myata

Must be the experience. It's ... trancendental!

I'm sorry, but who exactly is being "forced" here? Doctors performing abortions aginst their will, under duress and fearing for their everything? Is that how it is in your fantasy world, very interesting! Yet the dilemma remains unanswered: either, we'll learn to mind our own business (and by extension, let everybody else mind theirs), or we should make it a free season and let everybody take care about everything in everybody else's life. I.e. make you slim down, fatten up, work out, beautify you if you're under par, or uglify you if you happen to look better than us. Why not? Why artificially limit bodily interference to one very specific domain (of your choice)? So which one it would be?

Oh really? So everybody would be minding everybody else's business? Should it be limited only to the matters of reproduction (why?) or perhaps extended to other domains of our life as well? Need free advice on what you eat / how you look / what you put in yourself / what you do / what you should / shouldn't be reading or listening to / ... etc .. yada. Here, we'll give you one anyways, whether you ask it or not, no, we insist! Indeed, from that viewpoint, people taking care of their own bodies in the way they see fit would be an impossible and disgusting "anarchy".

There's nothing "difficult" about the issue, other than controlling that holy urge/itch to tell others what to do and how they should be living their lives in, whether asked or (most commonly) not. If only some kind of treatement was invented for that really serious condition, the world would make an unprecedented step forward.

Indeed, if there was an ideal political setup, it would probably have been invented by now. But if there had to be issues and problems, I'd prefer them to reflect the realitoes of the country's political landscape and electorate, rather than those of the political elite. With PR, in a dismal situation as we have now (Harper vs Ignatieff), a third party could perhaps bring some fresh air, as a coalition partner. With our current system, we'll be stuck with the binary choice (Iggy / Harper or throw away your vote) forever.

The alternative to PR is being stuck with exactly two most of the time pretty faceless parties, that most of the time look like mirror image of each other, forever. Because doing anything real is bound to stir emotions and give a cause for attack to the other side, the two would carefully avoid doing anything real unless they really really have to, and then, diverting it instead into safe and self satisfying hot air. Sounds familiar?

Yes and somehow I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas and others likewise would gladly claim the same rationale for their own. Looks like for once in a very rare while you'd be all in a full and complete agreement. No principles, law or justice, only my right against yours. The winner takes all. That's like the way this planet has been since times primordial (i.e. at least 5,000 years). Why waste any further words, where they can't, and won't really add anything, not one single bit of information?

Yes I know, there will always be a compelling reason to excuse myself, for whatever I'm doing / have done. The post, on the other hand, dealt with the universal laws of human logic, i.e something that can be proven to, or agreed with the others, based on the same consistent logical principles. "What's good for me, no-no for you" couldn't, very obviously. It can only exist based on and while the force is applied. There you go, "grab and hold". Don't seek law, morality or justice where they cannot exist, in principle.

Ok, here we go. Five parolees per annum. However there's still one piece missing, the incidence of reoffence fom under "faint hope" law. Would anybody happen to have that data. Anyways, the numbers speak for themselves. Certainly walks, talks and quacks like another piece of loud and stinky b.s. from this hapless bunch, the only skill (i.e. producing it in large volumes) they really excel in.

This is simply another populist crime hysteria whipping move by a government that has nothing, absolute zero (or big bad negative, like on the environment; or "transparency"; or debt, etc) to show for any single file or agenda they touch. I mean what is the real issue here? The stats? How many "murderers" are released on early parole, and how many of those released reoffend? I mean, what is the real issue here? How serious is it? Do we have any more important matters to attend to?

I'll only make the following logical observation: #1 The argument normally used as a last resort when there's absolutely nothing else rational or logical to be said on the essence of the matter. #2 The argument is used, in statistically disproportionally high incidence, by one particular side in discussions around this issue. Does it logically implicates, that the aforementioned side has absolutely nothing rational or logical to be said on the essence of the matter?

