myata

The right question would be, "what do you drive?". (I don't think the CEO drivers of oil companies are greatly dissatisfied with these developments - regardless, whether they actually drive or not).

I wonder how much one can read into these results. The whole presumption of question (now vs Taleban times) is loaded. Because now, Karzai only has control in Kabul, foreign troops are required anywhere else in the country. While Taleban, in their times, ran the whole country. So the question is, basically, is it Karzai with x,000 of foreign troops providing security and y,000,000,000 of foreign donations vs Taleban with nothing. The real question I'd ask would be, who would you support if the foreign troops were to leave tomorrow?

What Harper seem to be ignoring with this bill (and some here seem to be forgetting) is the fact that his party is in a deep minority position and therefore is supposed to consult with the opposition to work out a compromise, not throw around ultimatums. I'm sure this doesn't come unnoticed with the public. The guy is too itchy to lay his hands on the power, perhaps a less jealous even if less harismatic individual would be a better (in the sense, safer) choice.

One observation which is greatly worrying me is this: when Taleban came to power, they started from nothing and it took them, if I recall it correctly, less then 3 years to take control of the entire country. Now contrast this with todays's situation: massive foreign armed presence, massive investment of funds, 5 years down and nowhere near the target (when the new Afgan government would be able to support itself, even if with continuing massive financial support).

Just as said earlier - when you don't like the facts - make your own.

Well, there's been no argument so far that would in any way prove that events preceding the creation of Israel (i.e. "the taking of land") had any legitimacy. It's hard to argue indeed without going on all kind of tangents, blame or evasion tactics simply because the facts speak for themselves. The conflict will cost enourmously and will last for generations - unless, someone will come up with a courage to admit the wrong and make amends. Then, strike a fair deal.

Or, if he keeps showing over and again that his interest is not in addressing real issues and having work done (in accordance with his mandate, which is, to remind, a very slim minority, which may not be obvious from Harpers lofty attitudes), but rather, in advancing his much aspired majority agenda, it may just happen that voters will lose interest in him (and his party). Let's wait and see what's coming - real will to have work done in compromise with provinces and opposition, or more politicking to undermine others for his agenda. Eventually, if that's is all he could show for several years in government, even Dion may appear a more positive alternative.

Of course not. Not on the vague unclear softy staments in the Throne speach. They should stay put and force his hand (if that's what he wants anyways) by making the crime bill (which he refused to compromise on) a matter of confidence. Or "hot air" act. Or Afgansitan. That way it'll be up to us, not Harper with his unknown majority agenda, to decide what's really important and what not.

Only if you consider the brute force as the way to solve all problems. Which, as Iraq and other examples show, may not be a solution at all, after all. Are we out of any better options?

There's absolutely nothing (other than conservatives's strategists dreams) that require Liberals to vote either for or against this and trigger an election nobody (other than conservatives strategists) really wants or needs. There are things in the speach that they could not with clear conscience vote for, so they can stay away from the vote or abstain. If Harper is more interested in playing political games, than governing as he should in the minority situation - which is, in dialogue and compromise with the opposition - let him continue devising tricks he's becoming famous for, with no progress on any of the real issues. I'm sure most Canadians are smart enough to see through this. Yes Liberals do appear to be in the crunch on credibility and lidership issues. They just shouldn't making it any worse by playing into Harpers majority game. Keep watching him closely, keep focus on key issues such as Afganistan, the environment and (missing) openness of this government, while trying to resolve internal issues. Let Harper show some dough before he can be trusted with the majority. Now, I'm really p/o with this GST thing. In my estimates, it saved me around $150 this year while Martin's 0.5% income tax rate cut would have done 500+. And those guys are reaping record surpluses. Why does it remind me of Mike Harris's $200 (continuos spin and pay more for less).

I agree with that, the problem is that the reality itself is a thing in a flux. E.g if 90% of CEO have "grown up" in an environment dominated by white male Yale graduates they'll probably tend to perpetrate it further down - unless given a strong incentive to change the trend. In a plain sense their view, conscious or otherwise, of a worthy candidate may include the factors (like, gender, colour, school) which in reality have little relation to the candidate's performance. Rather than wait for the natural process to take care of the outdated practices, the society may attempt to accelerate the change, there's nothing wrong with that. I tend to agree though that blunt tools, like direct participation quotas, probably do more harm than good in the long run - by, as stated, confusing the perception of the affairs. Is there a better approach - would be good to hear the examples.

Well what more can be said? - the facts are out here. Spin, blame, ignore - it won't change them one tiny bit. The most sad and ironic part is that we all know that in good time people will come to terms with the truth, will accept it, make amends and strike a fair deal. Too bad that a lot of suffering and death will have to happen before the inevitable end.

If a discussion begins with making ridicule of other people's religion, what purpose does it serve? Surely, not to establish a compromise? BTW, the example cited earlier was not just a "demand", it's yet another evidence of a persistent, slow but steady and never stopping policy of encroaching upon and taking over the other peoples land. Quite a difference, ne s'est pas? I have to agree, indeed, little wonder that any talk of peace may be taken with a (big) grain of salt by people who have observed (and experienced first hand) these policies over decades.

And while the peace talk hits the fan one more time, the land grab business goes on as usual: Globe&Main on recent confiscation of 162 acres of Palestinian land for highway.

