myata

I.e "no man, no problem"? The new groundbreaking direction in the moral peaceful democratization?

Sure, but could you also share some of your practical ideas? Show some way forward, perhaps? We've all seen blissful effects of benevolent peaceful democratic talk (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel's operations in Lebanon and Gaza, etc). Where do we go next?

Exactly. And hardly a secret to anybody. The official moral humanity talk is only for the feeble of mind.

However, there's such thing as objective information. How many women or children have died from Quassam rockets before Israel's attack? Please post the numbers. Note I'm not in any way condoning the use of indiscriminating weapons by either side, only trying to grasp the meaning of our notions of "legitimate" and "proportionate". E.g. would police be legitimate and proportionate, if it blasted apartment building with ,00 residents, few of whom happen to belong to a vicious gang? Why (such a difference of interpretations)? Note that I'm only and exclusively interested in our very own moral interpretations of these events (I do not believe that any more can be said about the causes and prospects of settling this conflict in any foreseable future), because unlike recent free Georgia episode, all we hear from the great leaders of the free democratic and moral world here is dead and utmost silence. Certainly looks like some lives are more precious than others. The lesson that won't be lost on either side.

BBC update:Israel's war on Hamas 65 confirmed civilian deaths, only women and children. Plus unknown number of civilian men. 4 on the Israel's side. The moral figure from the theory seems to hold true. As well as our mysterious interpretations of things "moral", "reasonable", and "legitimate".

Point taken. The 200 number comes right off the airwaves, and I haven't yet done detailed analysis of the matter. It is common knowledge though that previous Israeli military responses have resulted in hugely slanted stats of civilian casualties, without any reaction from the West. Which is the only point I'm making. How we, here in the West, value "our" lives, comparted to "theirs". P.S. here's some info though: BBC: Israel attacks. Note the reference to 100 missiles were launched "since Saturday" i.e after Israel attacked.

Thought so. The bud with the biggest fist is always the one who's most just, moral and humanistic (if he likes being called that).

Aren't we're talking the sanctity of life though? Something we (complete with our great leaders, policy makers and such) value above all else? Vouch to guard, defend and protect at all (figuratevely speaking) cost?

Note how nobody has called this "disproportionate" yet? Called for an immediate stop due to much human suffering and such? Only media reporting the numbers? Which calls for some interesting scientific question: Question: what is the value of a Palestinian (and generally, non Western) life compared to that of a Westerner? Solution: the rebuttal of Georgia's little democracy mission by Russia has cost it (Georgia) some 60 civilian lives and was found by everybody on the right (i.e our) side of moral divide grossly disproportionate; on the other hand, in this latest development, the bodycount on the Palestinian side was over 200, the last time I heard the news, and nobody (of the world's moral leadership, other than Gaddafi) could be bothered for a comment. As every 5-grader would tell us, the ratio sought would be less than 60/200 = 3/20 = 0.15. Now Georgia isn't really a full Western country, more like an aspiring ally. Which means that its lives still don't count as much as those from the democratic metropolia proper, maybe only a half of it. 0.15 / 2 = 0.075. I.e. just under 1/10. And counting, because 200 could easily become 3,4,500 and god forbid, 1000 (as in the last major Israeli operation in Lebanon), and nobody would find anything unusual, unbecoming or disproportionate in any such development. Could I have just broken a virgin fresh ground in some totally new field of science (let's call it, "moral arithmetics")?! Think I'll bequest all credits to our great moral leaders (current and aspiring ones) though.

Harper is divisive, manipulative, partisan to the extreme, and has said so many things he didn't do, that absolutely nothing from him can be trusted at this time. The ony way he can continue to govern would be under a zero tolerance notice from the opposition, the moment he stops working for the benefit of the country, and resumes his dirty politicking, he should be out.

I certainly agree that there has to be some way for the parliamentary representation to reflect the popular vote. The question is how can this be brought to the attention of the main political players? Including those who'd reather not notice it. If we could get clear statement about the need, and their support to some sort of electoral reform, from the leaders of the main parties, it could be the first step toward getting the ball rolling. The only alternative to that is the official duopoly. Somebody sometime would figure out that a three way split of progressive vote is a ticket for the conservatives to rule for as long as they stay united. My preference is for the mixed system that reflects popular vote, and yes, in which coalitions are a normal part of a democratic governance system.

