myata

I fail to see the evidence of "hardest hit". Stock market meltdown and foreign capital outflow aren't necessarily affecting the lives of ordinary citizens. This is still a poor country, and I can't imagine a regular "babushka" investing in stocks. Drop in the price of oil may be a more serious concern for them, but it's still running way above what it used to be (courtesy of G.W.Dubya of course - no matter how much he'd dislike them), and it'll have to come down a lot to seriously pinch them.

What a pile of cr... He traveled with his family. Just stop hiding behind those rationalizations and say it plain and clear: we are/were/will be/etc scared of this kid with a gun to such an extent that we'll renege on ourselves proclaimed laws and principles, and studies and policies, etc whatever. That would at least be honest.

OK, let's do some analysis of relation public speaking ability - achievement in public policy. First, there's this president, let's name him Mr GWB. He's quite famous for many a perl in his public appearances in his native (sic) English. He's also knows as one of the best, or one of the worst presidents in the recent history. Let's briefly outline his public policy achievements: On the ney side: - sending troops on flimsy and/or non existing grounds thousands miles across the planet to create or fight in other people's conflicts; - bungling response to natural catastrophe back home; - further deregulating industry, eventually leading to one of the worst financial crisis in the recent time; - further reducing taxes for the rich, resulting in one of the highest disparities of income anywhere on the planet On the yeigh side: - sending troops on flimsy and/or non existing grounds thousands miles across the planet to create or fight in other people's conflicts (i.e protecting democracy everywhere and around the clock); - being cute (in a certain way) We'll reserve judgment on this case. Then there's that prime minister, let's call him Mr Trudeau, who was known as a brilliant speaker and also made significant contributions into public policy, of which best known being establishing the Charter of Rights. Then there's another prime minister, Mr Chretien, who wasn't known as a brilliant speaker, but nontheless made significant contributions to public policy, such as eliminating country's budget deficit, or keeping the country together at the times of separatism crisis. Finally, there's also that prime minister, let's call him Mr. H. who's made serious promises on agendas important to many Canadians, such as: the environment; public health care; openness and transparency of the government; fighting crime; and more. Mr H. isn't known as a bad speaker, nor is he known as a brilliant one. So - so. He also hasn't made any significant contributions to the public policies (I count reduction of GST as a worthy feat, but far short of anything that could have been achieved with the Parliament very sympathetic to environmental and social agendas). And now it's time to round up: there seems to be no apparent correlation between public speaking ability and positive contribution to public policy: not so great public speakers (Mr Chretien, Mr GWB??) can be great contributors to public policies; on the other hand, not so great public speakers (Mr GWB?) could also be the worst contributors to public policies; and finally, so-so public speakers (Mr H.) can also be so-so performers in the policy achievement. Here you go. While good public speaking ability in a leader is desirable (at least in the native language), it's not an indicator of achievement in the public policy he/she would make.

The references to the plan are everythere, this thread included (or this morning, on CBC The House), or elsewhere. No, we dont' see it. I'd suggest it would be extremely dangerous to elect somebody who has selective vision of things (based on ideology, or personal liking) in these precarious times.

Well, his environmental priority, whatever happend to it, of late? BTW this one has been the one parliament to put forth a real meaningful change on the environment agenda. How come nothing, nada, yada happened? Could it be because Harper himself does not believe in it? As he does not believe that selling assault guns is a problem? That $60 monthly somehow helps you solve your childcare problem (I paid $25 / day, and it was years back)? That paying 0,000s in drug costs in case of serious illness is nothing to worry about? That plummeting stock is just an opportunity to go shopping? The problem with this bunch, why they should never be allowed anywhere near majority, at a risk of costly and painful learning experiences for all of us (research on "G.W.B." for cues what may happen when a rightwing idealist is allowed to run free and wild), is that we do things based less on rational analysis than their own beliefs.