The problem now is that "benefit" is very loosely defined (and is it possible to define it exactly?). However, disclosure of political dealing (in the specified areas of interest) is completely unambiguous. One would face a choice of dealing and full disclosure (which in case of highly questionnable deals would very likely ruin their further political career), dealing and not disclosing, with a clear criminal responsibiliy, or not dealing at all. One may hope that it'd give politicians better incentive to stay away from questionnable dealing. And the best of all that the meaning of "questionnable" would be defined not by some standard, and therefore very likely vague and undefendable formula in the law, but by people themselves.

I don't think I have much to add to that. Of course they will have to, and failure to recognize the origins of the conflict, as well as legitimate claims of the other side will definitely make the process lengthier and more painful. In e.g. Northern Ireland it took centuries, and generations, and uncounted lost lives to even come to begin settling a conflict on a much smaller, in proportion scale. All things must end one day, and from that perspective indeed sooner or later makes little difference. BTW by "meddling" do you also mean X-billion dollar aid that keeps Israel's economy stable and allows it to acquire all the modern military gimmicks? If so, then maybe, the "meddling" that created the problem some decades back, has never really stopped? And it's only a matter of vision, whether one can or wants to see it, or not?

Most certainly, "ensuring security" is a key element of the "grab and hold" strategy (addressed by the "hold" part). It may appear to have some existential appeal, but in reality remains really plain and simple, old, "hold what you managed to get hold of tight, or somebody else may get it". Rather than addressing morality, that as I already mentioned has no meaningful application in this approach - from the parties involved that kind of advice sounds more like a ridicule ("too bad I have the thing now, but would it be good for your own good - see how I'm genuinly concerned - to go build your luck somewhere else"), and from a bystander - kind of gratuituous, maybe? I mean if you were kicked out of your house and sent out on all four winds - would you really forget the past, let it go, and build your luck somewhere else? Or come back and fight, tooth and nail? I don't know... do you? And how much would you appreciate that kind of advice? So rather than advising anybody on anything I'd only like to state a fact. A fact of human nature is that we do not easily let go of our own, and forget past offences and injustices. (Why is it so? I'm not sure science has already solved that puzzle, so I'll venture a hypothesis: maybe a long long time back when tribes of human ancestors came in from the same rift valley, there were among them those who, being kicked out of their pasture, would "forget and rebuild their luck", etc. My theory is that they eventually were kicked out from all life supporting lands by ever multiplying "tooth and nail" folks and went out of existence. Very sad. But would explain most certainly, why here and now, us being their nemeses's remote posterity, we still fight tooth and nail for every little thing). Anyways, regardless of scientific explanations, that fact exists. Maybe that's why most serious attempts at resolution of long standing conflicts begin with investigation, recongnition and atonement for past injustices that caused and created them. Of course we can ignore that law of human nature. We can close our eyes, not hear, not see and not notice and hope that on a 1,0001 repetition of the mantra the problem would simply go away. BTW there's any number of folks who're still trying this approach with the physical nature, like jump up on the roof of their house in the hope that one lucky time, no matter how and when, they'd fly out into the sky. Sure we can continue what we've been doing till now and hope that somehow sometime it'll work out, against all odds. On my side though, I'd be reluctant to participate in that kind of ritual.

I'm not sure if that's an effective way to deal with the problem. Quite possibly, after this case, both prosecution, and courts would be reluctant to bring up cases other than direct bribery, which is really crude and dumb, given the infinite variety of ways in which mutual interests can be satisfied by the folks close to the power (as we have chance to see on so many occasions). In my view, the disclosure, i.e. the same transparency, is far more essential than criminal prosecution. Yes by all means, go ahead with those backroom deals; just as long as everybody know about it; and if you fail to disclose, that would be a matter for prosecution, clearly and leaving no room for misunderstanding or confusion.

