myata

That wouldn't be such an outlandish statement though, from the record of abandoned mines, industrial contamination, oil sands, greenhouse gas emissions and other such stats. This country is in no credible position to instruct others on things environmental, no matter what Harper's newfound call to leadership would make him believe.

Not to mention Iggy, too

Looks like Mayan civilization "stopped" long before its calendar.

Cool. Maybe in some decades, ICC could / would follow the suit also? So that concepts of justice aren't only applied to carefully selected dictators deep in the jungles of Equatorial Africa?

Ditto. Why would a great inspirational leader emerge (and what would they have to accomplish?) in an aging apathetic society that only, and forever wants more of the same? I'm afraid the variety of choices we have now is a clear token of the future, and is here to stay for some time.

Well, maybe walkout privileges should also be reserved only for selected, "worthy" members of international community?

They are called "letters", in what is known as "English alphabet". Enjoy! And further advances in the studies of Phylosophy!

The committee (whoever it's made of) did a great disservice to Obama and his projects. I wonder if some kind of epidemics hit the entire committe right at this crucial moment? Or has it been a plot (to destroy credibity of Obama and Nobel peace prize, both in one shot)??

And so, it's free higher education vs Wild Wild West (as the ideal of invidiual freedom). Or was there even better period, worth going back to, in our collective past?

Part time.

Yes now we'll be giving awards for "trying". The result shouldn't be of concern anymore. What a joke!

Wow! And I thought it was a joke! (Yahoo: news) . Must be, an advance for his future achievements!

We've had this 1.5 party system for ages now and voting within it won't change one bit about it. The pathetic choice we have now has everything to do with the fact that the two behemoth parties can be 100% certain that one of them would get the pie. So they start looking like identical twins, only maybe with a different face, at the top. The only way to change that is to show that we aren't going to play their games anymore. I.e., ultimately, be honest with ourselves. If we don't like either of the choices that could matter (the other ones being just consolation, outlet), no point in taking any. That way, when voter participlation slides down to really ridiculous levels, somebody would have no choice but to start think about practical democratic reform. I simply can't see why I should make myself vote for Iggy just because I don't agree with Harper. And voting anybody else, in this system, Simply Doesn't Matter. One Tidy Bit. Period. This as a dumb no choice as it gets. It's got nothing to do with accurate representation of population, and as far as democracy is concerned - only with its 18th century version.

I.e. "justice" is to acknowledge everybody who'd be showing up at a consulate abroad with a piece of paper, as a legitimate citizen of this country. That's clear. What isn't clear (to me) is how far the officials should (are obliged) to go to meet requests of people without legitimate documentation prooving that they are citizens of the country? I.e. does / should Canada have any obligations (at all, whatsover) toward anybody in such situation who isn't fully cooperating, ie., 1) presenting all required documents 2) answering any reasonable questions and 3) fully cooperating with any other reasonable requests from officials. My answer to that would be clear and firm "No". You got yourself in trouble; you aren't in full coopperation with country's officials; => you're on your own, period.

Consular official should also be able to confirm the individual's connection to this country if valid grounds to suspect abuse do exist (such as e.g.: 1) not looking as your photo; 2) being shorter than your document says you to be). If none of these is a good question to establish person's connection to Canada, please name a few others that could be. Let's hear it, now. Or shall we just admit and apologise to anybody who shows up at the border with what looks like a Canadian passport, no matter what they look like, or what they had to say? Would that be a fair solution, in your view? Btw, why bother sticking the picture, or any other information in there anyways, shouldn't just take any piece of paper as a proof of their Canadian citizenship, espcially if their "cultural differences" say that's what we should do (i.e they do)?

Do we really need a new thread for each new poll that's come out? Am I the only one to think that some of these threads are clattering the forum?

Pliny: Very thoughtful (though still doesn't answer any of the questions.. even with second hand stamp formulas). Bye also & happy phylosophising.

I see. When it comes to deaths, our deaths are worth so much more than theirs, just as our sh.. smells a lot better than Ahmedinajad's too?

There was something in the article about "slightly different spelling of the name". That would certainly take care of the problem. Besides, I'm not sure what kind of checks we have for "already there". How many John Smiths from Toronto are flying in, daily? If it was a smuggling operation, and all went smoothly, I doubt anybody would need to worry about Ms Mohammud and Mz Mohammood (example) both being in Toronto, for a long time.

Indeed, a quite mysterious case (inability to get all 12 answers wrong simply defeats the logic; on the other hand, DNA testing is a hard science too). Methinks we're best hold off the apologies (and hold on to our $$ millions) while somebody could have a close look as to what has actually transpired.

Yes it wouldn't be the first time (by far) that we bet on a wrong SOB. I guess, goes with the business.

OK, sometimes, in extremely dire situations, like imminent existential threat (Afghanistan, Iraq and maybe now, Iran) we have to "make a stand". And only we could know, when and how. Now this is called "democratic justice" (please forget earler synonims).

No, our trademark selective approach is much more "effectual": to some, otherwise, ineffectual sanctions, and to others - a gentle pad on the shoulder. Look how effectual it have been in e.g. stopping illegal settlement activity in Palestinian lands. One decade of effectual friendly negotiations.. two .. third on, and still counting, in years, and thousands of illegal settlers. Always ready to show the lead, by example!

No, but we can't "not sell", it'd be "interference" and limitation of freedoms, and all the nightmares of the hell itself, the diddlers will tell you. It's only when other diddlers would want a piece of pie, they'd suddenly go all justice, and principle and the rule of law and non-proliferation and whatever else.

Trade itself is of course the prime epitome of shortage and limitation, that came even before money. I write a cool song / record video / cool software app and post it on my site. Everybody in the world can get it, instantly and for free. Why and how would money, trade, government, police etc need to be involved? Somebody who really likes it, runs an automated farm, and have automated delivery system get the produce to anybody who subscribes over Web interface. Where's money, trade and shortage in that? Understand, we're still so deep down, at the bottom, counting crumbles and beans. To a very large extent. And no, I'm not complaining, it's just the order of things, as a pig cannot fly. Only pointing out other possibilities. Can't care less about terms and definitions. They're all worth one another.