myata

What about Montreal shooting? Recent Mountie shooting by a drunk guy? Another recent shooting of a family in Ottawa? I believe all were committed with legally owned guns. Licensing does not address this one bit, as someone may crack anytime, by which time they may have accumulated multiple weapons. Owning a gun is not a right, it's a privilege. It's a dangerous instrument, even in the licensed owner's hands and many times more if it falls into wrong hands. We now are fully used to registration of cars, though I could imagine there may have been objections at first. Guns shouldn't be any different. Maybe even an annual charge for owning, per gun, to pay for the registry. We aren't living in the 18th century, and it's not Wild wild west around anymore. Guns should be under control. It's primarily a matter of public safety, not private preferences and entertainment.

If the situation turns into more or less clear internal conflict (Karzai government vs Taleban), Canada and NATO will have no business there. The only question is whether it's already reached this point.

Don't know about Vancouver, but Dawson shooting was committed with a legally owned gun. If the guy managed to escape leaving his gun behind, police would find him instantly in the registry. Without it, it'll take another less then certain investigation, tying up resources that could have been used elsewhere.

Is it a hunch, or a fact? If so, how about showing some evidence for it? As for the Hamilton story, it could be true; or could be plain macho hearsay; if you manage to show it's true, I'm sure any paper or radio, etc will pay your expense to bring it out. In any case, I'm not an expert on police methods, and won't pretend to be. What I know for certain is, police asked for two tools, both related to gun control, and was snubbed by Harpers government both times. And what are we getting instead? A lot of tough talk. No this problem won't be solved by handing everybody a gun of their own and then getting extremely tough on it. If in doubt, look south for answers. They've got it figured out already.

If any application of force were deemed to be violence, then mission becomes impossible from practical point of view. Some force is always needed to maintain the order. E.g somebody behaving in unruly manner needs to be restrained, before they potentially hurt somebody; a border dispute may result is a shootout; a boat illegally fishing in our waters has to be detained. None of the above would make one, a country or individual, non-pacifist. The bottom line is that the violence will be with us for a long time to come. A pacifist will not bring new violence in world, and use the least amount of it to deal with that what already existed. Over the time, this should lead to less violence in the world - the most one may hope for.

Police has been on record to say (link should be easily located on the Net) that large proportion of guns used in crimes come from law abiding owners (ie. stolen). Another major channel is illegal trafficking. In Toronto, I believe 50% of homicides are gun related. Reduce the number of guns = reduce number of crime deaths. Harpers Conservative government has been recently on record with policies negatively affecting policing of both channels. One is gun registrly for legitimate guns, another is marking of imported guns. Police has been on record supporting both. Harpers' government ignored them. The question we should ask is what Harpers' Conservatives actually mean by "tough on crime"? Is it US style "give gun to everybody, then get super tough"? Maybe even death penalty tough, in the longer perspective? Or reducing the actual number of violent crimes by stiffling the flow of guns into criminal hands (which include giving police adequate tools and laws to achieve this). Before we embark on the first path, following Harpers Conservatives who always conveniently forget to clarify their goals, especially if and when they may not be exactly what majority expects, let's remember that prison population in super tough on crime US is tenfold that of Canada (per capita of course), their execution rate, per capita, is infinitely (yes, true and exact infinity) higher; and their murder rate is 5 times higher, too. Some ideal to aspire to.

A rational pacifist will not use violence first, and in any situation unless its the only way to avoid loss or damage to life. Violence means disproportionate force, not any force.

No, not exactly, sorry. I mean that a discussion only makes sense when arguments of logic, reason and fact are used. Trading guesses about others mental processes can be an interesting distraction, but it hardly adds anything to the substance of the discussion.

Understanding is not necessarily agreeing. E.g. one can understand certain condition and potential causes of it, but not necessarily agree to become subject to it. If you understand what I mean.

It takes a lot of credibility to presume that people don't understand that shares = money. Sell shares, get money. Keep shares, they can go up. Or down. Especially given that those people were in the high tech sector. I would be really concerned for the safety of our high tech infrastructure if it were built by people who couldn't put two and two together. I don't think capital gain is at issue here either. Capital gains / losses are to ofset one's own risk of investment. These people were paid, in kind. They could have sold shares. They kept them, maybe in the hope to make even more. Imagine this: I got paid a million. I want to make it two. I invest it in some high tech shares. Shares go down. I don't want to pay tax on my million. I call my Tory MP (or PM?). Is the role of the "nanny state", in the Harper Conservatives view, now changed to tend to miscalculated middle class investors? If so, did they forget (again) to let everybody know about it? P.S. The story does not say that explicitly, but the only case where I would be sympathetic to this case, is if the shares could not be sold at the time when tax was calculated. That would be a real problem, but I'm quite sure it could have been handled via normal "fairness" channel.

Fine, I can understand and even emphasise with your plight (not agree with what you're saying, though). Elections are run by special interests. Referendums are run by them too. I guess, media too. Everything is. They are everywhere! Dispair! Unless, of course, we manage to find, like Russians or Chinese, a (bunch of) true and strong leader(s) who, from now on, will tell us what to do, what's good for us, and what not. Away with doubt, doom and gloom. Bright future ahead!