Though the topic relates to a local issue in Ottawa (trial of mayor on the influence peddling charges) it may have implications for politics on all level. In the latest development, the defence requested the judge to dismiss charges against the defendant, because the case presented by prosecution, ostensibly represents normal political practice. "Paciocco said the Supreme Court of Canada has previously ruled that the concept of "reward, benefit or advantage" in corruption cases addresses profit or material economic gain - and not something as "ephemeral or common-place as political advantages." O'Brien's trial I'm kind of of two minds on the issue, and left my choice open. On one hand, it's hard to argue that trading and compromising is very much in the core of political occupation. On the other hand, in this particular case, it had the potential to interfere with the democratic election (by removing one of the candidates). Free, transparent and democratic elections are at the base of any functioning democratic society. Remove transparency, allow backroom deals and mutual favors, and the system will in no time create a class of political careerists around the power who'll stick to it forever by exchanging mutual rewards and favors. It is called "oligarchy" and can be seen in many (usually third world) places. I'm sure we don't want that. But I'm also not certain that every questionnable political exchange should become a matter for prosecution. Our already struggling justice system would be drowned in an instance in these cases. So I'd like to propose this solution. Indeed let influence peddling, other than direct bribery with financial, or material benefits, be allowed, as per defence's request. However, in certain cases, where it relates to e.g. elections, or important political appointments, make any such exchange declarable to the public, mandatory. And any omission, or failure to declare the favour, a criminal offence, for those who make the offer, and would be recipient, alike. Could it lead to a more transparent political process?

Would that make that particular country also eligible to have a part of its territory "given" or "declared" to the persecuted? Why not? There's been Nazi collaborators in virtually any country in Europe. In some countries, more, significantly more, than in others. Unlike arabs in Palestine, who had to experience results of mass foreign immigration first hand, they'd had no reason to collaborate with Nazi other than pure ethnic hatred (note that I do not exonerate arab Nazi collaborators; only explain how such collaboration could emerge as a logical result of a colonial policy over which local population had no control). Can / should the same argument be used to "partition" those countries in favour of persecuted as well? Why not? Who decides, what can and should and what can't? League of Nations (made of colonial powers of the West). You? Me? More importantly, does existence of collaborators, like that "muft", make the entire population guilty, and subject to punishment? What if it's your country and you don't agree with the proposed partition? Would you be justified in your resistance? What if partition is forced on you anyways, against your objections? Would it make your resistence a "terrorism"? There's really only two logically consistent alternatives of dealing with "others": of force, where you do what you can and have to do and logically, have to accept that the same can be done to you, no "moral" objections because they'd be pointless; I do this to you, because I have to, and you to something else to me, for pretty much the same reason; or of peace, where you don't do things to others what you wouldn't have done to yourself. Now, pick one.

For (mentally) blind and deaf I have to repeat the question, again (it has to be considered as repeated ad infinitum, till answered specifically and in full, because I'm not gonna bother): which other countries refused to accept mass immigration of Jewish refugees, fleewing from Nazi prosecution?

By that extension, who else would be "in part responsible for the holocaust ", because they "denied the option" of accepting masses of refugees fleeing from Nazis? Can we see anybody here? Why being shy, all of a sudden? Most certainly that notorious "mufti" will take all the blame anyways.

And before? Did something also happen there, our scholar? Come on. For the umpteenth time. Over and again. And again. And again! Of course, you won, who could even think of matching these rare and absolutely undisputable disputing skills? Who would want to? Yes indeed, it appears to be the only way you folks can ever "win". Why else would point blank ignorance of obvious facts and mechanic repetiotion of some mantra in the hope that on the x,000,000 repetion it'd somehow become reality, be the only "arguments" we are being offered? Go back home, and try again. Start by attempting to answer this very simple question: "Is it OK to take something from other by force?" Good luck in your scientific endeavours.

And could it be that something also happened before those wars (hint; enormous and glaring one; like e.g. an elephant)? Or the lights just came on around the end of the 40s, and nothing, nada of what was in this world before that date worth discussing, analysing or even noticing or recognizing? You know what? Because you aren't bringing anything new into this discussion, maybe in the hope that on a 101st repetion of the same stale pointless adage the opponent would forget, or not bother to answer, thus allowing yourself to claim moral victory, for that reason and also to save my time, I've no choice but to start ignoring your further posts in this thread, officially and irrevocably. Of course, you can still proceed with the strategy (of claiming moral victory) but at least I'll have no part in it.