Of course, we could find nothing better to support our wishful musings than some obscure conservative blog. Somehow, it comes around a lot (and not only in this latest episode), that in the view of some conservatives, the lack of rational though can be easily made up for by the volume of thier voice.

Coalition is staying, and it will do this for Canadians: ensure that PM and government govern according to the mandate given by Canadians in the election. It could be this, current PM and the government, if they learn to understand the meaning of "minority" and "nonpartisan cooperation". Or, it could the next one, if they don't. No despair! Coalition stands up, in the interests of everybody in this country.

I certainly hope that that's what she will do. CPC got a minority mandate, by far not the unlimited imperial privilege. If Harper and his government keep ruling pretending that he's some sort of a king, having no interest in the opinions of others, and kicking them at the first opportunity, there simply must be somebody to tell them, and demonstrate them that they are wrong. In a perfectly legitimate democratic manner.

And I wonder, sincerely, truly wonder, what would it take to finally stop droning these clueless, deliberate lies?

Let's look at the facts though: Harper retracked all his little stings which he hoped to shove down the opposition's throat. Not only that, but he also had to run for extraordinary cover to GG. Putting his future in the government and his own party, in far less than certain perspective. All else what you mentioned, may be attractive and enticing (to a conservative soul) but still just the fantasies, and groundless musings. Harper's anticks haven't gone unnoticed, and while people want their government to get down to business, he'll have yet to answer for them. Finally, I wouldn't necessary count on him "getting it". GG has been wise and granted acting PM his first wish; it does not imply that he'll keep getting his wants over reasonable requests of the others (especially if keeps showing inability to behave in a responsible and sensible manner, required by the situation).

We presume that the world will function as it has since time of Adam, but what if its changing? Ie. with vote split 4/5 ways, what if minority governments are the new order of the day? Of course there could still be a majority once in a while, but not enough to have any serious business done? Would this, eventually cause a change of political landscape: hopefully with some form of proportional representation (if minorties is the new norm, should not they be "proportional" minorities?); and coalitions becoming more common, as a way to achieve coordinated act where it could happen by will of any one single party.

Why? Because coalition is alive and should exist until Harper has minority government. The permanent coalition appears to be the only mean that can help him keep his disproportionate (to the actual mandate given by people) ambitions in check.

I won't make any predictions, it's a cheap and uncertain business (actually the secret to making 100% successful predictions is to cover all, or at least, most, possible outcomes), but to round it up, and more importantly, to discuss how things could be moved forward from here. 1. Coalition was absolutely necessary to stop Harper from bulling his way through the house, as he did previously. His calculation has been that he'd be able to shove whatever his heart desired at the moment with complete impunity because the opposition wouldn't date to defeat him and cause another election. Coalition was a smart, responsible and mature way to stop the government from throwing its weight around, while sparing us another election. In that it has fully achieved its purpose. Harper has backtracked and even more, was made to call for an extraordinary retreat, so save his sore a.... Bravo and kudos to those who came up with, and made possible this strategy. 2. The threat of the coalition should remain over Harper's head for as long as the country is in a tough economic situation, whether 3/6/12 months, and so on. It's the only way that he won't be back to his old nasty self the moment he sees that he could do it with impunity. 3. Obviously, coalition has a leadership issue. Unfortunate as it is for Mr Dion, he appears to be inacceptable for the Canadian public as a potential leader of the government. This is a big impediment to the success of coalition. He should admit it and step down. 4. Internal discussions are normal and are a sign of a working democratic process. Only in the Harper iron fist run party there's always and everywhere a 100% agreement on everything; sign of the things that could come (AECL affair being b.t.w another example to that) of the things that could come to pass, should he ever get his hands on a majority? Anyways, coalition is a serious business, all participant parties should have discussions and meetings about it, and take democratic decision. From there, the only question that should be asked, should be, is it being done in good faith and in the best interests of the country? 5. Coalition should patiently and persistently educate population on the basics of democratic process. After that, it's down to the people to make the final call (at the time of election). No government can be better and/or smarter than the people. It can only offer a choice. If understanding of very basics of the parliamentary democracy, good governance, is too challenging for us, perhaps, the ironfist regime run from the central office is what we need and deserve.

