myata

These are only a few of the recent examples (mostly political, in the context of this site, but other cases can be cited, from everyday life). In each example, multiple comments have been made about "difficulty", "misunderstanding" of the proposed solution. But does it speak for problems with the solution, or us, who decide its fate? Can we continue to rely on "majority always right" rule? 1. Proportional representation. How could a statement that part of seats will be allocated according to party's take of the popular vote be of any mental challenge? 2. Green shift (note - I'm not making any statements about viability, or otherwise, of the plan. Only understanding it). How could this proposal, to put a price on an unwanted commodity, accompanied by a symmetric reduction in the average income tax be a difficulty so many complain about? I'm trying to understand the reason, the source of that staunch believe that anything worthy of our attention should take no more that 5 min of layman's already limited alert time to figure out. I mean, it didn't use to be like that. Then, people could go months and years of work creating new social instruments and schemes; constitutions; laws; universal suffrage. From these, and other, cases, I came up with this list of symptoms describing our present condition: - fear and avoidance of even slightest mental effort, if at all possible; - strong preference for self satisfaction (in the array of ways) and/or mindless (to a varying degree) entertainment; - inacceptance of change and avoidance of major decisions creating change, at all costs and till at all possible; - and on the other hand, readiness to accept any acts (however questionnable) if they intend / allow continuation of the status quo. Is it serious? Are we becoming more and more like that "electrode" mouse, that would keep pushing the pleasure button, no matter what's going on around? Effects of plain old aging? Something else? Both? Or nothing to worry about, on the big scale of things?

No, they do go bad, when people in them start living in ignorance and/or fear. Governments only follow the suit (or "express will of people"). Whether all of a sudden, or not, is a different question. Understanding. That even in a perfect society there may (will ??) be a few crackpots, and commonsense caution has nothing to do with undue restriction of freedoms. I think it's been pointed out somewhere (maybe even in this thread) that freedom isn't absolute and it can be limited where it starts encroaching on that of somebody else's. Of which I consider living free of fear one of the most important ones. For both individual, and long term health of the society.

even if ,000s miles away from one's home. Maybe, before all else, man should learn to call things their own names?

No formal tool (law, organization, constitution) could prevent society from going bad if that's what society came down to. Laws and constitutions are only a snapshot of what society thinks about itself at the given moment of time. If that view changes, they can be easily bypassed, ignored and changed. Independent, actively participating and free individuals are the only guarantee against abuses and excesses. And of course, nothing limits (or should limit) the picture to only four quadrants, as the world is not limited to a plain (which however, is easier for us to see). But a model a la "Political test", perhaps with modified categories (I personally would prefer "Individual Freedom" vs "Social Participation") makes a good and useful visualization of political spectrum in a society.

We seem to be looking at different sets of facts: you: the size and tech specs of machine; I: the results it actually achieves. That may explain the differences in interpretation. Really? When why are we still there, after what seems to be longer than WWII? And it's been nearly two decades since they've done it. While US is still holding on to its stick - and using it, on occasion. Giving a nice lesson to everybody, that despite all the peaceful claims, the size of the stick (so to say) is that matters. Who's to blame that some pupils just learn so fast these days? You got it. The stick isn't going away. And that's just too bad. Because we all know that peace and order exists where people consciously avoid violence and use justice (impartial and independent) to resolve their differences. Not where everybody uses a stick to prove their point.

And again, looking at facts, rather than dwelling on dreams, could result in a quite different view. Last time US projected its massive military power, was in Vietnam. It's still projecting it in Iraq and Afghanistan. In WWII, it had to resort to using WMD against civilan population to achieve a victory. BTW interesting that you mentioned almost exclusively offensive capabilites. Bother to explain, how does that line up with the ostensibly purely defensive mission of the allegiance? No, eh? What you hear isn't what you get. But isn't it so telling that in your view, to be "taken seriously" one needs to have a huge army capable to deploy and invade any place in the world on a flick. How new, for the 21 century.