Here, one more time, the link to BBC's extensive "in depth" analysis of the conflict, before, during and after the wars. Interestingly, the first (i.e. before) part does not appear to be very popular with some "experts" here. The world (in their view) would be so much simplier and easier to understand if less than glorious past didn't happen at all. And if the reality cannot be altered at will, the second best would be to dismiss it with a catch-all (like "historic right"). Voila, all is nice and simple again.

No, eh? Mass immigration and acquisition of land - forced creation of independent state - mass expulsion of native population - speedy recognition by the US (see above) - all never happened? Which version of history (with backup) do you want to present?

It's not OK for China to "occupy" Tibet, although the validity of the term in this particular case is less than obvious. I recall watching a documentary on Tibet couple of years back (simpathetic to the cause of Tibet) where it was acknowledged that Tibet never really assumed independence using Chinese as protection on multiple instances. I agree that indigenous population must be given a chance to decide their future for themselves. You're quite correct in putting both cases in the same context. Both involve illegal occupation and settlement of other peoples land. Both are morally reprehensible and should have no excuse. From the practical perspective, I would like to see some modern day liberator (G.Bush? T.Blair? - hello-o) to at least make a public statement on that matter. However it appears that their courage extends only as far as supremacy of their military, as their moral superiority - to starting unnecessary wars they're guaranteed to win.

Well I agree with those who say that the referendum was a major missed opportunity in this election: Lib: popular vote 41% parliament 65% Con: -- 32% -- 25% NDP: 17% -- 10% Green 8% 0% I'll divide the blame half / half between voters' apathy and general lack of interest and (far) less than adequate information and education campaign by the Lib government which came up as big beneficiary of the current system, see above.

The first step should be to expose any party that supports (with aid, technical training, etc) this (and in general context, any other) brutal regime. Consequently, attempt to make it, by any means available, to withdraw or at least reduce that support. However, I'm doubtlful that external pressure in itself, whatever side it may come from, will bring about immediate change. Like illness, these closed dictatorships (North Corea, Burma, like many others before) will have to run their course and will collapse because of internal breakdown, corruption, not because someone told them to stop. On the positive side, keeping the pressure up will definitely speed up the process.

Searching this entire thread, I failed to find anybody mentioning Palestine before you. Maybe this constant urge to relate to that sorry matter points at some hidden insecurity? Deeply buried sense of guilt? Suppressed, on the consciuos level, by rationalization - i.e. some pseudo logical explanation as to why "we" are always right (even when we look, walk, and squak like we're wrong) and, by definition, "they" - wrong.

While trying to not notice, or excuse by any means, the trauma we inflict on others? It's either (incredibly) naive, or, more likely, the politics - of victimization - a la JBG.

UNSC more like it. I've no problems with functioning organizations like WHO, or general forum to discuss current events like General Assembly. It the security / power framework that's lacking any credibility, used to legitimize some actions, and ignored when it couldn't legitimize others. In my view it's all but exhausted itself and need to be, plain and simple, disbanded.

I wouldn't get overworked about how MMP would result in a split and indecisive parliament, before taking some time to understand the system, and realizing that far from offering a fully balanced proportional representation, it only just attempts to fix to a relatively minor extent the potential imbalances between popular vote and composition of the parliament, for which FPP is so notorious. Take a simple example: if (with a considerable simplification), popular vote in every riding was split as: Party A: 40% Party B: 30% Party C: 20% And other "marginal" parties: 10% The FPP (currently used "first past the post" system) would result in this parliament: Party A: 100% Party B: 0% Party C: 0% And other "marginal" parties: 0% Note that B, C and the rest, which obtained, together, 60% of popular vote, have no representation at all. Pure proportional system will give the same representation as popular vote, ie. 40%, 30% 20% and so on, respectively. Indeed, short of rare instances where a party would capture more that 50% of popular vote, it's a continous minority situation. Now, MMP (proposed in the referendum) will give this breakdown: Party A: 70% (90 of 90 area seats + 0 of 39 party seats as they already exceeded their popular quota - out of 129 total) Party B: ~20% (0 of area seats + ~2/3 of 39 party seats) Party C: ~10% (~1/3 of 39 party seats) Other "marginal" parties: depending on the threshold rule. Note that the winner (Party A) is still way above their popular vote and the rest is significantly below, but at least they don't lose "all". Moral: MMP is nowhere close to pure proportional system. It only just balances off the disbalance of representation resulting from FPP, giving smaller parties nominal representation where they couldn't get past FFP at all. The "minority" and instability arguments simply aren't valid and mislead those who aren't aware of the details. I do agree however that opportunity to explain this to population has been very much missed. A possible and quite likely (to me, at least) explanation is that none of the first tier parties are really interested in this reform, as FFP gives them an easier way to majority.

It all comes down to that what was discussed many many times: can the world have / is it mature enough to have a stable credible and functioning international justice system. From all I can say, the clear answer is "No". Nobody is guilty of that more than somebody else, just human society as a whole not ready for that. These situations will continue to happen.

The US has just imposed sanctions on Burma. I tend to agree (with the Singapour guy) that while international community can and should condemn violent usurpent rulers through all means available, such as e..g: - limiting their power by prohibiting sales of any weapons and imposing sanctions on anything that can help them maintain power; - restricting the ability of dictators to travel outside the country; - in cases of extreme and unjustified violence, indicting the perpetrators via ICC; etc, it cannot solve the problem from the outside. Ultimately it's up to the people to dispose of their dictators. I would also like to see the standard applied consistently accross the board, not the current scapegoat / see no evil model, depending on the service you give us.