myata

deleted

We cannot, but Harper and his ministers must be grilled until we get a clear answer on what exactly do they mean by this change of policy: - that death penalty is OK in general, but it's not convenient for them to bring it forward at this particular time? - that the PM or a minister's opinion should be sufficient to condemn somebody to a cruel and unusual treatment people of Canada decided to not use in this country since long time? - what some in this world merit so high in their esteem that they deserve applause even they use the treatment of people we decided to never exercise here? - what Canada will only help those of its citizens who its current government judges to be worthy of assistance? Btw, what are those "democratic" countries which still use death penalty? Oh sorry, but of course: Afganistan, Iraq ... any more?

Looks like another of America's friendly dictators, those who were expected to bring democracy to the world is going south.

This should be treated very seriously. The previous policy was there because death penalty was abolished in this country - for many years. It wasn't intended and did not let criminals to get any lighter treatment than what they'd had gotten in this country. Only to spare them the one which is infinitely more severe than what they'd been given here and isn't acceptable as a valid sentence in this country. It is not an expression of PM's personal opinion of who deserves mercy and who doesn't, but the expression of the attitude of the people of this country toward death penalty. And only voters of this country can decide otherwise. Of course, conservatives will never bring it as an open question - it would be suicidal even with Dion at the helm of Liberals. So, as becoming usual, Harper sneaks it in as a policy change. Testing the ground, no doubt. What if we swallow it, on the heavily buttered promises of tax cuts? I'd like everybody to see it for what it is: either, the conservatives are misinforming the public about their true attitude toward death penalty; or the PM is using his position to express his own personal beliefs and judgements. Either one is inacceptable and should be strongly rejected if we want to continue to live a free society under the rule of law. I hope very much that the opposition will be smart enough to recognize it for what it is and won't let them off the hook this time. Only (their) god knows what could be next.

Finally a real issue. The guy obviously 1) believes in death penalty; and 2) has trouble leaving his personal beliefs at home. Not to mention attitude issues. This is way more important than some bungles bucks or poor accent. I hope they'll keep him on the hook for that come election time. This will be one question I'm going to ask the cons candidate in my riding.

It's by these little slips of the tongue we may have a glimpse of what the conservative majority could be all about. In the highly "open" government, it's probably as much clue as we could hope for. I'm disgusted. Harper is playing god - judging who deserves mercy, who - to die. I thought the time for this had long passed, here at least. BTW from Amnestly International, most countries that do not have death penalty routinely ask for clemency for their condemned citizens. I'd like to contrast this act with Paul Martins decision to support gay marriage bill, when politicians were threatened with some kind of church penalty. He said something to the extent that he leaves his personal views at home. Looks like it's much less likely with Harperites. The (SoCon) past must be hard to step over, no matter what they say.

I agree with that too. It's nothing to do with sovereignty. US (and other countries) will do what they please. But here in Canada we do not have death penalty. It means that we should at least try to have it changed to something that agrees with our principles. Once again, Conservative are trying to sneak in their ideology without public debate. I'd argue that such a position equates to silent approval of death penalty. But they'll never tell it openly to the public. That's why I wouldn't trust Harper with a majority for all the tax cuts in the world. The guy is an activist and who knows what ideas he'll come up with should he get real power.

Good links. However I have an issue with how this high level optimism lines up with a number of reports and stories about deteriorating situation not only in remote provinces but in Kabul as well. Of course, this is nothing do to with (Canadian and other nations) people on the ground. They're doing the best they can. I take exception to the whole idea that a nation can be "built" like a castle in a sandlot. More often than not, it's an illusion, wishful thinking. Which already proven wrong in the same place on at least two previous occasions. Sure reconstruction efforts is the right way to go. But its Afghans themselves who should recognize and drive building of their nation. Not a bunch of foreign experts. Afghans must invest their time and resources into building country's infrastructure. They also have to be able to defend themselves if the new government is something they really value. What we are doing instead is building their castle for them. What would you do if you had $60,000 - free, our complements. If you can't handle 200-300 lightly armed insurgents, call NATO airstrike. How is it going to teach them to stand on their own legs? Build and keep running their own country? Defend it? No surprise that the longer we stay, the more "you have to stay longer" we hear, whether from Iraq or Afghanistan. Does it show their improving confidence? Ability to govern? Finally (to those interested), I'm not sure if posting in this discussion forum is the best way to demonstrate your excessive patriotism. Dressing up, getting a pair of cymbals, maybe a toy gun too, and go parading up the street would make lot more bang. No thanks needed.