Well, I'm sure Russia will be taken more seriously now. Maybe if it didn't act, any local baron could presume that they can do whatever they like. And I'm not sure who isn't taking China seriously. One the other hand, we have NATO with their 00,000 troops, and US, with their 00,000 troops firmly grouned in the places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears, that you call "taking seriously" really depends on the point of view. On the other hand, if one'd speak strictly about results as the basis for "taking seriously", Russia got what it wanted in Ossetia, etc - invading force out, guarantees of no use of force given, and so on. Which can in no way be said about West's objectives in the same Afghanistan and Iraq.

One more time, great men are called when we're great things to be accomplished. And us?

We'll go far indeed, with that great fearless leader. But here's the question: do we really need one? To accomplish what exactly? More of infinite debates on how to reduce our greenhouse emissions, among the highest on the planet? Broadcasting the big pals statements word for word with a two day independence delay? Admire our peaceful nature while our troops are fighting a proxy war thousands miles away? We need a leader who'd tell us how great we are, the more great, the less we actually accomplish, and we don't even have to do anything, or think anything, to stay great, other than watching the box, buying more stuff, moving homes, and counting the beans.

The flip side of which is of course, relativity. Moral, legal, etc. I do something because I can; they do something else because they can; everybody can do what they want because (and if) they can.

That's a very simplistic way to put it. Harper's strategy could be planned out for a long time, as a line of small steps at a time: - a bit of death penalty here (for Canadians convicted abroad); - some ostensibly innocent tweaking with women's reproductive rights there; - a minor change of position on the international stage (Lebanon, Kosovo, Kyoto); - sprinkled with a bit of scaremongering about crime (while totally ignoring real and practical tools to fight it) and economy (having inherited record surpluses now all but squandered); All's quiet, everybody can go back to sleep. And when the country is thoroughly submerged into navel gazing and conditioned to the right state of fear (whether internal crime or external threat doesn't really matter that much), it'd naturally turn to voting social conservative, and maybe even look more favourably at their core policies.

Of course, he did not. Because he couldn't. The question is, will he, if he gets his coveted majority? Answer: he might (judging by all the sneaky moves around environment, death penalty he's made so far) if he thinks that Canadians can be kept in the dark, or bribed into accepting it. Which is just as well. If we were in it (progressive laws, environmental efficiency, independent international policy) only for the sake of self gratitude, positive self image, we'd better accept the reality, sit on that couch, watch the box and count the beans in the RRSP, voting in anybody who'd promise more.

What about Iran, though? Would Harper's Canada support another liberation mission? Not on the ground, granted (Harper's got that wonderful excuse of Afghanistan for another few years), but in democratic spirit? As war (sorry, "right to defend") in Lebanon, separation of Kosovo, Georgia?

True, that fact cannot be denied. But haven't we been talking about a serious opponent, having both the ability and cause to fight? The only recent instances I could think of, would be 1) Vietnam; 2) Afghanistan.

Yeah I know, after Iraq attacked US peacekeepers and civilians (with WMD), US coalition had no choice but to resist, even despite UN's reluctance to authorise it! Bad Russians tried that too - that is, to get Security Council resolution for Georgia to pull back and denounce military resolution of conflict. It just didn't happen. Why didn't it happen? Did anybody actually support military resolution of etnic conflicts (by stalling resolution)? Good question... Anyways, you seem to have answered your own question - they had no choice but to..., you know?

If there's any illusions about who's going to stand up to Harper's conservatives, just think about who brought them to power. Dion or no Dion, the only way to stop them, is to vote Liberal. On the other hand, I don't mind, and often recommend bitter medicine. What could be better against social conservative ideology, than Harper's majority? Especially if combined with new Republican administration in the US. Wouldn't that be a stellar opportunity for Canada to show its independence and gain international respect?

Certainly shouldn't be, from this (from the abovementioned source):

Now, this is an interesting development: EU urges independent probe into Ossetia. Could it be, that after already having made blank and wholesale condemnations, somebody may still be interested to actually find out the truth? Note the ever twisting position of the UK (45 min ballistic missile threat): Apparently, the questions about who initiated escalation of the conflict and with what effect, are of less (no?) importance to the peacemongering Mr Milliband. On which maybe this could shed some light: At least there seems to be little doubt about who sent their forces and where. So, definitely a promising development. Lives open a possibility that somewhere in the far and obscure future we may yet come to a point where our decisions will be based on established and confirmed facts, rather than on block (pack) psychologies. At least, cne can always hope.

