myata

With Harper's crowd so bent on self distruction in Ontario, the real question for progressive minded people of the country is this: what can we promise / give to Dion so that he'd consider moving on to the new horizons?

Sure, and one can think that there should be no services delivered or managed by the government. Such as: roads; education; healthcare; parks; and so on. And I'm OK with that. As long as they say it openly and clearly to the public. I.e. elect us, and we'll cut your taxes, but you'll have no services from us, and maybe the economy (that's supposed to take off) will let you pick up the slack. That latter may or may not happen though. No guarantees given. Just look how its taking off down south after all the Bush's cuts.

There're tools, proven to be working and efficient, to keep petty dictators on a leash (as tight as needed) without having to occupy their country (and rebuild it to our model). Those are well known and were discussed here at length. One doesn't need a sledgehammer to put a poster on the wall. Too bad wormongers of the world have such bad memories even in what supposed to be their area of expertise. They don't appreciate specific targeted actions with well defined objectives and clearly visible results. No, they prefer global conflicts of ideologies. Democracy quests. Crusades. Why does it so remind us of other less than glorious periods in our history? And why can't we just go with our own preachings, and simply keep our nose out of others business?

Ireland has received massive assistance from the EU. I'm not sure how much of its successes can be attributed to low taxes. Opposite examples where conservative governments indiscriminate cutting of taxes result in deficits and deterioration of basic services, are numerous.

Like e.g. ? The US? With their whopping year on year budget deficits and economy in the recession? would be good to substantiate it otherwise it's just a hearsay like when I was young .... I know the theory, but why don't we just take them on their record instead? The province was in a permanent deficit mode, and cities, schools and hospitals were scrambling to make the ends meet. True, there was an appearance of an abnormal abundance of McDonalds and pizza jobs (not unlike the "boom" that Alberta is experiencing now) but I'd be reluctant to link this to a long term foundations of prosperity. Note also what whenever conservatives with a "lower taxes at all cost" motto take hold, somebody else eventually has to recover the country from a deep deficit (Canada under Mulroney's, Ontario - Harris, USA - Bushes; in which case it's now debatable whether the deficit can even be reversed). Anyways, rather then follow these diversion games, let's just keep an eye on their own (Harper / Flaherty) achievements. Let's remember that they inherited an economy delivering year upon year multibillion surpluses. Most of it already spent on tax cuts. Let's see how it's going to bring us prosperity. It's their game and they should be to blame if it doesn't play out according to their beliefs.

Positive does not amount to making wars and installing friendlies to rule them. That's colonialism by any name, nothing to do with "positive" but indeed a side effect of having the power without moral authority or judgement to exercise it. They do, and by barging into Iraq and Afghanistan we denied them that chance. I.e. the chance to make positive changes in their own countries of their own accord. Building them a country that is good for us (and we think is good for them too) is a mockery of respect and genuine assistance. The only way to find out would be to wait till people of these countries decide to establish democracies. Again through their own will and by their own accord. If and then it hits (for real, not imaginary "45 minutes ballistic missile" or "WMD" or "Al-Quada" (in Iraq)) we'll have to develop working tools and strategies to protect our country without having to occupy half of the world. Hint: part of that strategy should/would be prevention. I.e making sure that such hits don't hit home; stopping meddling in others affairs will go a long way toward that. The big question is of course, what should the "good men" do? I'll go with independent judgement and serious analysis of the problem; rather than jumping on "get them" bandwagon pushed by people with less than obvious goals and agendas.

What about that government (i.e the one he - Flaherty - represents) is appropriate? Their record on their own priorities (environment? openness / transparency? "fighting" crime while dismantling gun control??). They're a bunch of loudmouth ideology driven social conservatives bent on advancing their agenda by all means. Just recall the wonderful state of the province when they were in power - at the top of economic cycle - permanent strikes / service charges / multibillion deficits. Counting on short memory / thoughtless slogan catching, but it just may not work in Ontario, with among the best educated population in the world.

There you go. Same old "burden of the white man" adage. We know better what's in the best interests of the Iraqi etc people. We set up their lives in their own interest. Funny, but surely just a coincidence, that it plays in our interests too, needn't to mention. And if and when it doesn't (or stop playing into our interests) we'll call them some name, and find them another, better government. Again, in their own best interests. See, when we invade you, we kill you, we set up dictators to run you, it's in your own best interests. You either don't understand, or don't see the hypocrisy in this ages old story used by oppressors of all kinds. That's too bad. One can ignore the laws of nature (physical, or human likewise) only to their own peril. Nevertheless, and one more time, the solution to the juhad, terrorism, end of the world, yada, yada problem is really very simple: leave them alone; let them sort their own problems; deal fairly and respectfully without interference; and you'll be fine.