Quite a consolation isn't it? - "these things happen every fall" (and spring - see above); and summer? Meanwhile there're reports that even Kabul is becoming less safe (on CBC a few weeks ago, by a rep of a large international humanitarian organization in Afghan, a week or so back). Someone independent, who doesn't have direct (like generals) or political (like Harper) stake in this, has to take a good hard look at what is actually going on. It appears less and less that we are there to "help" or "rebuild", much more like we're fighting a civil war, taking one side. I'd question very strongly if we should be doing that not in the least because our involvement in the conflict itself may tip the balance to the other side.

I only recall Northern Alliance coming into any prominence when the got US prop. Before that, as far as I can recall, we were only active in one or two northern provinces. Taleban did control most of the territory - without any support from any foreign power. Oh my. I'd love to believe nice and fuzzy dreams too. But there's also such thing as realilty. Which is made of traditions, lifestyles, internal power balance and so on - things that just won't change on an inspiration from a friendly outsider. Afghan people will have to find their own path to freedom. Guiding them along the path which may not be right for them, propping up a government that cannot govern (or why would it need such a massive propping otherwise?) - ironically may work against the very trends to democracy we want so much to encourage. Today the media is reporting a massive Taleban attack on a district 10-15 miles from Kandahar city. Population fleeing, claiming that previously safe area is becoming dangerous agian. Media is also reporting bodycounts. But I don't think its about bodycounts. It's the show of power. If Taleban dare to attack foreigners next to their stronghold, less and less people will openly support the government. More will think twice and perpaps give some covert support to the opposition even if to keep their options open. Of course the view is better from closer up. I'm sorry, but I entirely fail to understand that (i.e "building democracy"). Would you like a stranger from outside come in and start building your life - for you? Freedom either exists, and then it has to be able to prove itself. Or it doesn't, then the best thing we can do is wait and hope.

Oh dear. By many projections China will pass the US in absolute terms GDP in five years (currently its some 30% below, with annual growth of 8-10% vs US's 2-3%). BTW, the EU, in combined GDP numbers already did so. Of course, those numbers don't count (which nevertheless translate into military, space programs and international influence). Our dreams (of unlimited power and world hegemony), on the other hand, do.

You're quite right, nowhere. But (real) hegemons usually can achieve their stated objectives (at least for the limited time when they reign). Which this particular "hegemon" has obvious problems with. Actually, not being a usual hard power hegemon (through lack of trying, on principle or otherwise) is something that I still like about the US. It's really a shame that this administration has done so much to destroy the positive chance that had come about after the end of cold war.

No, seriously addressing topic. This administration was so keen on the liberation mission - and you know, seriously, they were after the big fish, like Iraq, Iran, Syria, not Dubai / Kuwait (for the lack of a better example?). And what? Lo and behold, the first stop, which was supposed to fall like a card house and embrace democracy on first sight, we're stuck so tight, we don't even know how to get out of there. Forget about other evil axes (of course we'll keep the talk going just to appear serious, but hardly anybody can be fooled anyways). Our initiatives like climate of eight? are an open laughing stock, and we're on par with our arch enemies with respect to international justice and general credibility (see the poll posted somewhere on this board). Some "hegemon".

Er..., China? India? Russia? No, why not just go and liberate the whole Middle East, as the plan has been? British have done it, and the Rome before them, as many other hegemons, in other parts of the world. Why not try, may even get a kick out of it.

Sure... quite a hegemon indeed - in their own dreams. Look how we're stuck in Iraq - and it was supposed to be a piece of cake. Vietnam too. Now think how far we'd get with any real opponent (other than on their own soil that is, as hegemons do).

