myata

But of course it does - e.g. very often it'll dictate what your actions will be. Such kute little child soldiers - need hugs kisses and protection - till it hits home of course - when they turn evil incarnate. Who (or what) does it? The "object" is the same - 15 year old in an unhuman desperate situation. No, it's something here, inside our own brains.

"Peaking" does not really explain much. Harper has never presented a strong case, why exactly he needed that majority. He's been able to pass most of his agenda anyways, and he managed to dump the environment action (one of his claimed priorities) with one of the most sympathetic to the cause parliaments, ever.

One more time, "excused and ignored", by who? And who will decide what constitutes religious, political, etc dogma? Understand, as between two people there may not be one who's immediately and obviously right in everything. And even if they were, it's no given that they'll be obeyed without question by all others for that reason. So what would be the answer - good by force feeding? The most certain way to make change happen, is by the people who are convinced that they need the change themselves. Of course, it hinges on one great presumption - i.e that everybody is entitled to make decisions about themselves, even if they may appear wrong (to somebody else).

And now go send you messages of support to those child soldiers in Africa. Ideology makes all the difference - in the world - and explains all things nicely, once, and for all.

Three "E": Economy, Environment, Electoral reform - the real agenda for all progressive leaning parties to come to a common (more or less) position, at make a real move forward. Something this country will benefit from now, and for many years to come.

Agreed. Harper hasn't done anything noticeable (other than in the negative sense, ie "undone"). What in the heck does he need his freaking majority for??

Would that be, somehow, any of Harper's achievement, he should be taking credit for?

It maybe that. Or just that folks finally gave themselves time to sit back and think things over. Or both. Harper wanted a majortity. He wanted it so badly that he sidestepped his own law introduced with so much pomp ("transparency and responsibility" agenda). But then you think about it, it does not make any sense. Why exactly would he need that majority for? He hasn't introduced and new groundbreaking ideas. Has not started new longterm projects. Most (all?) he did (other than maybe drops of beans here and there in scattered tax cuts) can be qualified with a prefix "un": undo country's committment to Kyoto; weaken gun control (by undoing long gun registry); turning Canada's independent international position into a weak echo of that of the american administration. I think Canadians see this quite obvious situation: Harper hasn't made a case for a majority; his record speaks in volumes that he does not deserve, nor need it. They make the only possible conclusion: he wants power not to advance their fortunes, in both short and long term, but his own.

Yeah, but how do you know that it's murder, etc that's taking place? When we spend two, three month and longer, sometimes much longer (e.g Pickton case), to establish the fact of each individual crime, should we make a wholesale judgement on a whole society with less effort? Sometimes without even understanding it? Next question is of course, how to act, if act we must. Not meaning to say that decision, or act is impossible, rather trying to understand in what direction it could be.

OK, we have to define exactly what we're talking about. Certainly, everybody is entitled to their opinions, and to share them with everybody else. From that perspective indeed you may think it's wrong, probably lots of people in Nepal - completely opposite, and I'm not sure at all about the little girl or her parents. Where we have to be careful, is then we as a society make a judgment on other people, and even more, decide to interfere on this pretext. How we make a judgment? Given that we spend so much effort trying to make a correct judment e.g. on a matter of a simple individual crime, how does one go about judging a society, its traditions and customs? Not from our point of view, btw, but from their own, as they aren't going to live in Canada or the US? And what is the right way to interfere, without making things worse? For these reasons, I would be very careful when pronouncing judgements on other people's beliefs, traditions, etc.

Really! After watching CPC attack ads about Dion (have one recorded, for future reference) I soooooo believe you. For the reality check though: concervative attack ads and some policies e.g Crime Agenda, are pure and simple fearmongering, having no reflection in reality. Wait, they tried to play the fear card on economy too (see same attack adds), it just didn't turn the way it was planned. Too bad... don't cry now. Unlike which, Harper - Bush connection is based on real confirmed facts, i.e.: - Harper's foreign policies, including Iraq - Afghanistan; - Harper's approach to crime (tough justice - more prisons); - Harper's approach to managing the economy (give tax credit to everybody and whatever happens, happens). Oh wait, you don't make any profit to enjoy your tax cut? Too bad for you ...; - Harper's approach to the environment (kick Kyoto while doing nothing himself); I wonder is there anything that Harper touched where he's done any different from J.W.??

It's certainly wrong - to apply our standards to people living in a totally different society. In eventuality, it's this very sentiment that fuels colonization/liberation/democratization agendas a la Bush and such (most recently). What you seems to fail to grasp is that society itself is a living organism - each evolves according to its own histories, traditions, customs. Like people, societies change, but only in their own time and on their own terms.

