myata

Has anybody seen this? Telegraph (): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7805069/Titan-Nasa-scientists-discover-evidence-that-alien-life-exists-on-Saturns-moon.html I could not find the original reports, but if it's not a hoax it'd be the first ever serious argument supporting the existence of alien life.

Well, fortunately, with that we don't need to go guessing. Significant drop in militancy did already happend, and at least on two occasions: 1. Decade following Oslo accord 2. Folling second Intifada before election of Hamas. And the result? Serious and credible peace negotiations? Think again. Because the actual observable act of consequtive Israeli governments has been massive and persistent build up of settlements in the illegally occupied territories. I'm sorry but the only way to proceed with a meaningful discussion at this point is to reduce it to the purely factual level, so why don't we put the two numbers side by side: 1) Militant attacks from Palestinians on Israel vs 2) Illegal settlemenet activity + violation of human rights in the occupied territories, and see for ourselves which of the sides has contributed and continues to contribute to the conflict? Or abandon all claims to objective and rational view of this event till we're prepared to accept factual reality as the ground for our decisions.

PR parliament would vote on it according to the actual views of voters on the matter. It happened e.g. with adoption of EU constitution many times over, in PR democracies. The contrast to that in FPTP it would be a single party, or more like one of the two partocracies that happened to be in power at the moment, making decision for the whole country. So while result may not be up to your or my expectation, it would be much closer to the actual public opinion of the country. Can't really blow for "more democracy" and suck to have it "simple" with no more than two real names on the ballot all in one breath, can we, logically? No, what we do is what we get. And that question can be interpreted in so many ways. Is 10% = over a million of voters, "insignificant" number that deserves no representation? In what system of measurement? How does it reflect the actual number of voters that would have chosen Green party if their vote meant something in every riding? You can keep guessing for ever but it'd be just pointless speculation because you can't prove anything with a rigged experiment, correct? I don't really fancy going in circles. Curiousity aside, several strong arguments in favour of PR have been described in by many posters and in detail. And I haven't seen any logical counter arguments so far. OK, how do you "communicate" these details in a party that is a conglomerate of multiple political streams and ideologies? More importantly, how do you force every such party to communicate it openly and transparently if it'd rather hide it behind single monolyth facade? All these happen though as direct result of voter's choices and not for internal reasons visible only to the conglomerate parties in which voters have no participation. As said, there's no getting something, especially simplicity in a complex volatile political world, for nothing. The price you pay is limitation or choice, loss of knowledge and control over political system. I was about to ask you just that, how exactly do you "hold a party to its promises"? Did it actually happen in reality? Good luck daydreaming! In this reality though, once a majority government is elected it'd sail through without paying one darnedest bit of attention to what you think about it. This may not be the case in PR, where coalition partners may not like the direction of the government and refuse to participate in it; causing government to collapse. And again there're actually precedents of that happening in reality, the most recent one being collapse of Dutch government over Afghanistan. So should we base our representation on your expectations? Or rather on xPC partocracy? Or on what people would tell us ourselves given free and unrestricted choice? But you do see who is who in that coalition and that government. No, PR won't fix everything but it'll give us much better visibility and control over our own political system. I'm saying that information on operation of government would have to be made available to coalition partners. Some of whom (one is enough) may not be willing to tolerate inefficiencies or direct mismanagement. This actually means transparency, or at least more of it than we'll ever achieve in a closed up system with all the laws and public incantations. Well, having spent so much effort putting all the arguments in every minuscule detail I can't but conclude that it could be the vision problem (that is btw not uncommon here). I already said that personally I'm not interested in games and I won't participate in any system that wouldn't give me full worth of my vote. Why 50% and not 38.5% for example? But I concede that it may be good for the educational purposes, just seeing more variety in the parliament not unlike China or Russia toying with multiparty democracy for the first time. Good luck with that project, I'd like to hope that it'd find some traction with xPC although I wouldn't bet my own money on it.