Thanks for the first hand information, it's always important to keep in check with reality. Here, I'll try to formulate my questions in more general terms. Certainly, according to our standards, Taleban regime was backward, authoritarian and brutal. No doubt about that. But in that country and that time, it worked. I mean, they governed more or less the whole country, for several years, and were nowhere near falling on their own. Now we came with this wonderful idea of democracy. It never existed in Afghanistan. It is, in my limited knowledge of course, pretty much a feodal society which haven't even developed into a strong monrachy just yet. People live the lifestyle of their farthers and grandfathers. What is the chance that they'll turn their minds around, 180% in only one or two generations? Answer: nil. Think of it: even in this country, with its free media, TV ads, public schools and so on, there're multiple communities that still live lifestyles that mainstream Canadians consider backward outdated etc. All what's going on around didn't make much impact on them. For many more years than we ever going to be in Afghanistan. Now to practical questions. You're saying, they're poor, aren't paid much, not enough resources for the army. But why? Is it because we don't send enough money? Or maybe, because the money stick somewhere in the upper echelons and never trickle down to the common folk? Which is completely normal for a feodal society - lords get stuff, peasants work. See, could it be, that despite all the democratic entourage, the society runs by its own laws and traditions, and the people think, "OK we have those - what's the word - suravis? here, they kind of do some good with their money and they have lots of guns and they want us to play their game - OK we'll go with it for a while, until they get too arrogant, then we'll kick them out as others before them". How can we be reasonably confident it is not the case? I doubt opinion polls would be of much help. And finally, we can forget the democracy and simply say that we're there to fight Al-Kaeda kind of terrorists, plain and simple. Then we have to see, whether the strategy pays in results, or these resources can be used more efficiently somewhere else.

Even here and now the US cannot act as their (or rather their current administration) heart desires (i.e blast into Iran). There's not a single chance it could happen in this post Iraq world. Now take 15-20 years on, when China and India and maybe Russia too, will catch up economically. Will they be able to take on the world? Will Europe stick around to help? I think giving up some of their macho attitudes and working out a way to a (genuine) dialogue is a lot safer option.

Thanks for good analysis, but some ends still don't meet: Just a comment - what does it mean "want us"? Want us do the dirty work? Want us keep pumping money? If you were asked, would you like security guards at your home full time plus a good hand out monthly, all without your moving a finger and for free, why would anyone disagree? The real question is, how much of their own sweat are they willing to put in if (and whether) they want to keep us there? OK. Why more, and better people cannot be found to do the same work, now that the country is not governed by fear and is receiving most generous assistance in equipment, money and whatever else? And put where - in the hides of Hindukush mountains? Under the total and absolute domination of US airforce? .... Which countries are supporting Taleban with funding? I understand and agree 100% that Canadians cannot control entire Kandahar and NATO - Afganistan. What I don't grasp is why Afghanis seem to be less willing to control their own country than when they were under (seemingly) much less friendlier regime? Could it be that our perception of situation is not the same as that of an average Afghani? No I don't agree with that statement. We would have been all awash in terror networks in the West if it were so (due to sheer number and variety of potential causes). Perhaps those networks that are really hard to fight, may have some support from population?

Which might have been sheer luck - Cuba crisis came pretty close to a disaster, but of course there's always next time.

Among the emerging powers, Russia with maybe India, seem to be the most likely potential partners (and maybe, in (much) more distant future, allies) of the democratic West. Following this future though (as opposed to antagonizing them with unrealistic self centered demands) would require dropping "me first" attitude and working in a genuine multilateral environment. We'll see if the next US administration will be up to the challenge. The complexity is obviously way beyond the present one, which mostly thinks in the "axes" categories.

This is one area where to say that lack of funding is a problem is a safe bet - probably forever. Because nobody can tell what is enough. Is it adequate number of spaces in the shelters? What if somebody does not like the rules in a place where there's still room? Should they be given a choice? How much choice? Should the government run free addiction help programs? What if somebody opts out? Should they be given a chance to do a better, individual, one on one, addiction help program? You see, there's no limit where it can be said, "OK we did everything that can be possibly done". Then, again, why stop at this particular problem, homelessness? The same set of unfortunate circumstances may send one individual into homelessness, another - into eating disorder and someone else - into heavy drinking. Shouldn't all be helped? And if yes, by who? The "government", with its miriad of programs and responsibilities it already has to juggle? Or maybe, someone else could make a better more effective impact? Maybe the community - colleagues, neighbours, interest groups, charities? How far can we go without loading the government with responsibility for our every choice and step (and possible failure that may result from it)? And of course, if we do that, should we mind, if it (the government) would one day develop it's own ideas as to what we should and shouldn't do?

