myata

From CBC radio this morning, in a recent poll 58% of Ontarians favoured merging public and Catholic school boards creating a single public education system in the province (couldn't find a link on short search, will try later). Is it time to end publicly funded religious education in this province?

Story: BBC. Well, I'm not sure that given his role in creating the Iraq mess he'll have enrough credibity to make a positive contribution to fixing the old one. On the good side, it may emphasize Britain's (and West in general) part of responsibility in settling this other hot spot that originated in the times of colonial administration.

That's funny indeed. Worthy of getting into the annals of the forum. On the serious side, here's the map of British Empire. See that some places are (or recently were) the hottest conflict spots on this planet: Middle East; Northern Ireland; South Africa. Very few of those where the native population regained full power are real functioning democracies. There is simply no evidence that colonization was anything more than a quest to plunder other people's resources while alleviating domestic issues (overpopulation, unemployment). It's nothing to glorify or be proud about.

Huge life loss was caused by religous fanatics as well as atheist ones (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer Rouge). Branding each others views as erroneous and fit for "elimination" is a sure way to follow in their track, no matter which side one thinks themselves to be on. Maybe, the solution lies in eliminating war, rather than each other's "erroneous" beliefs?

Coincidence with what? All of Africal was under colonial occupation and only very few countries have successfully adopted the system of their colonizers. With a success rate like a few % (single digits out of some 50), it sounds like, you right, more or less a coincidence.

In 1934 they probably had no notion that there was such thing as "voting". I'm talking about great majority of people of South Africa. You?

No it's not forthcoming. Too bad, I was hoping for a revelation. Like, all those silly people in South Africa, or India, or hundreds of other places on this planet, should just had voted the colonials out, instead of going though the painful decades long struggle. Simply the lack of democratic education, I know. Well, it's a very interesting discourse into the alternate history, but I've got to go. Best luck living in whatever anti-haze (and being taken seriously at that).

I guess from that we can safely assume that concrete evidence that countries under colonial occupation were "functioning democracies" isn't forthcoming. No wonder that in so many of those "functioning" democracies it took "democratized" years of bloody struggle and many lives to get rid of the colonial "raj"s and such.

You didn't provide any "counterexamples" other than the ones I addressed. Scattergun statements like "Africa had functioning democracy" aren't counterexamples; not even respectable statements; they're just your say. And I have no wish to go through every one of them until you can demonstrate that they have some resemblance to reality.

With illegal settlements spread over and cutting through the territory (map), complete with exclusive roads and road blocks which increased in numbers while presumably "peaceful" accord was in place? Why would anybody call it "total and absolute" control, I wonder? In the same way that africans were one time "given the opportunity" to build their bantustans "free from interference"?

No, simply logical. Democracy = power of people which is quite hard to achieve if the real power belongs to somebody else. surely everybody should just take your expert advice instead? I think you may be in confusion about the meaning of "democracy" vs "colonial" (see #1). Who holds the power and who gives the orders? Quite rightly so. Because they never had been given a chance to establish one, under continous and oppressive occupation.

You mean, this "British Raj" (wikipedia)? Doesn't mention much about democracy, functioning or otherwise. One can argue another time, whether Germany has become a functioning democracy while under occupation. I concede that Japan could be the one exception to the rule, but such are far and wide in between. In any case, in both Germany and Japan cases, the occupying powers were interested to see the occupied nation recover with a strong national identity. Which seem to be opposite to the cause of Israel in the occupied Palestine. So the statement stands: the main problem of Palestine is the illegal occupation.

I agree with someone I heard on CBC radio this morning: for anyone serioulsy interested in seeing democracy and peace in Palestine and the region in general, the priorities must be: 1. End the illegal occupation; 2. Assist people who spent at least two generations under illegal occupation build a functioning state. Not the other way around. And until this happens all talk about "peace efforts" is just hot air. There're many independent states that failed to create or maintain functioning democracy. I know of none that succeded while being occupied. It's another oxymoron, in the line of "installed democracy" or "forced liberation".

If you want my 2c, I'd be a bit concerned about that cruelty aspect. You know, taking pleasure in their suffering and death (as opposed to e.g. your satisfaction and life): Nothing to be alarmed about, but a check wouldn't hurt.

maybe, seeing a doctor? (If that's your casual attitude to primitive lifeforms)

Why would I do that? It's you who mentioned it, in the same context with the crabs. In the way that's reminiscent of something very nasty ... Hitlerjugend maybe? Anyways, about crabs - the point is, do you have to gloat while boiling it alive? What if they do actually feel pain when boiled? Or are you an expert in that subject area as well?

OK, I give up. No, one last try: look yourself up in the mirror. Now imagine yourself, with the same uncompromising power of self righteousness, except firmly grounded in Islam, Hindu or any other religion of your choice. Now, attempt to pursuade your (other) self in the benefits of progress, evolution and atheism. Please report the result here.

Or maybe they're simply very, very nice people and didn't want to disappoint anybody on either side?

Well, it's quite a normal situation, only in the quantum world: Shroedinger's cat. As usual, those Americans are lightyears ahead.

My, it must be really hard to realize that: 1) there could be someone else who does not think exactly like you; 2) that you cannot pursuade them to think like you, and they can't make you think like them; 3) that because of the above you either accept that you both are right in at least some way or declare each other anathema; 4) with all the obvious consequences... Keep trying.

I find problem not with eating shellfish, but with that gloating impregnable assuredness that "we" are so above that miserable creature that the very idea that perhaps it could feel pain - like us, lofty ones - causes us nothing but indignant grunt accompanied by greasy munchy reflections. We've seen it somethere and not with crabs. See how easily we make transition from crabs to foreign looking youths. A thing I'd really like to see is this: the author of the OP transplanted to some alternate spacetime where those crabs achieve average size of, say to be fair, their own. I wonder if they'd still preserve that gut and presence of spirit they need to deal with it in their plate now.

This should definitely be one of the (many) approaches to the problem: Star story. No matter personal issues, real or induced, the cost of this behaviour should be reasonably high to make at least some who are capable of reasoning to perhaps seek better options in their lives. Not the only approach by far. But the society should send a clear and persistent message that that kind of violent behaviour will not be tolerated.

Funding of who and by whom? Perhaps some evidence of that? There was a way to manage this legally via international institutions as it was done for awhile. US strategy to force military invasion, bypassing international security institutions and international law, only exacerbated the matters. Now if only there was any evidence of that. Or maybe it's OK with you if someone's house was bombed by the police on a suspicion of "possible" drug "acquisions and/or attempts"? Or maybe the chosen strategy of interference and supporting one fraction against another was wrong?

I'm starting to have second thoughs. Really. After all the history of direct and second hand meddling, and all the blowbacks it brought back (pun not intended), one would think it's time to stop and rethink. Bring in fresh policies and approaches. Build credibility and trust. Mean (and do) what you say. But no. Here's from the recent list only: arming Shia against Sunnies (Sunnies against Sunnies) in Iraq; Fatah against Hamaz in Palestine; Ethiopia against Islamic Courts in Somalia; helping regimes in Uzbekistan and Pakistan; etc, feel free to add. I mean it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the strategy isn't working (examples: Palestine; war on terror). Results in creating new and greater problems than the original one. Without solving the original problem in the first place. Could it be just so to stay a "challenge on the intellectual side"? Or something stronger than that, like an interest? I dunno. Generally, I'm not an adept of global conspiracies and such. But it's starting to look less convincing as simple "miscalculations" or "bungled strategies".

I'm not sure that this old tired card: "what's good for me shouldn't be allowed to you" will play out any longer. It's too obvious, too old and too tired.