Again, we have to understand what is meant by "criticism"?? Is it you, living here, telling me, also living here "I don't like this or that tradition there. strongly, absolutely, at all"? I may then agree with you completely, I don't like it - at all - and would never want to participate in anything like that. I don't know what else could be added to that though. Or what you're saying is "I don't like, etc, and because of that we should go and make them stop doing that"? Here, see the earlier comments. Essentially, the problem is that like individuals, societies cannot be changed from outside. They evolve. And they are much less likely to evolve in the right direction under duress, either by outright force, or "criticism". Especially one, coming from somebody who may not have given themselves time to fully understand who they are and what they are doing; ie. become one of them. So yes, this applies to all societies, without exception, complete with their practices, traditions and cultures, however disgusting they may appear - to us. And no, not because of some abstract principle allowed to run wild, but because of very practical understanding of the simple fact: people can change, but they can't be changed. Not yet, anyways. Science is still working on it. Exactly. Another example is of course, the problem of aboriginal populations in Canada and the US. If this can't be solved, within arms reach from where we are, with all our resources, and hopefully, limited as it may be, still better communications with the people, and in generations of time, would not it be a sheer groundless (and dangerous, when taken to a certain course of action, as seen on so many occasions in the past) idealism to think that we can introduce an instant and beneficial change in totally foreign societies half a world away?? I agree with you, but I wouldn't limit the problem only to the West / East context. Misunderstanding, suspicion and fear of "the other" go very deep into the past, probably in our far ancestry and encoded in our genes. I'd agree though that one of the great failures of the West (singling it out only because at this moment in history it's in the forefront of social and technological state of development in the world) is that as so many civilizations before it, it could not rise over that instinctive "fear of the other", and work out a new model of dealing with other societies, that would fully respect their right to exist and develop in their own form and their own ways alongside with us, while allowing mutually benefitial communications and interactions. I.e being peaceful, in truth, fact and reality, something we like to claim, but never ever lived up to.

Why making distinction on "violent"? Is it rational or ideological? If you're sure that somebody can act as an adult in extreme situations, they sure can do it in the normal ones. Then, every 14 year old == adult, period.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I already pointed out that everybody is fully entitled to their personal opinions. From that perspective though, I find (fully accepting that it's self contradictory) developing strong opinions about others somewhat pointless. Indeed, I may strongly believe that the hat you like to wear is wrong, but what would be the point? The difference arises when personal opinion becomes a basis, ground, for an action. At that point, we make a judgement, because judgment is the license, reason for action. So, if you want to change, you have to judge, then you have to understand, when you have to learn and share, and so on. A bit phylosophical, I know, apologies about that.

No, the advice is to apply your care where you at least understand (or have a better chance of understanding) what's going on. Progress happens by learning and sharing, which by definition is based on understanding and respect. No progress will / can come from lecturing how the others should behave. For an obvious proof just put yourself in their shoes. Mentally. Do you want to be lectured by a alien, who's just jumped out of their saucer or whatever, how backward and damaging your most sacredly held beliefs are? How muct interest would you put in those lectures? How inclined would you be to follow them? And so, how much chance would they have to come through? It's like that, unfortunately (for all self appointed goodness instructors, preachers, and so on). The world works two ways. You have to understand, before you can judge; and when you understand, fully and completely, you probably would be much less inclined to judge. If anything, because it's pointless, i.e. leads nowhere.

Gimme a break! How many children in your own America and elsewhere are psychlogically damaged by parents forcing on them this and that kind of beliefs/traditions/routines ets. Children who have to go to somewhere, whether they want it or not, follow rituals which are meaningless to them, and much worse things. That's exactly why so many wise ones told us so many times: start changing the world - with ourselves.

Wow, does it really have to be so complicated, conservative people? There's an individual opinion, expressed position of a party, and expected result, and established fact. They are all different things, ie. not the same thing.

I'm more interested in the nature of things than in their legal interpretations (in which US law in particular appears to be quite stretchy - e.g. it does not allow arbitrary detentions, but it doesn't apply to certain territories, etc). So, is it correct, that everybody above 14 years of age should be considered an adult, period. Because if we assume that they are capable to behave with mental emotional etc capacity of adult in extremely dangerous and stressful situations, we'll have to assume that they'll have to behave like adults always. Correct?

Wrong. Try again.

From CBC this morning (CBC: Dion ): Just as has been pointed out, about about recorded interviews: And about Liberals plan, from CBC reporter: So who's miscompreheding and disrespecting Canadian public with diversions, ploys and misrepresentations, while failing to disclose their own intentions till the last days of the campaign?