Now we have to understand how does that compare with the general population. I mean to understand, the numbers. The averatge urban mortality rate in this country is around 0.7% (Insurance Canada). Data from your own post for the homeless suggest something like 2%. If only half of that relates to the effects of unhealthy lifestyle and substance abuse (over which, being a matter of personal choice, government has little, if any, control or influence) the result would be quite close to the Canadian average (note e.g. that mortality rate for rural males is very close to 1%; great majority of homeless are men; so removing the effects of poor personal choices, the mortality rate among group of homeless will be the same as that of rural males). From which we can presume that perhaps it's a bit early to cry severe system crisis. Now this is not to say that society shouldn't try to help where it is possible. But we have to be honest and admit that there always will be a limit to what it can do and that limit is the personal choice of the individial. The ideal can only be achieved (and has been successfully achieved, on multiple occasions) in a police state. By removing the culprit - individual choice. BTW, if we go the other way and keep society responsible for the effects of individual choices, should we also extend it to the other categories of population? Like smoking; unhealthy eating; drinking; and so on. It would only be fair, ne c'est pas?

I agree with the general idea of the OP, in what if we're serious about addressing at least some issues, we should stop using broad (and for that reason, lacking specific meaning) terms and attempt to understand causes of problem. In my view, here and now, in Canada, all that can be broadly defined as causes of "poverty" should be classified in more specific categories, such as e.g.: - permanent disability and / or old age; - temporary income challenges (entering work force, immigration, between jobs, etc); - lifestyle / choice/ personal attitudes Now poverty itself should be defined as inability to access basic life necessities; lower income per ce does not mean poverty as long as it's sufficient to acquire basic necessities. Now, only from looking at the causes of poverty, it's instantly becomes obvious that there will be no single simple solution (and quite likely, no absolute and permanent solution either). While #1 and 2 can be addressed via an array of social policies (OA / disability assistance / EI / youth programs / social assistance) - not meaning to say, always sufficient and adequate, but then it's a matter of adjusting the policy, the last one is much harder to crack. We base policies here on the assumption of individual freedom. Individuals are free to make choices. And poor choices can, potentially, make them poor (pun not intended). E.g if somebody decides to blow, each week, $ 20 on beer, $ 30 on cigarettes, $ 10 on lottery tickets and $20 on fast food, that would be the equivalent of adequate and nutritional monthly supply of food for the entire familty. Giving another $100 per week won't help much as those may get blown on CDs and movies. And so on. Short of "institutionalization" (anyone?), poor choices will always be made. "Ending poverty" is really a utopia. That's not to say that nothing could (and should) be done. I'd like to see more specific targeted programs to help those, who are interested to make a change, with specific concrete help. Such as training, child care, and so on. But it's a great naivety to think that by some swoop of a magic wand people can be made to turn their minds around and come reborne anew. And short of such magic (or call it mind control?) the enterprise does not look very promising.

As OP said, that depends very much on one's interpretation of "liveable" and "poverty". Maybe, we're already there (by and large)? Numbers, please. Anyways, as numerous examples show, handout is not a solution. Education and practical help in trying to find a better lifestyle, would be much more efficient. But it'll take time. And will never be 100% guaranteed.

By "liveable wage" you, no doubt, mean something way above your average pizza or shop assistant help wage? Because those job are in quite good supply now, no need to invent bicycle. Upper teen kids of my friends, all who wanted at least, managed to secure some kind of job. I can't see why a Canadian who wants to find something, shouldn't, on average and barring some unfortunate personal circumstances, be able to. So, for a wage way above entry / minimal level, would those Canadians need to demonstrate any special skill or ability? Or, they'll get fast track to better future while unworthy ones would have to take the hard way, from pizza jobs, through university and so on, to eventually catch up with the newly priviledged would be "poor"?