This little I know. If options aren't exercised withing certain period, they'll simply expire and no income will be accounted or tax charged. Quite likely, individuals in this case have exercised options for shares. The income was calculated as their gain on purchise (ie. share price at the time of exercise less cost of option). With shares at the high, income could have been significant. They probably counted on their shares going even higher up into infinity. Otherwise they would have taken cash and only paid tax on the gain. They risked; they lost; why should they get special treatment? Should government come to resque all risk takers who lost fortunes on the market? Even more importantly, should those with better access to the government have a better chance of getting a special treatment? I agree with the article - this is no less than a scandal. Once again, with this government, the law is playning second hand to somebody's private opionion.

When you say that "should", do you mean, private suggestion of individual to another individual, or perhaps some Politburo body that'll decide how the news are "billed"? There're any number of things individuals can do that other individual may find that they shouldn't. Some smoke, others drink, others still explore scantily clad pictures. What can be about all these improprieties? Find an NDP member to stand behind everybody's back? Or simply switch the channel, if it isn't what you think it should be like?

Well - not to diminish the plight these people found themselves in, the way I understand it from my limited experience, the proceeds are taxed at the time options are exercised. And they can be exercised in a number of ways, which I never completely understood, but the main ones are, for cash, or for the shares. If options are exercised for cash, the tax is charged for the same tax year. If they are exercised for shares, the tax is deferred till shares are sold. At the time of exercise, the owner who decided to hold options in shares becomes like any other investor who invested in these shares (except they've gotten them for a special price). I see no reason why these people should be given preferential treatment to others, who invested their own money and could have lost it due to fluctuations of the market. There wouldn't be anything fair about it. They'd get all the benefits of upmarket without any risk of its fluctuation. That's just sounds too good to be true for everybody. Should better education have been done at the time the options were distributed, most certainly. Should everybody who's made poor investment decision, be let off the tax hook? I'm less certain about that. Should some special group of people get preferential tax treatment because of their proximity to certain MP? Definitely not!

Agreed. They silenced those who were too outspoken. And they aren't tellilng much what they themselves are up to. Just "open transparent controlled good government"? I'd give them a benefit of doubt, but their silent behind the door and under the table, acts speak otherwise. Perhaps, it (the agenda), may in fact exist?

And the world around us, no doubt, should be build entirely on the presumption of what you "want" and "need" from it. Simply switching the channel isn't enough. All channels must be there to show the same news. As in Cuba (ever seen Cuban TV)? Also, all people should be looking at the same things on their laptops. That's the key presumtion of the socialist left - that everybody is the same. Correct? (Except, of course, in all known cases where socialist dream was realised in practice, it didn't happen, anyhow. There were always somebodies who were better, and deserved better, than everybody else. But that was, of course, by everybody's consensus. 100% perfect absolute consensus).

From today's Ottawa Citizen (Story): Quotes: "This is complete favouritism and is purely political. It is outrageous that a specific group of people could lobby and be given private tax relief when there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in share-purchase or stock-option programs in the same position". Similar warning was voiced by CRA commissioner. Again, more questions than answers: if there's a general issue with the tax law, why it's not being updated? Should anyone find themselves in the same situation, should they rely on law, or benevolence of their Tory MP? Or maybe, the general idea is, that it's the government, not the law, that decides what is fair for any particular individual and what not.

OK, now you're disillusioned with the general state of democracy in this country. But then, Harper's Conservatives, true to their Reform roots, could e.g. declare a referendum on the issue. Unlike our, in your view, undemocratic elections which are run by special interest groups, referendum would be talking directly to the voter. It would be the ultimate in democracy. Yet, they aren't doing that too. Why, I wonder?

Not to say, that is, that Harper, with his strong moral socially conservative principles, shouldn't be concerned

There're so many sites with scantily clad figures these days, one needs to navigate like on a mine field not to hit one. Can she be sure it wasn't Britney Spears e.g.? Her variosly clad pictures can be found on all major info sites like MSN, Yahoo, etc...

The way I understand Russia, if the guy at the top really needs somthing, it happens. No matter what law, constitution, etc, etc, says about the issue. But I doubt that, ultimately, the fault should be attributed entirely to the people at the top. The people themselves need a strong man, and they're getting one whether through democracy or else. Which speaks to futility of democratisation, liberation, proselitation and such. One cannot translplant their thoughts into other peoples minds. And one society, however advanced, cannot make other people start living by its, rather than their own, laws and traditions. When people will feel the need for real freedom and democracy, they'll have it. It'll be easier for them too, as there's so much positive knowledge around. I can't but agree with the position an advanced society should take toward the others that Ursula Le Guin put forward in her writings: observe; learn; report; engage in open honest dialog and exchange; never impose; never use force first.

Sure, see post #107 (till you manage to answer the question, all references to "more" and "fewer" are shallow, as majority has already spoken on the matter).

I don't like to be scared, for once. Especially if someone wants me scared so much. In any case, when was the last time Iran attacked another country? And when was the last time US did? If you want to be scared of something, better base your feares on some rational thinking.

This is not exactly the topic for this discussion, but very briefly, and not excusing their dismal record, the situation was different back then. The country had just recovered from a deep long recession, and I would at least understand that nobody was particularly eager to do anything that could potentially send us back into the pit. Also, the symptoms of urgency of the matter were much less apparent back then than now. I'm not excusing them though. More should have been done without doubt, and they paid for it in the election. As Harper cons should pay for their conscious and deliberate sabotage of the accord.

One (thousands) more time, at issue is not changing position (everybody does that, and within reasonable limits it's inevitable, nobody can read the future), but not stating their position openly and holding in contempt the current law of the land. If Liberals attempted to sabotage NAFTA, while it was a law, you'd have a point. OK I want to think that you're honestly not getting it, and there's very little I can do about it. Sorry.