Tories want to give everybody a big gun, cut gun contrlol (and maybe, police service) to the minimum, and fry the offenders in the chair. Aka "tough justice"model. Asking whether it achieves the oals (that is, reducing crime, as opposed to having population live in constant fear, of criminal or an angry neighbour) is irrelevant because much (all?) what socially conservative Tories do, is based on opinion and belief.

The guy was in a college (Dawson - rings some bells?) and had several legally owned guns.

Just to avoid any confusion about semantics of "isolation", let's recall that according to referenced information posted in another thread, no country outside of Western block, or its aspiring partners has condemned (or "isolated", for that part) Russia for its actions in Georgia. If anything in this regard has changed since, please post updates. Like Pinoccio of the story (or was it another fairy tale character?) the West is making up "facts" then falls for them in genuine (or at least ostensible - for everybody else) belief. I'm not 100% sure which of the two it is, but based on the facts below, I'm willing to accept that we still genuinly and honestly believe that only our opinion that should count (or at least, count lot more than that of the others). 1. Nukes: we have them in ,000 numbers, we broght the world to a brink of a nuclear shootout couple of times. And it's big no-no for everybody else; 2. Military invasions are a foul to our peaceful nature. We strongly condemn them - when we aren't involved in the regime change missions, and on occasion, at the same time. 3. Not only we strongly condemn military invasions by others, but we take forceful measures to defend the victim of such. Sometimes. In the other times we look the other way, and limit ourselves to wishing everybody justice and peace. 4. We respect territorial integrity of other countries and strongly condemn all attempts to change borders by force - when we aren't in the process of recognising a newborn democracy, and (see #2). 5. We respect the right of nations for democratic self determination and support such right with all our democratic spirit (see #4). We also condemn self proclaimed "entities" that pretend to laying claim to independence (who cares de jure or de facto) if they don't satisfy our democratic criteria (which are about needle eye wide and jump about like that laser in a disco). See #4, again. 6. As already stated, our nature is highly peaceful, and we loath excessive use of military force in ethnic conflicts. On some occasions, we even react strongly and forcefully to such despicable acts. On others, we write them off as restoration of constitutional order, and look the other way. I'm sure there's more, but I'm running out of time. Please feel free to add.

Suppose a student shows signs of asocial behaviour; repeated signs; wouldn't it be in the interests of everybody's safety to be able to check if they by chance also happen to have accumulated a small arsenal of firearms? Right, right. Wishful thinking plus letting everybody who feels like it to arm to their hearts' desire - that's a sure way to deal with gun crime problems.

Check your numbers (on this very site, or elsewhere), and report the result. OK if we finally admit that we're actually fighting a proxy war there, the numbers advantage becomes questionnable indeed. Although we're supposed to have those 100,000 of local army, police, security services, militia, etc, as allies, plus unknown ,000 (but no less armed for that) mercenaries (oops - private security contractors). Which still leaves absolute technical advantage vs will and determination to fight. So far, final victory is nowhere in sight, but in a few years we (hopefully) will know which way it turns out. No, not Afghanistan. When, what? And could that be the reason why we're, so to say, very careful about picking our opposition? Or, should it be attributed entirely to our peaceful and democratic nature?

OK, in plain words: in Iraq and Afghanistan NATO (or almost NATO) has been fighting with enormous advantage without (yet) achieving a decisive victory. In Vietnam the US was beaten by a hugely inferior in the technical respect opponent. In Srebrenitsa and Rwanda, hugely superior NATO troops were watching massacres helplessly, without being able to make any impact on the situation. Bombing campaign in Serbia was executed from the safe distance outside (missiles and airstrikes). If there's an example of NATO taking on a strong opponent and coming out victorious, I suggest somebody show it now.

Well, audacity was never a bad disguise of ignorance. But even then, yours has definitely surpassed all known proportions, if you still hope to be taken seriously in a civil discussion after your earlier diatribe. Period.