multi party politics). At some point, one should start wondering. If counting to three becomes too confusing, and letting go of a few cents - too burdensome, what kind of real "something" could there be to "rally people around"? As said, no point in throwing an array of choices before somebody who neither wants, nor need any?

Publicly speaking, while moneys (including money to buy arms) continue to flow? I wonder which message is stronger? And who's being fooled?

If you'll name the case where Canada finances shipments of arms to a current perpetrator of acts of aggression, I'll be the first to condemn that policy. Wow! Way to go. Yes we all know the r-word is another easy out of an otherwise tight position in a dispute. Of course it only exists in one's imagination, because while I can and have full right to view certain ritual as strange and unusual (like "settling" another's home without owner's consent), it in no way reflects negatively on those who entertain it, only on my position toward the ritual in question. And no, actually, it does not. Issues between countries, in the occupied lands, cannot be solved by application of laws of one of them. Settlement of occupied lands is illegal and prohibited under international law and Israel government's pseudo legal passes will do nothing to hide the illegal nature of their aggressive policies. Was that suppose to mean that we should be feeling parently affection, maybe even combined with a sense of pride, when somebody else attempts to achieve the same result couple of hundreds years later, when we (in different situations and venues) are firmly given to professing human rights, rule of law, peace and non-violence?

A sudden onset of premature obtusion, a condition quite common here, especially if/whet at a lack of meaningful argument? Obviously, reduction is not elimination, and no reduction will be needed if the party in question complied with the international law. Because giving massive amounts of moneys and arms to somebody who's bent on perpetrating persistent acts of aggression (now there's no question that this is indeed a long standing policy that has nothing to do with "retaliation", or "security" or "defense" or anything else of the kind), in full knowledge of perpetrator's act and intent, makes one complicit in those acts of aggression. IOW, US government is sponsoring Israel's occupation and creeping annexation via expansion of settlements (and Canada under Harper is condoning and morally encouraging it, through lack of any meaningful act against it). I don't think it can be put any simpler than that. That condition should really be looked into, or it could set in permanently, or even deteriorate. Only one of the three is bent on ongoing massive acts of agression in the form of illegal settlement of occupied lands. Guess which one? (tough question, I know, but do try your best). Cool. If there in Texas you "settle" each other's homes at will, it's very interesting and educating. Stange people do such strange things! Not unlike those strange rituals performed by mumbo-jumbo in the jungles in Amazon. Now it's only a matter of speading the word around. And in some places, not without dedicated help of close allies and friends, the practice seems to be gaining acceptance (actually it can be argued who and where has invented the idea, but between good friends should it matter, really?) Caledonia's doing nothing at all with that massive sponsorhip of open agression that's being perpetrated for decades, now.

Has anybody said "elimination"? We get so easily obtuse, or hard of hearing on occasion. Hint: make it (massive financial and military aid) conditional on the recipient abiding the conditions of deescalation of their conflict, primarily ceasing clear and ongoing acts of aggression. No? When one becomes complicit in these acts of aggression themselves, there can't be two ways about it. OK, so then somebody attempts to "settle" your house, you'll accept their act as such? I trust you. That imagination will without doubt take you far. As far as that other poster claiming clear "progress" in this desperate situation. Also, "non violent" indeed. All those military units in the occupied territories, settlers not leaving homes without their guns are just peaceful decorations. Yeah, right, and you're by far not the first one to entertain this approach, and we can see very clearly where it's taken the situation so far. It's always good to know how what one says relate to what they do. Adds a lot to understanding of the individual.

They got confused only because we keep entertaining the notion that some wars (like those perpetrated by us) can be good. Without such notion, we would simply have to find a way to deal with the terrorist organisation without getting involved into invasion and civil war on a foreign soil. Till we finally get to this understanding, our good interntions will continue to be "confused", mired, and ultimately result in the act not unlike that we were claiming to counter.

I'll explain. Afghanistan had a working government that existed on its own. It was a nasty looking (to us) government, almost entirely inconsistent with (our) principles, but it was Afghan government and it didn't require 100,000 foreign troops, thousands of civilian death annually, and decade long civil war to work. We went their to change the way the country was, to remake it into our own image. To me, that's got nothing, zero to do with our security. Why did we go and what will we actually accomplish? To me these are irrelevant questions. We were not, nor are defending ourselves on our ground, and so this is a war of aggression and invasion, it should be deemed illegal, and its organizers and executors - sent to jail. This way, in time, there will be less wars. If we keep talking about why my "going" is so much better and necessary than theirs, you shouldn't count on it anytime soon, or ever.

It still comes down to one of the two options though. If Israel's government knows that moneys and arms will keep coming no matter what, they'll keep building those settlements talk or no talk. Which would make it quite hard to keep avoiding the question, whether as sponsors of perpetrator of this illegal activity, we should be deemed complicit in it too? As well as which part of our mouth (settlement are bad) or (massive aid to Isreal is good) is speaking the truth of our heart. As said, we won't have to wait long now to find out.

I'd love that solution. For it to actually work though, we'd need a law by which all these falks could be prosecuted - because there'll never be a time when a little successful "operation" wouldn't earn a few useful benefits to this bureaucrat, or that politician - the law that would deem these operations clearly and unmistakenly illegal and criminal, and anybody complicit in them, from organisation to execution - liable to criminal prosecution. Yes we can defend our country without messing up in others.