Well, folks, we're in a tough squeeze..as tought as it gets. Between the inept and the nasty, the options are dismal. The leader we can't respect vs the one who can't be trusted on a single word.... somebody or something, help us.

No matter how the things will play out, the coaltion has already played an important role in exposing the PM for the power hungry hypocrite he is, the one, prepared to use all means at all, not stopping for anything only to stick to the power for a while longer. I sincerely hope that his act in this self inspired "crisis" will relieve him forever of any hope of his coveted majority, and maybe, would make responsible people in the CPC, who care for the well being of the country more than short term fortunes of their group, realize him for the liability his irresponsible jerk act has made him into. Then again, I'm not in the business of making predictions, so I'll only say once again, that we fully deserve every single bit, and more, of the future we create with our choices.

I've been at loss for a while now as why some clueless people bother to broadcast their less than original "thoughts" over and over, polluting the virtual media to the extent that it's almost impossible to go anywhere anymore without stepping into some kind of mental b.s.? There's been a 1001 expert explaining to them the nature of parliamentary democracy, constitution and the law. And they'd go on, unabated in any way, droning their rehearsed adage ("coup", "separatists-souveragnists", "sky is falling" etc). Is it (i.e that astounding ablity to thoughtlessly and cluelessly repeat delegated from top text) individual? Or does it come free with the CPC membership card?

For once, I'd agree with Argus. This would be a perfect credibility test for Mr Harper. He has five weeks to find a dozen or so of opposition MPs who would trust him now, after all the havoc he's created. The clock has started.

They only changed after opposition has shown that they're dead serious about getting the merry playful bunch out of their sandbox. We all have seen, on the example of the previous Parliament, how Harper cooperates and listens to others. Well, it needs more than words to prove it. How about some act to follow? Dion put the partisan, pointless jabs in the Harpers' economic update? Dion made him not include any serious measures on the economy there? Woo-hoo, very credible! A lie, straight from the talking points. Drone on Ignorant misunderstanding (or a deliberate lie) of the nature of the committment with BQ. BQ committed to refraining from raising independency issues, and voting against coalition in the confidence motions for 18 months, giving the country a breathing time to implement the economy recovery program. Aaagh, that olive branch? Accusations of the conspiracy with the devil himself? You guys are so creative with your language... what if you all sat down to write some nice literature instead.. could win you a prize or two.. who knows You mean "souveraignists"? It's not the same, remember - haven't your boss told you so? While Mr Harper is the spirit of democracy herself, incarnate. With one hand, he grants confidence motions; then, begs Governor General to take it away for him; he creates fixed election dates... only, not for himself, of course.... he's high on guard against those devilish se... souveraignists... when he isn't seeking an understanding with them to prop him up. Our poster boy! Only because Mr Harper says so... now. In other times, he seemed more forthcoming toward those who now threaten that "united Canada". That must be, by unleashing a wild campaign to brand Mr Harper's Conservatives "federalists from hell" or like? Last time you took your nap. And what have they shown by putting blatantly partisan, completely unwarranted proposals, which had no chance of passing through the House, there in the first place? And what is it you think you're doing now? Why does it look like "driving the wedge"? Quebecers who voted for BQ have the same passport as you and I, and have the same right to be represented in the Parliament by whoever they choose. No? Teach me about democracy. No, supporters of Liberals and New Democrats, etc, should instead fully support Mr Harper and his government in their little nasty power games at the time when the country above all else needs concerted, responsible, non partisan action. Grant him his all but foresaken majority on a golden plate, and see what happens. If this affair could serve as a bit of a foretelling of the things to come. Keep dreaming.

I think Harper after all his atticks, Harper is a poisoned fruit even for his own party. I wouldn't bet on him facing another election.