What makes you think that the other side would not be in such "position" as well? With the means available to it? You mean that the intention or goal of Israel's ever ongoing landgrab is peace and eternal friendship? How exactly would one "wipe off the map" four million people? Perhaps forcing them from their lands by direct expropriation or by making thier life impossible could be a way? Some "respect for peace" for sure. It's all in the words, isn't it? Nope, still no referenced facts as requested here, as far I can see. Would it be like, if you just wait long enough pretending no wrong, then there isn't anything wrong and you can go on claiming the status of peaceful angelity, right? Full and complete dispositon to peace, one minute after one's land appropriation plans have been accopmlished. How novel! And how believable indeed. It's not like it was an invasion of an unquestionnably established sovereign country, if you read the historty. Anyways, what is it you want to say? What force will determine the right? I agree that's one way to see it and it will happen eventually, although nothing guarantees that it'll happen in the way you see it. If we can't think of anything better than that, I'd suggest not getting mixed up in the affair and watching it from sidelines. Less chance of getting undesirable blowbacks. But if we want to play a meaningful role in advancing peace, I just can't see how it can be achieved without being able to see the objective picture. No it's not what I'm saying at all, no matter why you keep repeating it over and again. I may have views on the causes of this conflict but it's not relevant to the cause of its resolution in this current reality. What I'm saying about Canada's position that it'll be either objective and based on principle or it wouldn't be advancing the cause of peace. As simple as that. You lost me here, sorry. You mean that if I think that my "standards" are better than those of my neigbours it would justify my occupying and appropriating their land? I haven't heard of such interpretation of international law.

It's a functioning community of 26 nations with a single currency and about 500 million total population. Sure you can scratch for a few more but none of these relate to how our federal government operates. For comparison, creation of EU required an accord of several national governments that simply isn't foreseable in Canada given our reluctance and inability to effect even trivial constitutional change. Do you have to keep guessing for Canadian voters what they would or wouldn't do instead of giving them a chance to choose for themselves? Sorry, you lost me again. "Communications" have very little to do with how FPTP forces all specific interests into two only vaguely distinct conglomerates. Once it happened, all specific group and interests in it are obscured behind the party facade and average voter has lost all visibility and control, via election process over it. For example, in a PR a marginal social conservative group could be unpopular and any compromise deal with it impossible for a mainstream party. But you can only guess how and when members of the group affect operation of the party conglomerate, it's all hidden from sight. From that perspective our politics may be the most complicated in the world (other than maybe depth of Chinese or Russian). There you go, as everywhere else in life there's no getting something for nothing, the apparent simplicity of electoral choice coming at expense of severe restriction of it and total loss of visibility or control over post-election politics. Yes, "we" thinking is a large part of the problem here. It is also a sign of distrust of independent individuals to make full and unrestricted political choices. Of course they'll be more transparent, because they are absolutely transparent. Just look at the recent example in the UK. You know, everybody knows who made coalition with whom, who will hold which post and on what political condition. Compare it with our situation. Minister A who used to be a Reform; does he still share social conservative views? Are they going to speak for them and/or promote them in the cabinet? Good luck trying to figure that out. It would and a big deal because the need to share the power and expose government operation to coalition partners would set strong checks over any given party's policies while government is still in power. In our case no such checks can exist in principle and cases of gross mismanagement usually come out long after the government in question is gone and nothing can be done about it.

One local MP will never be able to define "how fisheries are run" even in this system. He or she would still need support of their party (if they are in majority) or support of other parties if not. In fact this system is notorious for how little say regular MPs actually have in defining party politics, so independence of MPs in this incarnation of FPTP is nothing but a ridiculous illusion. The issue not about having democracy or not, but how the composition of the House reflects the actual preferences of voters. Should 45% not majority continue to mean total domination of legislature? Should 55% majority mean total exclusion of all other voices? BTW, no, democracy is not synonimous with FPTP system if we only care to take a look around. I thought that at least should have been obvious by now.

Indeed, for East Jerusalem it could be an absolute freeze on all settlements with the final status subject to negotiated agreement at a later stage.