Why would somebody (who started a fight) insist on certain "correct" way in which it has to be conducted? Their own way? I wonder. Could it be because we claim to have become "civilzed", in the meanwhile? No? Still the same world as 2,000 years back, in a (certain) perspective of morality? Then what's all the noise about "law", "justice", "terrorism" and such? People didn't worry about such triffles back then. Whoever has the stick, rules. Read your bible.

One may think that land belongs to the people who live on it. By that understanding, most certainly a family living on land for generation has better claim to it, than somebody who read about it only in the books and never set foot in it, for generations. On the other hand, one could also think that it belongs to anybody who could conquer it. That is also a possible postion, but only if one agrees and admits that it can be reconquered over and again, by whoever happens to have a bigger stick at the time. Then there would be no morally logical paradoxes struggling to prove unprovable, i.e. why it was OK for me to grab hold of this piece, but is a "terrorism" for them to do the same. Simply state that it's OK for me because I happen to be stronger now, and if ever they'd overcome me and "repossess" it from me, it'd be OK too. Morally, legally, and logically. In other words, the moral principle of "Grab and hold while you can".

I'm not keen on using certain terminology simply for the fact that it adds little more to understainding of the situation than already known simple formula ("I am good, you are bad... ", remember?). Yet it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the rise of organisations like Hamas in itself is caused by the past and ongoing injustice. As it happened and happens virtually everywhere (Northern Ireland is a good example much closer to home). It's not in human nature to forget injustice easily, nor to let go of their own without fight. Sure interesting exercise in history. If conditions long past are a fair ground for land devisions and reacquisitions, the world will become a hellish place with never ending wars, mass migrations and such. That is exactly the future we will see if "moralists" would get their way (ie the right to start wars, captures lands, resources, etc on the grounds of it being "moral" and "right" - in somebody's own understanding of the above). In most people's interpretation, "fair" means "negotiated and mutually acceptable". I see that you have a different take on the matter ("received", "granted" - something that they - I mean, "former mandates" - had any right to give (divide / assign and so on), did they? What right, exactly?). It may explain your difficulties (in reconciling hate of them a "enemy" while excusing us and our friends for no less dubious and shall we say, morally questionable, acts).

And among the things that they done, was as many pointed out, a massive spending spree (surplus extermination) almost immediately preceding the turn of this recession. Is somebody laughing up where? Or simply that deep rooted conservative conviction that they "know" things best - even the ever unpredictable economy? Does not appear like sound prudent policy for which they so like to praise themselves. In that regard, I'd like to draw attention in particular to the GST reduction strategy. Because nobody I know would make a purchising decion based on 2% margin (I mean the decision to buy or not), at the time it looked as an election gimmick (as it probably was devised by conservative election strategists). Really it doesn't do much more than saving consumer a few hundred bucks, on average year, plus some more once in while on a big purchise. In good times, when government revenues are coming from a variety of sources, that's OK. But in recession, when income and profit tax base shrinks dramatically, GST would be one of a few sources of revenue relatively less impacted by the economic slowdown. This is, again, because nobody makes buying decisions because of a few percentage point difference. That was the idea of sales taxes in the first place (to add a stable source of revenue less affected by economic cycles), and it's hard to imagine that economist Harper did not know that, but this seems to be (yet) another case where prudence and common sense gave way to ideological preferences, in this government. As a result, public revenues were cut by 25% of the more stable revenue source (8% GST to 6%) exactly at the time it was needed most. Call it whatever you want, but to me it looks as certain shoot themselves (and ourselves, with them) in the foot, as can be. Well done, Messrs Harper and Flaherty! May be that could go some way in explaining the wide fluctuations of your deficit prediction (34 to 50 bill., like 50% in the course of three months; I hope the trend won't hold, at least not in linear progression, for the sake of us all here).