I hope you read your own reference (article #2). Marwan explains his anger at the Americans (quess what - not Koreans, or New Zealandees, or even Russians - why I wonder? puzzle ...) by the fact (near quote) that they didn't leave after deposing Saddam, and their subsequent actions. To me, this at least carries some logic. The alternative warmongers are trying to feed us - about that irrational unexplainable hatred that is about to engulf all and everything, unless we do it first, has none. Zero. Nada. Not in my experience. Having lived in a few places around the world I'm very much of the opinion that the people everywhere are basically the same. They like to leave reasonably well (by their standard) and they like to be treated well. And they usually get pissed off when they aren't treated well, especially (hugely exacrebating circumstance) by a stranger in their own home. The worse they're treated by a stranger in their own land, the more pissed off they may become. And yes, we all know that people who are pissed off a lot are much less lilkely to perceive and exercise reason. I.e., what you sawed is what you get. 2 x 2 = 4.

Last time he was into solving Middle East conflict. Guess that affair successfully finished, all's ready to tackle global humankind issues such as global warming. Smaller people will do with triffles like sorting out the Iraq mess he and his best buddy are leaving behind.

Wait-a-min, reality check: #1 Why is it that we need these dramatic reductions in the first place? I.e. who is responsible for the bulk of the effect we're starting to see now? #2 China's emissions have (or were expected to) surpass those of the US (the biggest carbon emitter till then) only this year. Meaning that per capita China is still at least 3 (three) times lower than the US, and probably times lower than the rest of the developed world; #3 Exactly how significant those reductions were (judging by example of this country)? I.e. in plain worlds, if developed countries with their huge headstart of wealth and technology mostly sat on their bums and pointed fingers at each other, how surprising it is that everybody else's following the suit (or simply don't care to play). Kinda like self fulfillling profecy, is it? Speaking of the solutions, due to reluctance and resistance of the developed world to take any real and meaningful actions, the game is back to square one. Much of the time since Kyoto accord was signed was wasted in stall tacktics, finger pointing and denial. The West has lost moral privilege to lead this development, as it quickly loosing its physical dominance in the world's politics. To me, the failure is rooted in the deeper issue that we see in manifistations all over, that humankind at this point isn't yet ready to tackle global issues. Whether it comes up to speed in the near future or not may become a key question of its long term prosperity (if not survival).

If he's so sure, why won't he come clean and explain the situation, as it happened, in the House? Why hiding behind a lawsuit? Wouldn't it be the same clean, transparent yada yada megatalk they can't stop loading us with? What's the problem? Theory vs practice? Talk vs walk? Misbehaving subordinates who didn't know what they're doing?

OK, let's bring the facts we know together: - accusations against conservatives offering financial incentives for Cadman's vote were made by his widow, and published in a book; there's also that tape; - offering financial incentives for a vote is a criminal offence in this country; - Harper refused (and continues to refuse) to answer the questions clearly and uneqiuvocally in the House; - instead he launches a legal suit (the first one of the kind, according to CBC). Why did he start the suit? To find the truth of the matter? Get to the bottom of it (how eager they were to point out the failings of the Liberals, found let me remind by the commission called in by Liberals themselves)? Or maybe, to silence those same questions? And what does it add up to? Openness? Transparency? Or maybe, respect for democracy? Or maybe loudmouth arrogant pushing of their ideological agenda by any and all means, while not giving the least of damns about how it comes about? The longer this bunch is in power the clearer they're making who they're and what they're about (and after), and the funniest thing is, with little, if any, help from the "official opposition".

Humans didn't evolve into "cooperative beings". Their ancestors (i.e apes) were (and are) cooperative being long before they were anywhere near being called "humans". Perhaps, watching the creator of the universe doing nothing about people dying of hunger, or those sick of curable illnesses, or etc, inspired them to take matters into their own hands - i.e. collective cooperative hands of many individuals - and with much better success rate than that of a prayer shall we note - of course as long as it (the state) does not become "all powerful".

I won't even care to place bets as to who will bleed more & for how long. It's quite obvious that with Israel's entrenched position, and continuous encouragement (inc. material and financial) from the US, the conflict is set for a long and bloody ride. I'd like to be wrong on that one.

No link to the original article (only the "reaction"), so can't comment on its own merits; however I agree that as long as it was made clear that the post was the opinion of the author only, and not that of the board, it should be left up to the electorate alone to judge the performance (including judgement) of any official in the next election. Board can issue it's opinion inc. disapproval of any such act but that's it period. No public ostrachism censorship expulsion execution because of political correctness. It should be made very clear to everybody who does not understand it already that this country is governed by law. The law that protects, among other things, the right of individual to express their opinion on any subjects - as long as that itself does not break the law. Countries that do not allow, or restrict these rights usually fare much worse than this country; that may be the reason why some people come here in the first place; they should then understand (or be helped in understanding, if need be) that this right, ultimately, works to their, and everybody's advantage, by exposing issues and problems that could otherwise be swept under the rug.