If you're talking about historic perspective, I would agree with you, with qualifications related to our very specific situation, being a land with very sparce population, abundance of natural resources and absense of volatile neighbours. In that very uneventful atmosphere our stable majority government have been quite successful indeed. But if you'll take into account more recent history, I wouldn't be as ready to cheer for our government's efficiency, taking into account that in the three decades that the entire EU has been built from ground up, we saw no significant national level projects or social changes in this country; plus an absolute failure in approaching constitutional matters (to the extent that as a presumably sovereign nation we're afraid to handle them with a stick these days); serious failures in handling national level committments and priorities (Kyoto); obscure, law onto itself government leading to gross inefficiencies in handling resources (too many to mention) and you can continue. And as things progress we don't see situation getting any better, if anything we could expect each turn in power by one of the two "natural governing parties" to reproduce exact same far less than stellar track record; because that is the only behaviour conductive to their survival and continuing grip on power. We are talking about a principle (of fairness and choice). And I'm not sure it's just 10%. Take into account those who don't participate, on principle or because they see no acceptable choice and the number could be much higher. Also, as already noted the exclusion is only one serious problem with this system. The other one is obfuscation and confusion of politics, making them opaque and invisible to the public. For example, ask yourself, is Harpers's recent atticks with abortion a giveaway to the socially conservative wing of the party? Or manifestation of evolution of CPC general platform? You'll probably never know for sure, even if you ask a hundred of pundits who won't ever know for sure themselves happy as they are making living interpreting and translating for us undercurrents of our deep water politics. And should the LPC/NDP party become reality? Would you be voting for "socially progressive/fiscally conservative"? Or increases of business taxation and massive investment is social spending? You'll never know because you're giving that huge and vague conglomerate full carte blanche on how to deal with your vote. In a PR system, Reform party as well as NDP and every other party would go to the voters with their own platform and get exactly what voters think about it. Their position in the coalition will reflect citizen's sentiments about country's position and priorities. Coalition agreement will be visible and transparent to the public. So why, while swearing on the bible of transparency and accountability we would have nothing of transparent and accurate representation system leading to more transparent and accurate government? Is it because claiming full sovereignty, we still don't feel mature enough to change the system we inherited from the times colonial? Or because our voters couldn't be trusted with making full, unrestricted and uncensored political choices? Neither seem to be a good reason for these dynamic times that require consensual work and efficient and responsible decision making.

And thus, cause the third, and final exodus? Israel doesn't find itself in Europe, though. BTW jbg statement here is patently false. The Arab League comprehensive plan Arab Peace proposal has many positive points. As of now (2010) Israel has yet to formally respond to it (from 2002). While its settlements program is jamming full steam, as ever. Not exactly an attitude for peace, by any objective look.

However it is not a fair settlement and for that reason it does not have much likelihood of being accepted freely by both sides. The reasons are too many to site, only to start: 1. Why this "except"? Who will agree to it and with what justification? Jerusalem has as much meaning and significance to Palestine as to Israel and this condition contradicts position shared by Palestine and Arab league as well as original UN plan (Wikipedia: territories) 2. and 7. So Jewish settlers who received land as a result of state sponsored policy of illegal and forced settlement get to keep it, while Palestinians give up their right of return? How symmetrical 3. Is that supposed to mean that your plan will dictate how the state of Palestine will be governed? Would there be a similar provision for Israel too? 8. No granting of rights is not a replacement of sovereign control of the East Jerusalem. It is indeed a huge stumbling block on the way to settlement, and the proposal that would make sense to me is to allow shared administrative control over it, with any expansion of settlements explicitly prohibited and final status to be negotiated later under auspices of UN. 9. and 7. Again, a contradiction - granting military settlers "full civil rights" while abandoning any claims by civilians forcefully expulsed from Israeli territories? 11. See #1. Won't fly as I see it. 12. and 13. Presumes continuing domination by Israel and can't be a principle for a fair settlement. Overall, the principles of resolution have been stated many times, from different sources: A. Return to "1967 borders" or mutually agreed variations thereof B. Mutual recognition and guarantees of security C. Joint control over East Jerusalem with postponed final status negotiations Personally I would add some kind of symmetrical solution for "right of return" vs "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem" ("all in" or "all out") but that is really up to the sides to negotiate and come to agreement.

As I said that option isn't very feasible due to sheer numbers of demographics. Huge military superiority of Israel won't do anything about demographics and the time will only exacerbate this situation against Israel. I hate to make predictions but as I see it, Isreal doesn't have a very long window to start making genuine approaches to peace, continuing confrontation may lead to serious and even catastrophic developments in the future. To Argus: It saddens me that you aren't reading before clicking reply button but it isn't something I can do much about. Anyways I did say and on multiple occasions that I accept defense of Israel proper as legitimate and necessary, as well as I see any attack on Isreal proper as an act aggression (just as Israel's settlement of occupied lands is an obvious act of aggression in its own right). If we acted with will and determination on each and every such act regardless of who perpetrated it and with what justification, we could see much more certain progress toward resolution of this conflict than what was ever achieved with that dubious and incredible "friendly mediation" that seems to be so much about friendly whitewashing and so very little - genuine and objective mediation in the conflict.

