myata

If we try just that, as I said I would understand, if not agree, if the party took a special position on the late term; as it stands though, it has no position whatsoever, allowing its caucus members to support a bill which may potentially be used to restrict right to all abortions, with no qualification. I.e they're behaving in this instance every bit like conservatives, setting chances of getting to power above all principles. Let's see how it'll help them get elected; they lost my vote, for once. Having seen my siblings born and grow, I can't be sure if newborn can be called "a person" the moment they leave the womb. A newborn has a small number of reflexes and begins to exhibit any kind of behaviour around 2-3 months after birth. And most definitely they aren't a "person" before they're born for the simple fact that they can't exist on their own. The fact that something living is sensitive to pain in no way prevents us from inflicting it. We allow killing animals routinely for food, clothing, decoration, sport, and meaningless rituals. So in itself, when pitted against mother's expressed wish to not seek completion of pregnancy, the argument of pain means very little. Certainly an argument can be made to make the procedure humane, but it's a different story. By giving any fetus some special status, the proponents of this bill are attempting to bridge the gap (legal if not scientific) between a fetus and a human. If successful, it can be used, should the political situation offer a chance, to limit the right to abortions. Of course, any such attempt would be in contradiction to the Charter, and the courts have already ruled on that. So in all likelihood, this is a dead end game. However it tells us a lot about those who just wouldn't let the thing go; as well those who can't (and/or won't) stand up for a principle.

There're also practical considerations. Restructuring the economy to achieve sustainability, and industrial level exploration of space are both long term extremely high investment global undertakings. Can humanity succeed in both, where it's failing outright in just one? Which one should carry priority?

Nevertheless, it's a variant of majoritary system in which only one party candidate gets past the post, and the votes cast for the opposition are lost.

It's the lack of their clear position that is the most problematic. If they came in favour of some restrictions on late term abortions, while reaffirming the right in general, I could understand that, though not agree. The bill as is, opens the door for legal argument against all abortions because it sets no term on the fetuses' special status. (Partial) Liberal support for it is hugely detrimental to their position as it takes away another principle on which they could differentiate themselves from Harper's conservatives. And without them, principles, what's left?

I think the duopoly effect can be directly linked to the majoritary election system. Re US, UK, Canada - near the only remaining proponents of the system in the developed world. Each has two party system with near perfect record (i.e virtually no exceptions). There may even be some math model to prove it beyond any doubt.

Right. Build a 4th largest military in the world and send it into overseas adventures. Just the one really necessary project we can't do without.

You're kidding, right? If we can't achieve it here, on our home world, what's there to say it'll be any easier done in space? Pipe dreaming of some future miracle can certainly be an alternative to real timely action; will it work? probably with the same kind of chance of winning a lottery; or encountering J.Christ, in person. We're playing a roulette, and the outcome is all but certain. At this time, less than 1/6 of this planet's population is enjoying consumpution of mostly non renewable resources, or in an unsustainable way, to the full; what will come to pass when the next tier, outnumbering us 3-4 to one, joins the consumer echelons (as they are well on the way to)? Complete with bus loads of garbage, parking lot paved countrysides, two cars per family? One of the two: a miracle that will solve all problems without anybody having to move a finger about it; or a crisis, as so many times in the history (but this time, on the global scale, as there's no more unspoilt places left anywhere on this planet) of which we, due to our short memory, or fun loving disposition, are trying not to think; history is full of such examples and nothing's there to say it won't happen again.

Here's what I mean: situation in Burma compared e.g with Israel's blockade of Gaza. I can see how we want to lead, yada, in the first instance (till China vetoes it in the SC), but I see no chance of anything happening, from us, ever, on the second. Ie. our moral authority, positive impacts, etc stops right where it was supposed to begin in glory. We won't be able to apply the same fair and consistent standard to all cases, without regard for political realities, in any foreseable future. And it's no secret to anybody.

