myata

The issue is not of transcendental moral (who's ultimately good and who's evil) but of practicality. A peaceful or stable world cannot be built of entities which trust themselves to be the forces of universal goodness while everybody else is at best second standard, at in the worst, the evil incarnate. On the other hand, stability, if not universal trust and love and understanding, can be achieved if countries first applied same standards as they want the others to abide by, to themselves.

And those will be ... ? Let's get down to specifics, details, rather than engaging in endless pointless discussions like "shouldn't we all be happy and love each other and have whatever we want without having (ever) to work"? Do you have any particular episode in mind? Idea or a proposal?

Is there a particular example of a "slap on the wrist" sentencing for real, violent crime that you have in mind (and wanted to discuss)? Otherwise it falls in the category of those broad rhethorical issues that are darlings of the left because they very obviously have no absolute resolution. Violence existed in the world long before humans came about and will probably hang on long after. If and how it can be mitigated depends very much on the specifics of the individual situation. There's no (and will never be) a common simple answer to all cases.

The US was in the fore front of space weapons development with its now (in)famous Star Wars program. Now it's looks like it's causing them grave concern when someone else is trying to follow in their tracks: Yahoo story. Yet another case of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" which seem to have become a motto of american international policy?

In the words of your own quote, the God let his followers to make and execute the judgement. They can't be any clearer. BTW unwillingness of the official church to deal with these kind of messages from old texts is a bit concerning, to me at least. Sure, we're living in a different age, shouldn't take it literally and so on. Until and unless ...

Well in the interpretation known to me, the parable illustrates the future reign of Christ following second coming (people who waste their time on earth on unworthy things - as opposed to investing into their future salvation - will be harshly punished). I didn't quite remember the "slaughter" part, but it appears that in the context of this interpretation, the original post does have a point, i.e., would the "slaughter", in literal or parable terms, be a necessary prerequisite (or attribute) of the second coming?

True, and the pattern isn't unique to Iraq, compare: Afganistan: links to warlords opposing Taleban; Palestine: support Fatah against Hamaz; Sudan: provisional government against Islamic Courts; The list can go on. Now if the faction US was betting against happens to win (the only question I would ask is, whether US support for the opponents actually makes it more likely to win), it's hard to expect it to be very friendly to them. This simple equation may explain many unhappy episodes which would otherwise have to involve notions like "war on terror", "civilization against barbarians", "conflict lasting generations" and like.

I just like the title of this BBC story: US warns Iran on Iraq meddling . It appears that this US administration thinks that some on this planet are better suited (and entitled) to meddling in others affairs than those others. Let's see how the meddling actually paid back over the post WWII (please add more examples if necessary): - Meddling in Vietnam: 60,000 americans dead, pullout from the region for several decades; - Meddling in Iran: raise of Iranian hard Ismalist regime, loss of influence in the country; - Meddling in Afganistan: raise of Taleban, later Taleban led insurgency partially responsible for 9/11 and more american casualties following the invasion; - Meddling in Saudi Arabia: one of the drivers for Al Qaeda popularity; - Meddling in Iraq: over 3,000 americans dead; billions (if not trillions by now) wasted; And so on. These of course are only direct american losses that can be traced to a particular meddling episode; it does not account in any way for the losses and casualties of the affected population. So, does meddling really pay off in the longer run?

Yes corporation can be viewed as a living entity doing exact same thing as everybody else i.e. surviving by perfecting their competitive edge. And? Let's just remember that unlike leftie mandatory paradise for workers and peasants, no one is forced to work for corportation if that is not that they'd like to do. Also, what would happen to our love for cars, cell phones and other toys which are too complicated to be made by free associations of workers, if corporations weren't there to pick up the slack?

The best way to deal with oppressive regimes is the same as we deal with violent crime: with slow but certain prosecution of individuals responsible. ICC mandate should be extended to prosecute all cases of crime on mass or international scale. This mandate should, of course, include prosecution of initiators of illegal wars.

There's a difference between acting in one's interest and acting in narrow interest. The second is more likely than not be counter to one's long term interests. Of course, what constitutes "true interest" is open to interpretation and has no absolute definition.