This will continue till Isreal and its supporters in the West finally stop pretending that it's just like any other country existing on its proper land, admit that there's a serious issue with the way that state was created, and will take resonable and genuine step toward a fair peace deal. Till that happens, which may take many years and claim many lives, the bloody see-saw will likely continue, as hatred between two populations is fed further and further by indiscriminate killings on both sides.

Right. The job of the opposition is to topple the government. And if no party manages to gather a majority, we'll have a string of toppled governments and elections with no real change. Smart analysis, as usual. Causing an election with no real cause and having whole country go to the polls with all likelihood of the same result, sounds pretty dumb. It's Harper who's itching for an election without being seen as calling one (for no reason, really) and I'm impressed that Liberals aren't taking the bait.

Well, to reward breakthrough discoveries or inventions fairly one'd have to forecast their impact over very long period, perhaps even centuries long. That's not possible or practical, unless in some kind of technocracy where a panel of gurus would make arbitrary judgements on who deserves what. In capitalism, the astronomical earnings of a few are almost always directly linked to immediate mass effect in the market (new product / hit / large company). Collective judgement of many is less likely to be wrong than that of a selected small group. This explains evolution from closed elites toward open market space and democracy. I agree that there's some aspect of fairness of distribution that's causing vague discomfort. Should this be left entirely to the market, or at some point regulation would need to step in? What kind of regulation? Good question.

This is as dumb as popular "economy" ever gets. The only thing it's saying is that the difference between smallest and median income is by far inferior to that between the median and the highest. I.e. 50,000/10,000 = 5 (median/lowest), while 400,000,000 / 50,000 = 10,000 (approx, max/median). And? What's missing is distribution of population by income i.e what percentage of population falls into lowest income (e.g < 30 K) vs median (30 K - 75 K) vs high (< 200 K) vs rich ( 200 K < ... few M) vs super rich (everybody else). I would imagine that the last two categories won't exceed one-two percentiles, so the income distribuion indeed fall down very quickly as income raises. The real difference is between slope style distribution where majority is poor, and the bell shaped one where significant part of population achieves decent level of well being, while super rich and extremely poor are both in minority.

Really, I'm all for the the folks who like to cry that "let's go and get them", etc show the manly act and enroll in the first echelons. I think it'll make a better world in the long run, even via natural selection (i.e. improving humanity's gene pool). Any chance of that happening, anytime soon? I'll even come to see you off - one way.

Agreed, haven't we all heard about the Lap-land?

You've got it! The other bill states its position very clearly and therefore stands no chance of success. Epp's bill is trying to muddle waters by setting special rules around fetus life. And to exacerbate the matter, Harper's crowd are known to use hidden out of public eye (aka sneaky) tactics to get in their ideology. Two reasons to be more concerned about Epp's bill.

My answer would be: both belong in the trash can; but if you ask which one is more dangerous to women's right to control their life, it's definitely the Epp's. Because of the sneaky premise to pull in "fetus life"; because we have no idea (although can make educated guess) where Harper's Conservatives, majority of them, stand on this issue; and finally because they've shown that they won't hesitate to pull through their ideology into policies whenever they have chance, and preferrably without public knowing anything about it. I do strongly urge Liberal party to hold a vote and state their official position.

Oops sorry I'm late here, just wanted to point out that the original premise doesn't really hold water. We could have said something like that if we lived peacefully and quietly on another continent and all our interactions with the "psychopaths" (or rather, places they seem to come from) were through honest fair trade and peaceful and respectful diplomacy. You can surely see how much of this imaginary scenario relate to actual reality. Now in human societies, people don't easily submit to external manipulation and control. Unfortunately for the benevolent masters, who always know best what's good for others, people insist on doing things their own way. And when and if they aren't allowed so, they get upset and start to resist. And the resistance won't stop even if the masters are grossly superior in force - it'll simply find another way; the way which creates greatest bang for the effort; by trial and error; like water seeping through the ground. You can call it third law of human dynamics - every action creates counteraction. From the above there follows a simple and efficient way to defend "our values": live up to them; but, with an important caveat, always and everywhere. People are intelligent bunch and will return the favour in the way it was delivered. Finally I hope you understand that this is not an apology of anything. Pointing out the dangers of standing under a roof loaded with hanging ice (line the one I'm looking on now) isn't apologizing "killer ice", no matter how tragic the consequence may be.