As good as it sounds, invading other countries to "protect populations" would very likely end them in a greater mess than what they'd achieve by their own efforts. This is because we only know how to build our society, civilization. Little clue of theirs. This is not to say that obvious and extreme atrocities should be ignored. The key is to make those directly responsible, and involved in perpetration of such crimes, hurt, and hurt a lot. Quickly and efficiently. Relentlessly, until the crime stops. And all without taking over the control over territories thousands miles (and cultural generations) away. Of course one of the greatest challenges to this otherwise wonderful project is to make sure some fair and clear standard is applied in all case, and with some sort of legitimate justice procedure. Otherwise, it'll very soon turn into very familiar "what's good for mine is evil for yours" approach which wouldn't have much to do with the proclaimed purpose of the project. Making some sort of a statement in the Security Council is a good first step. However, as was already pointed out, the key is a quick, strong, and relentless action. This can only be possible if the purpose of the project is shared and supported by a wide global consensus. Such consesus is only possible when there's basic understanding and trust between most players; which can be greatly damaged, or even ruined, by unilateral actions as those in Iraq.

Obviously, your background doesn't even give you an opportunity to get a clue what you're talking about. Those commercial flights you're praising would take millionaire passengers for a few minutes into a subspace zone, not even one full orbital revolution. BTW any clue how much carbon these mass entertainment space flights would throw into the atmosphere? Far from the hope for survival, this idea is more reminiscent of a feast in the time of plague. After decades, we're still talking about constructing one (1) permanent settlement outside of this planet's surface. Or sending one manned expedition to the next planet. The challenges are enormous (adequate food and energy supplies, surviving cosmic radiation, not to mention the cost) and you can be 100% sure no private company will invest a dime of their own money into these area of research as they aren't guaranteed to return with quick buck. Unless a miracle happens, in two generations's time, when the clock strikes down on climate change, ocean biosphere, global food supplies, and carbon energy, we'll be nowhere near the level of technology necessary for long term survival in space.

Obviously, fantasy sometimes helps to escape reality, at least for awhile, until it bites. The reason why it won't happen, any time soon though, is the same consumer democracy. Till the sky starts falling (literally), good luck trying to sell investment in space exploration to the (majority of) your fellow countrymen, over tax cuts or e.g healthcare. E.g the UK is already cutting their space and science budgets, which were never adequate for the kind of programs you're dreaming about, in the first place. Who could be the next? Maybe someone with the greatest deficit in the history of humankind, and impoding borrowing capacity? And after that who's left? Canada? EU? China and India, which still have to feed millions, if not billions of the hungry? Yet, the clock is ticking. The oceans are being depleted, food supply growing short, and yet there's little hope this humankind will show much aptitude for coordinated, meaningful action on the global scale, anytime in the foreseeable future.

Presuming that oppressive regime would allow that latter; but generally, yes that's the chief presumption of colonization, forced enlightenment, democratization and such: ie. we know better, what is good for you. Of course only works if the morally superior side happens to possess an overwhelming advantage in firepower; otherwise it'll be mutually benefitial cooperation.

Sorry, what wasn't proven? What the current system favours the two largest parties (compare popular vote of parties like NDP, Green, to their seat representations in the Parliament)? What voters don't vote strategically, because representative of their preferred party has no chance of making it past one of the dominant behemoths? If the people supported this system, it only means that the duopoly is here to stay for a long time to come. A minority in this situation is the best one can hope for. Another question is whether consumer democracy in principle is capable of dealing with these issues. Representative democracy here North America, counts about 200 years, falling in the period of relative calm and prosperity. There's no way to tell how it'll hold if the food supply becomes short and jobs were lost in massive numbers. As somebody pointed out, the distance from civilization to chaos equals to three missed meals. Yet a consumer democracy, almost by definition, is incapable of enacting serious bold changes over a short time period. This is because it's always safer for an elected politician to do nothing, or very little. Less risk, less chance to screw up, better opportunity to get reelected. And it's not necessarily a bad thing; in a situation of calm predictabe operation of a society a small benefit of a complacent government by far outweighs a risk of a proactive incompetent. But will it work in case of a real, serious challenge which requires a real action with measurable result within short timeframe? I guess we'll have one chance to find out. We only have one planet, and have nowhere else to migrate to, unlike those ancient Inca civilizations that went in the continuous up-down cycles using up their resources and then reappearing somewhere else several generations down the line.

Alright, that's informative, as long as you at least attempt to describe your perceptions... So economic and social programs Canadians enjoy now are "leftwing". Really? Why wouldn't Harpers non left wing CPC say so? Would be interesting to hear them. Now if economic and social programs aren't necessarily "leftwing", surely they aren't set in stone, and should be adjusted to the realities of the changing world. No? Like public healthcare; like employment insurance; like social security net? Again, why wouldn't those on the right say so, aloud.. In any case, as so many times before, you're disputing with your own interpretations something what was never said. Progressive agendas can and will emerge in the society but they will need political foundation to be implemented in practice. That would require political forces not afraid to accept and promote new ideas. And implement them, if people support it. This is ABC of democracy.