From his own statements in the debates. He could have quoted real measures to strenghten the economy, and most importantly, channel help where it's most needed, rather than where the most corporate donations are coming from - if he had any under his belt. From all the analysts I'm hearing it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the cause of the crisis was the lack of regulation and freemarket greed allowed to run wild. Harper is certainly not an alien to industry self regulation, voluntary behaviour and such. To see what "hands off, laissez-faire" approach does to the economy (eventually), look no further than across the border.

TSX is down what, 30%? Economy is shedding quality manufacturing jobs. Yet for Harper it's not to worry, business as usual. He thinks that just giving the fat cats in the oil and banking more tax cuts, to make their profits even higher (and bonuses skyrocket) in itself somehow will keep economy afloat. We already saw that same approach somewhere... Isn't it exactly that's causing this crisis? Games of fat cats swimming in money and already salivating to make even more from the crisis.

I'd subscribe to that. At least three extremely important tasks: economy, environment and the electoral reform need concerted effort of all progressive forces in the country.

Tories support continues to slide: MSN News: Harris-Decima poll Tories: 31%, -10% off their campaign high Liberals: 26% (+1). Liberals are now in the second place in Quebec and shot up to the first in Ontario (where Conservatives are neck in neck with NDP for the second/third). Maybe, after all, an open, honest approach would have worked better than the strategy of late night tricks and ploys and laws nobody's going to heed? As promised, but never delivered by this transparent government?

Environment is another worthy cause to have all progressive parties unite in one approach: Scientists urge Canadians to vote for environment

Capricorn, it's about the difference between a referenced idea and the appropriated one. Harper should have referenced the source of his inspiration in the speech - i.e something like (courtesy - m.): "We have to be in Iraq because Mr Howard (who I btw happen to admire) thinks so, and here's what he (not me!) had to say on the matter." Then nobody would have any reason to complain about plagiarism (but I wouldn't be so sure about the Harper's position on Canada's independence and sovereignty).

There's something weird, uncanny about hard conservatives debilitating inability to take in simple words and concepts. One'd think there's nothing calculus about the notion of "reference"; or "tax shift"? Yet, they continue to drone the recorded adage no matter what. Is it genuine? Or deliverate?? I'm afraid we'll need a scientist to figure that out.

Obviously, you don't understand the concept of "reference". Sigh. The kind of electorate Harper is counting on.

Because this is entering a very shaky domain of blogs and private opinions, I wouldn't make any conclusions until detailed confirmed information is available. Here's something though, from the first link: Again one has to make a full investigation to undestand the meaning of "passing reference", but it's already and obviously clear that reading a referenced material is definitenly not the same, no, absolutely different from copying it and presenting it as own invention. Good job guys. Obviously, as your leader himself, you don't always bother to read (or comprehend; or both) your own information. And hope that everybody else is just like you, i.e won't bother to read.

I hate to generalize, but what if they were? Howard speech, Harris speech, Bush's boots. At some point one starts to wonder...

I see it (the policy) as a consistent appllication of the country's laws to its citizens, by the government. Harper probably sees as one small place where he can express his displeasure with our laws (in more or less the same way as with Kyoto; or gun registry) without causing too much splash, i.e. attention to his ideology. If selective application of law does not concern you, it's just too bad. Because it's also another way to erode a working democracy. Laws in a democracy can be changed, but only via an open democratic process. Nobody can ignore or kick existing laws, without detriment, loss of democracy value to everybody.

You said it well, man. Proportional representation makes a big difference. You can vote for a variety of choices and your vote would actually count. Not so in the majoritary system. All votes outside of the ruling duopoly are lost. OK, in Canada and UK there're minor exceptions to the rule, allowing for an "alternative" outlet (LibDem, NDP) and/or regional parties (Scottish, BQ). But it hardly changes anything in principle. Only one of the two can realistically form a government. So, if we want more choice, we have to find a way to add some form of proportionality into our system (I did not say full 100% proportionality, and it's probably unrealistic to expect from scratch. But some form of proportionality). And for that, there're only two options: 1) wait for a majority Liberal government which would also support some form of proportional system; or wait for a majority NDP government; whatever comes first. OR 2) elect a broad progressive coalition with a special mandate (on top of meaningful agenda, and responsible government, that goes without saying) to reform the electoral system. Short of the two, we can cast our votes in any number of alternative or protestive ways, without making slightest difference in the power landscape of this country.

It's been discussed here at length, but essentially he changed the long standing policy to ask foreign governments for clemency each time a Canadian is convicted to death abroad. Because death penalty isn't used in Canada by law, the essense of the previous policy is very clear. Harper wouldn't dare to change Canada's stance on death penalty itself, so he kicked the policy instead. Only to mention that it was done, fully in line with tradition of openness and transparency, on a Friday night.