myata

Well you used the word - "terrorist" and it's you who has to give some evidence and/or explanations now. I'm afraid rhethorics and calling names won't suffice to bail you out. If Castro is a "terrorist" because he's sending military aid and advising friendlies (note: at their request, not forcefully liberating them) then the US (and possibly many others) are as much in the league, if not more. If you meant something else here's your chance to clarify it - before your credibility drops to ground level. Oh yeah Castro is a dictator and is guilty of suppressing his peoples freedoms. That does not make him a terrorist still - unless you have something to prove otherwise.

... and so onYou're wasting your talents here, Borg. With a crystal ball like yours you should be advising the President where and when their next foreign misadventure would happen. Then, if they'd only listen...

No need to answer that one, as you already did all the work. You can call anyone any name you like. Of course, it's all relative to who and where you are and have little (if any) meaning for others.

It (Energuide) may have been improved - a valid question from CBC reporter to which CPC minister mumbled some vague explanations - why cancel it and reinstate a few months later, rather than improve it?? Or did they counted on memory span of average Canadian lasting less than 6 months? What it really looks like is that the Boss said "we need an environmenal plan to get our majority" and that is what his loyal ministers could come up with on a short notice. Not much, but better than nothing (or even negative, given cancellation of Liberal programs) compared to their earlier attitutudes to the issue.

Didn't US sent their military adivsers to any number of brutal regimes, you surely will brand them "terrorist" on that ? Or is it a one-way street?

I don't see how this can be of much use, because it's based on perception rather than objective appraisal of situation. Some people are paranoid and live in permanent fear that they would be assaulted. Would it qualify them as being abused? Then, others may simulate fear for personal gain. What I see of more value is better education in recongnizing troublesome or abusive relationships (whichever side is the main cause if there's one), leaving such relationships and staying away from them. Then of course, unprovoked sexual violence is a totally different situation. I don't know of any people around me who would condone or downplay such acts. It's an issue of policing and prosecution. I'm not aware of many cases of "slap on the wrist" sentencing for serious sexual assaults.

The issue is not of transcendental moral (who's ultimately good and who's evil) but of practicality. A peaceful or stable world cannot be built of entities which trust themselves to be the forces of universal goodness while everybody else is at best second standard, at in the worst, the evil incarnate. On the other hand, stability, if not universal trust and love and understanding, can be achieved if countries first applied same standards as they want the others to abide by, to themselves.

And those will be ... ? Let's get down to specifics, details, rather than engaging in endless pointless discussions like "shouldn't we all be happy and love each other and have whatever we want without having (ever) to work"? Do you have any particular episode in mind? Idea or a proposal?

Is there a particular example of a "slap on the wrist" sentencing for real, violent crime that you have in mind (and wanted to discuss)? Otherwise it falls in the category of those broad rhethorical issues that are darlings of the left because they very obviously have no absolute resolution. Violence existed in the world long before humans came about and will probably hang on long after. If and how it can be mitigated depends very much on the specifics of the individual situation. There's no (and will never be) a common simple answer to all cases.

The US was in the fore front of space weapons development with its now (in)famous Star Wars program. Now it's looks like it's causing them grave concern when someone else is trying to follow in their tracks: Yahoo story. Yet another case of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" which seem to have become a motto of american international policy?

In the words of your own quote, the God let his followers to make and execute the judgement. They can't be any clearer. BTW unwillingness of the official church to deal with these kind of messages from old texts is a bit concerning, to me at least. Sure, we're living in a different age, shouldn't take it literally and so on. Until and unless ...

Well in the interpretation known to me, the parable illustrates the future reign of Christ following second coming (people who waste their time on earth on unworthy things - as opposed to investing into their future salvation - will be harshly punished). I didn't quite remember the "slaughter" part, but it appears that in the context of this interpretation, the original post does have a point, i.e., would the "slaughter", in literal or parable terms, be a necessary prerequisite (or attribute) of the second coming?