Could it be that the citizens stay in on the day of election because they see no point in voting; i.e supporting one of the two main parties, which, at least at this time, appear so alike; and realizing that chances of anybody else to make any impact are solid zero?

One more time, and very very slowly for those who are challenged in the basic reading / comprehension domain: where was the word "leftwing" used once, in the context of this thread? E.g: is the Green party "leftwing"? Is the part of the Liberal party actually mentioned in this context "leftwing"? If you're upset by your very own, fatally flawed, interpretations of what was never said, you have every reason to be; before you can respond with any meaning in a discussion, you should at least attempt to understand what is being said.

Liberals did play important progressive role in the recent history of this country. Establishment of national social programs, constitution and the Charter, are all undeniable achievements. They started losing this position under Chretien (especially in the later years), with stalling environmental policies, dithering around Iraq (I remember it quite well; it was a no-brainer, still Cretien took it to the very brink before making his decision), and getting involved into tribal fighting in Afghanistan. Now it's even worse. Under Dion, they're becoming very much like their main rival, jockeying for the coveted power at any cost.

Harm to any part of a pregnant woman's body is already a crime. You're only confirming that with this bill they wanted to make a statement that an unborn fetus merits some special status, and/or protection, in its own right. This is the first step in recognizing it as an independent human being that would make strong argument for restricting the right to abortion in the future. The analogy is incorrect; the point of the hate law is not that the victim is of certain race, but that the crime was motivated by hate (racial, ethnical, etc).

Good, at least now we all agree that was indeed the intent of this bill. I.e. Harper's conservatives are indeed taking a position (guess what) on this issue. Despite all the assurances that they won't. Remember? Another example of holding to promises? Or just sticking to their core principles? BTW, is there anybody from the Liberals here, to comment on their stance? Or should we deduce it from another abstained vote?

Also, would be interesting to know, what was promised in return? We may find out, in time, but somehow I won't be surprised it won't be from "this transparent government".

Exactly; which makes the real intent behind the bill as clear as it gets: to have an unborn fetus legally branded as a living human being ("baby"). Just watch the next step. And of course, using appalling cases to justify their questionable policies is a hallmark of Harper's conservatives. No surprise there. What really concerns me though is the role of the Liberals in the successful (so far) sailing of this bill. That was (yet another) chance to affirm their progressive principles; and differentiate themselves from veiled social conservative ouvertures of Harpers. And what do we see? Nothing that would make me want to support them.. It stinks.

OK, very interesting; maybe in some, hopefully not so distant future you would be able to comment on the issues actually mentioned in the OP, I would be eagerly waiting for your learned opinion. E.g., is Green party (actually named in the OP) Orwellian? Or, the non radical electorate of NDP (also, actually mentioned, unlike mysterious "Left Wing"), should it be branded Orwellian as well? If not, please clarify how's this discussion of things Orwellian relate to the subject of the topic? Unless, being "right wing" is somehow associated with impairment of basic reading, or comprehesion skills? Being "centrist", they surely must have brought in some of the social programs valued by citizens of this country; care to mention a few, just so that we descend to the domain of facts, from the heights of obfuscation? I have a suggestion, like that new popular dating site, to run IQ test with each post; some posts / posters??? are so ... so ... hopelessly useless that even ignoring them does not bring satisfaction.

Does this mean that you just had a change of mind, and now you're OK with using generic, loaded terms?Like "leftwing"? Of course, without any attempt of clarification, or qualification?

It's not like you "disagree". To disagree, one would need at least a speck of idea, of their own. And surely, Orwell has nothing to do with it?

OK. By popular demand, the main theme of this discussion is changed to: "Lexico-psychoanalitical effect of certain words in English language (e.g Progressive) on selected individuals". Note that the exact nature of the effect is still unclear; it isn't even obvious whether the trigger is visual, or acoustic in nature; some unknown allergic reaction, associated to traumatic experiences in the past is possible; please feel free to contribute; your contributions will be highly valuable to the science.