Thanks for the advice. I do think though that there's no need for a movement or anything of a kind here, there's already five movements for every dime of political space. This problem can be solved by a private choice of a mature thinking individual. I'll make a choice if I have it; and if I can't make a real, meaningful choice, what would be the point of my playing into the rules that deprive me of it? Decide for yourself - and make your choice. Just that, independent individual making mature independent choices would solve the problem faster and easier than five movements writing 500 letters a day to political establishment that has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the change. Indeed change can brought from outside system, there're multiple examples of that (I wonder if overall and in major issues it's more often the case than not). In this case system is constructed in such a way that there'd be no rational reason to expect it to show any interest in changing till it absolutely and unavoidably have to. I suggest to try exactly that, ie. create situation where it has no choice but to change. I agree it's probably a matter of time although I think there's a cause for concern in the way our political institution and people are reluctant to change and innovate. As demonstrated earlier, every single FPTP democracy has experimented in some way. Except us. We keep ourselves holier than the Pope of FPTP democracy, for us even perfectly legal coalitions are still an unknown entity and taboo. What's is it is a matter for another thread, but it may not be helpful in our development, world now being more dynamic, flexible and volatile than 160 years ago in a remote and barely settled land. But we already saw here that Canada is the very last democracy at least in the first world with a pure unmodified in any way FPTP system. Just about everybody else has moved on. This refutes the argument of "hundred years". Then, there are obvious problems with the very principles of representation that lead to exclusion of masses of voters; then the system hides real political spectrum of the country in vaguely shaped conglomerates that makes it harder to establish real political direction and generally hides the working of politics behind almost shapeless facade (e.g. CPC vs socially conservative wing). Yes you can say that it works but it works by exclusion, obfuscation and dumbing down of voters. As an independently minded and politically conscious individual I can't see how I could any longer participate in it, so no, it does not work for me, I admire all the past achievements but I'm not prepared to pay that price, going forward. I can't see how any information can change the fact that system exists by severely limiting choice (as already pointed out - to the minimum possible that is not an obvious dictatorship) and exclusion of voters who do not support binary status quo. I see it as giving those "masses" the real choice. That's the only way that can be had (a society cannot be better that it is), short of paternalising the masses and setting up their choices for them.

But self determination which oppresses the other people will have the opposite effect. And in the situation Israel finds itself, that excludes possibility of total domination a la settlement of North America, it'd end up paying for every belligerent and aggressive act, possibly in the same way as South Africal apartheid elite has lost all its power and influence.

No, they can't get votes because the system is designed in such a way that only all encompassing vague conformities can be elected in power to the exclusion of everybody else. In other words, voters cannot be trusted with making fully intependent unrestricted choices, i.e it is a political system for people who haven't attained the age of political maturity, let's see it for what it is. BTW the references that were made in this and other threads regarding other FPTP countries should be officially corrected. Now there are not four, but 3 or rather, 2 1/2 of such countries, as New Zealand has adopted a form of PR in 1996 and Australia has a PR (STV) upper house. Which leaves us here unique among the developed democracies of the world as having not a single notion of proportional represenation federally (the mother of FPTP - Britain, is going to have a referendum on a form of mixed system; and unlike us here, coalitions are also legal and legitimate back there).

Off reality, yet again. What is then our shining international democracy project in e.g. Afghanistan? Not like, it's national? Anyways, it's off topic. And so the conclusion here would be that everybody has the right to fight, and nobody should be having any concerns about how the fight is conducted. Would that be a correct summary, more or less?

I'm not here to recruit adherents to a cause though. Only to provide grounds to think and make own decisions. No, a consciously chosen, most efficient path to achieving the goal. Thinking rationally, dominant duo has no single darn reason in the world to support this change as it would go against their very core interests (guaranteed access to power, sooner or later). The only way real change can be brought is from outside the system. And where is it, now? It disappeared from political spectrum as a separate entity being replaced by vague and all encompassing "Conservative". As was explained logically many times, that's the only direction political development can take in this system: consolidation on the grounds of vague and almost meaningless conformity resulting in two near identical giant partocracies with assured access to power to the exclusion of everybody else. Outdated means one very specific thing, not being able to respond to the realities and challenges of modern life. Not in the least because many people have outgrown baby-fed political system and are prepared to make full unrestricted choices, and take responsibility for them.

Note that the incident happened in the international waters. So, like some other recent international incidents you'd think it could have attacted never resting justice loving attention of our great leaders of international democracy, the US and now, please welcome, Canada. But no, no such luck this time around. Guess it (international justice loving attention) works in a checkboard pattern?

Right, in place of independent international investigation that Israel has rejected out of hand, we'll base our learned opinions on selected utube videos of unknown origin and veracity. In Russian if I'm not mistaken, there's a proverb to that extent, a (some species of an animal) will always find mud.

Yes but of a different kind than those perpetrating apartheid have foreseen. I sincerely hope that is the fate of Israel. Because the alternatives could be much worse. Hold your laugh for a sec. Let's say due to universal condemnation of aggressive and beligerent policies, a major power finds it impossible to massively sponsor agressor's military undertakings any longer. How much longer would it be able to persist with those policies? Things tend to change, remember. There're historic precedents to that.