True, and the pattern isn't unique to Iraq, compare: Afganistan: links to warlords opposing Taleban; Palestine: support Fatah against Hamaz; Sudan: provisional government against Islamic Courts; The list can go on. Now if the faction US was betting against happens to win (the only question I would ask is, whether US support for the opponents actually makes it more likely to win), it's hard to expect it to be very friendly to them. This simple equation may explain many unhappy episodes which would otherwise have to involve notions like "war on terror", "civilization against barbarians", "conflict lasting generations" and like.

I just like the title of this BBC story: US warns Iran on Iraq meddling . It appears that this US administration thinks that some on this planet are better suited (and entitled) to meddling in others affairs than those others. Let's see how the meddling actually paid back over the post WWII (please add more examples if necessary): - Meddling in Vietnam: 60,000 americans dead, pullout from the region for several decades; - Meddling in Iran: raise of Iranian hard Ismalist regime, loss of influence in the country; - Meddling in Afganistan: raise of Taleban, later Taleban led insurgency partially responsible for 9/11 and more american casualties following the invasion; - Meddling in Saudi Arabia: one of the drivers for Al Qaeda popularity; - Meddling in Iraq: over 3,000 americans dead; billions (if not trillions by now) wasted; And so on. These of course are only direct american losses that can be traced to a particular meddling episode; it does not account in any way for the losses and casualties of the affected population. So, does meddling really pay off in the longer run?

Yes corporation can be viewed as a living entity doing exact same thing as everybody else i.e. surviving by perfecting their competitive edge. And? Let's just remember that unlike leftie mandatory paradise for workers and peasants, no one is forced to work for corportation if that is not that they'd like to do. Also, what would happen to our love for cars, cell phones and other toys which are too complicated to be made by free associations of workers, if corporations weren't there to pick up the slack?

The best way to deal with oppressive regimes is the same as we deal with violent crime: with slow but certain prosecution of individuals responsible. ICC mandate should be extended to prosecute all cases of crime on mass or international scale. This mandate should, of course, include prosecution of initiators of illegal wars.

There's a difference between acting in one's interest and acting in narrow interest. The second is more likely than not be counter to one's long term interests. Of course, what constitutes "true interest" is open to interpretation and has no absolute definition.

I can only agree with that. Checks and balances are necessary part of a functioning democracy.

Exactly. Eventually it'll start hurting and the wrong policy will have to be changed (along with the government that promoted it) - democratically. Understand, that imperfect as it is, the alternative is to give the control to a minority - which almost always means selected small group of people, which, as history shows, would almost certainly screw up big one way or another.

A natural limit to this scenario will be the ability of the government to deliver on such a program (and the economy to support it).

Sorry to break it to you... but you surely understand, we're still living in a democracy? So the opinion of "baby boomers" should and will count in proportion to their numbers. All previous attempts to force feed goody ideas to people against their will ended miserably.

And again, everyone (or at least, great majority here) seem to agree that would be a good thing to do. The big question is "How". That's one area where left is so lacking (and wanting) and one reason why NDP will be in power no sooner than the second coming. They like to point out problems that someone else has to fix, while they would wallow in goodness and brotherly love. Same for the child poverty, etc.

Bravo! "I screwed up, you pay up".

That's true. From practical perspective, calling for this kind of reform would cost too much (in votes) for any party to attempt, without some dire reason that would justify it.

OK, OAS and CPP do seem to be different things (all the things you can learn here!), thanks for the nudge to check it out. CPP being a contribution scheme, it is (a defined benefit, but I kind of agree that OAS should be linked to income. Maybe with federal surpluses rolling in, things aren't as bad just yet? Still, even if these funds were switched 100% to welfare system, it isn't clear how it would advance the cause of poor children. It's quite obvious that direct welfare payments are on average at level with the current state of economy. Some, perhaps, can be invested into development and councelling programes but those must be specific to the need (functional and local). I doubt there's a "magic bullet" solution (and I'm not sure we've even defined the problem in the first place).