Are you sure you know enough about these people and their beliefs to pronounce a judgement on them, already? It certainly didn't take you long.. Good comments though, I'll find time to answer in detail, for now only want to note that it's always easier to see mistakes, errors, cruelty, etc in others. Why so, though? Shouldn't it be the other way around? It's ourselves, our problems, history, abilities and strengths that we should be able to know best. I.e be most successful, in finding, and solving, our own problems. And we still have a lot. And if we got even as far as half way of solving them, I'm sure many many people would come, out of their own free will, to learn from us, and make their own societies better. Wouldn't that be the best way to address the injustices in the world? Not excluding assistance of course - where it's freely given, and, importantly, received.

No, only pointing out obvious facts

Allright, allright, we already heard it. Keep running your recording.

There's a big difference between a Liberal (single) and "Liberals" (plural). Are you really illiterate, on top of all else, or just obtuse?

Apologies, but you could still have caught it from somebody in your close environment (physical or spiritual). Here's what I mean, in an easy example: Imagine e.g. a video of a rugged unshaven individual in less than perfectly ironed / washed, forgive me, underwear. Does it tell you volumes about who the individual is? Is it e.g. a street person? Or somebody woken up in the middle of the night after a day of hard work or exercise? Information is very little without full context. Missing important context may come very near a lie. An important part of the context of this event has been that Mr Dion considered it as a controlled event, maybe with an intent to deliver the best possible interpretation of his position to the audience. When it did not work first time, he asked to try it again, and again. I think there's a lot more one has to know about this story before they could make an informed judgement about what it actually means.

OK, I see, your point is being, that there's no such thing as a child soldier (and by extension, young offender, child labourer, child victim of sex crime, and so on). Everybody is an adult and should be treated as such. Did I understand you correctly, this time?

In a recorded event, an interviewee is expecting to be able to control which part of it will be released to the public. Otherwise we would see all those innumerable episodes of screw ups in media recordings, reality shows, interviews and such. BTW, I already commented on that unknown "obtusiveness" disease (is it deliberate or not is still a mystery to the science), but the fact that it hits mostly socially conservative right wing audience certainly gives us some hope.

He had to say what he had to say. Obviously he can't blame the media now. That does not negate the issue with CTV's decision to broadcast the part that was not expected to be broadcasted. I consider it as a breach of trust. As I said, all is fair when everybody's aware of the rules. Everybody had their less than best moments, and should it have been a live event, it'd be a fair game. Taking it at the time the person fully expects it to be private, is unfair. If somebody made this decision purely on the "public information" reasoning, I do not agree with it whatsoever. CTV changed the rules of the game on the fly, turning a recorded event into a live one, without interviewee being aware of it. That's unfair and does not tell me anything new about Mr Dion, other than that he's not an iron clad leader and has human weaknesses, as all (OK, most) of us do.

And because of that, they have to be treated and judged as adult enemy combattants. No wait, we do like chile soldiers, in Africa? A kind of abstract love, when it doesn't hit us. Welcome to our world of enlightened liberating democracy. Or all justifying ideology?

For starters, I'm not a huge fan of Mr Dion, as is clear from my numerous posts here. However I find the take of CTV on this story highly questionnable and would like to have it clarified. My understanding is that this was a recorded interview. Dion understood the question the first time, but asked to rerun it because he did not like the way he started explaining his position. Like with that pop song, you don't know how many takes it's done in. Or those smoothie famility ads with Harper. My biggest concern is the apparent breach of trust. All is fair game, as long as everybody is aware of the rules. Wake you up in the middle of the night in your underwear, and all kind of interesting truths may come about. If anything it speaks for the lack of experience with the media. There's no evidence of "confusion" or "misunderstanding of language". I hope that, on CTV part, its the want of sensation, and not political interference (like last time, with RCMP investigation).

How easy we submit to rationalization; this 15 year old could, that - couldn't. This influence matters, that - doesn't. What we do is good, they - evil. And it always has to be we, us, who decide what is what. This is ideology, pure and simple.