I can only agree with that. Checks and balances are necessary part of a functioning democracy.

Exactly. Eventually it'll start hurting and the wrong policy will have to be changed (along with the government that promoted it) - democratically. Understand, that imperfect as it is, the alternative is to give the control to a minority - which almost always means selected small group of people, which, as history shows, would almost certainly screw up big one way or another.

A natural limit to this scenario will be the ability of the government to deliver on such a program (and the economy to support it).

Sorry to break it to you... but you surely understand, we're still living in a democracy? So the opinion of "baby boomers" should and will count in proportion to their numbers. All previous attempts to force feed goody ideas to people against their will ended miserably.

And again, everyone (or at least, great majority here) seem to agree that would be a good thing to do. The big question is "How". That's one area where left is so lacking (and wanting) and one reason why NDP will be in power no sooner than the second coming. They like to point out problems that someone else has to fix, while they would wallow in goodness and brotherly love. Same for the child poverty, etc.

Bravo! "I screwed up, you pay up".

That's true. From practical perspective, calling for this kind of reform would cost too much (in votes) for any party to attempt, without some dire reason that would justify it.

OK, OAS and CPP do seem to be different things (all the things you can learn here!), thanks for the nudge to check it out. CPP being a contribution scheme, it is (a defined benefit, but I kind of agree that OAS should be linked to income. Maybe with federal surpluses rolling in, things aren't as bad just yet? Still, even if these funds were switched 100% to welfare system, it isn't clear how it would advance the cause of poor children. It's quite obvious that direct welfare payments are on average at level with the current state of economy. Some, perhaps, can be invested into development and councelling programes but those must be specific to the need (functional and local). I doubt there's a "magic bullet" solution (and I'm not sure we've even defined the problem in the first place).

I guess wishful thinking is the last (and most powerful yet) secret weapon in Bushes' clique arsenal.

????? Can you spell "Canadian Pension Plan"? Your payments into the pension plan have nothing to do with benefits you'll receive upon retirement? You're truly breaking new ground here, my friend. CPP payments and OAS benefits that result from it are, like, life insurance. You contribute, you receive benefit. Really easy. Those who do not contribute may still receive it as a social benefit to allow decent living when they can no longer provide for themselves, but it doesn't change the big picture one bit. CPP is not a tax, it's a pension plan for all residents of this country. One is supposed to contribute (when they can) and one is entitled to benefits, especially if they did contribute for most of their productive lives. And the plight of poor little children has little to do with this particular subject. BTW, as it came into the discussion, maybe (at last) it's about time to start charting some solutions - those that will work and actually help some poor children and, perhaps, some of their parents (note, maybe not ALL poor children on this planet), as opposed to pathetically pointing it out at every occasion?

Er... shouldn't we wait with our valuable comments until at least the first episode is out? (The trailers didn't hit me as being extremely funny, rather as trying to be funny in a politically correct manner, but I'll reserve my opinion till having viewed at least one episode - which may or may not happen).

When can we expect your first hand written card, you know, with Baghdad postage and nice rosy pictures? You can share the trip. Maybe you'll indeed see something we don't get from the news.

From 2006 Special Income Tax and Benefit Guide Line 250 - Other payment deduction ... generally you can deduct the amount from line 147 of your return. This is the total of workers' compensation payments, social assistance payments, and net federal supplements (box 21 T4A(OAS)). ... OAS pension is box 18 on T4A(OAS). Looks like it's you who can't read the form, even though it was made especially shall we say, simple, to avoid any misunderstanding. I wouldn't trust you to count my loose change, let alone do taxes. The guide also mentions that benefits will have to be repayed if net income exceeds 62K. So, to round it up: one pays CPP for years and years, it's not a tax so one can reasonably expect to get something out of these payments upon retirement, and it's still limited to a certain income cutoff. Sorry, you'll have to explain a bit better where do you see that gross injustice.

Personally, I too believe that status quo will not resolve many problems. Only gradual development of native communities alongside with mainstream society will. However, treaties must be dealt with. Should the nations be given a choice, to become fully independent states relying solely on their own resources, or abandon treaty privileges and become citizens of this country on par with everybody else?