Well somebody may be satisfied with soul talk instead of real result. Not me. I'll see the worth of my vote, full 100% of it till that time I stopped playing the game. OK you think that regardless of actual people's choices, the access to power should be restricted to selected few. You know where this way of thinking will take you, eventually? Enough for you, but not for me. And probably others like me. And I think that the only way to bring more fairness to the system is to stop participating in it. When our governments are elected by 20s and 30s percent of voters, everybody, even the everlasting power duo would be bound to notice and do something. Believe it or not, it already happened somewhere else: New Zealand electoral reform. And it'll catch up even with us, eventually. In the meanwhile, I can find better ways to express my political choices than partaking in the two party game legitimizing this essentially unfair, inefficient and outdated in a modern society system.

I can't recall either of international pariahs killing a thousand of civilians in one year; destroying homes and forcing people from their land. Wait, they did kill 40 military and now our great defendor of right and human loving justice is calling for Security Council to impose sanctions. They'll sure do it too next time Israel kills a bunch of civilians or bulldozes homes, you can count on that!

It depends on the rules of election. E.g in China a party that is not called "Communist Party of China" can never elect any representatives. And in this country a party that represents 10% i.e 1 million of voters cannot elect a representative too. And now a reading deficiency, how common. I never said "democracy" but I did say my vote. If it's a real democracy I would have the right to have my vote count regardless of how other have voted. Not just thrown away because it does not follow the majority. Of course my political choice is for me and me alone to decide, why should I leave it to one of the two partocracies? Next thing you'll ask is who's going to decide what I read? Or what I can wear in public? Look at the ballot and keep crossing those lines and it still wont' change one little thing. Surprise! Like crossing numbers in an outdated lottery ticket. Remeber, there are real choices and fake, decorative ones. What you want is what you get. I can't get it where you're reading all this. Where e.g did I say "have power"? I only said that I want my vote count. If another party gets more votes it should have greater representation than mine. But the vote I cast must count or I'm not playing this game. And who defines who "deserves" what? The official party of Canada? xPC partocracy committee? If 10% of voters get zero representation, you can't pretend that it's a fair system anymore. And if a game cannot be played fairly, I'm not playing into somebody else's game.

They did laugh, for a while. Not so long while, in history's terms. Now look where it's got them. BTW with its gratuitous killings of civilians, collective punishments, persistent brazen bullying, unabating blatant landgrab, pretending to be a law onto itself, preventing any independent scrutiny, Isreal indeed appear to be moving in that same direction as the forementioned regime. Shortly before desperation of these policies has become obvious to everybody. I hope for their own sake that they'll manage to come to the same eventual result as South African minority has managed to secure, because other long term alternatives could be worse, perhaps much, much worse. And the clock is ticking.

We wouldn't be talking about it if we didn't selectively apply that right to feel threatened based on our ideological preferences. I had to go all the back to this statement: which said a lot about responsibilities of one side, but nothing about responsibility of the other side to stop their aggressive acts in the form of open anabated landgrab. That's where your argument crumbles, because you seem to be incapable of seeing the reality as it is, without ideological distortions. It's not like Israel is an innocent holy agnes in this affair is it? It itself executed atrocious acts that would have people rightfully fear for their property, their land, their future and their lives. But you only seem to notice only one side of the picture, appreciate fear based on ethnicity of the human being that experiences it. Rethorics wouldn't count as replacement of factual evidence though. That's another wrong question triggering obviously wrong answer. How about changing the focus from "who is being condemn" to "what to condemn for"? That way only the parties offending peace agenda will be condemned (and indeed maybe even sanctioned, if the need be). Which would give them clear and direct incentive to change their act. Not like the current "see no evil - from mine" approach. It's nothing much to do with them though. We have to figure out whether we will act based on objective facts and principles, or based on proximities and associations of the moment. The latter road could get us far indeed.. where we could barely recognise ourselves anymore.

How much influence has a party with no representation in the legislature? As defined by whom? No thanks, I'm not interested in wordly games, outgrown that. I vote, I see the result or I don't take part in the show. That has nothing to do with having my vote count. Why should it depend on the choice of other people? Should other people decide what you read? Where you will work? No, you misunderstood. The four are logical options about political system people can have. A choice equals or rather leads to a conclusion, outcome. So you want status quo at the expense of freedom of choice. Your option is #3. Thanks, but I said that what I want is meaningful political choice. So a bone wouldn't cut it.