myata

Sow sow right (that it can't hold it: fear, ignorance, prejudice).

Now of all the laws that were voted in not entirely free manner, is this the one most deserving our attention? Has anyone stats? And if no, why has it been brought up anyways? If not because of great love for freedom, then, maybe, just maybe, because this government does have socon roots, however strongly they may deny it?

No. The cause is JWB and his neocon circle who thought that they could rule the world.

That's (see above) one big kudo of support for Mr. Harper. Not sure he wants to be associated with the kind ... then, who can tell for certain?

It was never closed, there has never been a truly free vote. Oh, you have a truly high standard! I assume it applies to all legislation passed in the Parliament? None is final unless it had that "truly free vote", correct? Now what's your definition of the same?

Errr, hate to break it to you there certainly is a lot to be denied about a 'social conservative shadow' whatever that means. There are people in all parties opposed to SSM, so free vote on the issue should clarify it. But bringing it back and again, after it's been closed, does tell us something about this leader and this party, no?

Wrong. It's real socially conservative because: 1) it's a matter of Charter that has been decided by courts; 2) it has been discussed and voted in the Parliament; 3) it is accepted by majority of Canadians according to a number of polls. This government is using it's position of power to bring in the matter that is not on the agenda of majority of citizens. Why? Because it's concerned about socially conservative minority. Actually, it's the lamest response to well founded (see above) concerns of Canadians about socially conservative agenda of this government. There's no guessing how far it'll go should it get its majority. See 1, 2, 3 above. The lame "promise" thing is very much like holding me (for once) for an idiot. Surely is cheap excuse. ??? Stretch of imagination? And no, it'll stay on the records to clearly show which way this government will head if it had any chance of getting a majority.

Now there's no denying that social conservative shadow in the new Con party we were warned about. The lamest excuse I'm hearing a lot on the news now is the "promise": really... we didn't want it... but we made a promise ... so you've got to respect us ... for keeping it ... (and for making it in the first place). Well, if anything, the past experiences show that holding Canadians for idiots never plays out well in the end. We'll see...

Now the new Defence Sec to be admits that US is not winning Iraq: BBC story. And a fresh look at Iraqi casualties shows disturbing dynamics: BBC: Iraqi violence

Yes, and as far as I know it didn't involve leave anyone without (their own country).

Over and again. You want to fan out fear to make us believe that radical Islam wants to impose its values on us, but there isn't really any proof for that. Maybe what they really want is to be left alone in their own lands. And, when a hugely superior force just wouldn't let them (be left alone and have their way in their own land), people will resent. And resist. Some will resist violently. A fraction will go to irrational lenghts. It's really simple. Leave them alone. For at least as long as you've been meddling. And if, after that, they're still coming after you, you'd have a case. Before then, 0.

Can beliefs be discussed from rational and logical perspective? It kind of defeats the purpose.

Afganistan no win? I don't know who you're talking to, but it'll be a huge win with most I know. The environment agenda too. Yes it's early and no one can predict how it'll play out, but these are the numbers as of now. As the article says, majority of Canadians are willing to give Dion a chance. It's up to him and the party to make it (or break it).

Now a warning from Kofi Anand about the way Iraq situation can develop: CBC story.. Same question once again: should not the people who started the mess be held responsible for the direct result of their actions?

Dion needs to get up to speed in the West but with his strong environmental agenda (unlike Cons 2020+) and Harper's insistence (which almost looks like an obsession) on bringing in moral issues like SSM, he has a good shot at kicking Cons a..s come the election. He has to work hard to get there, but he's just shown it (working hard) is something he can do. I'm looking forward to seeing him in the campaign.

That's btw my problem with the Cons approach to "accountability". Even more controls and supervision may stall already underperforming PS completely. I already heard complains about extensive meaningless supervision from people who work in PS. Someone has to understand that as long as delivering the result is not required, the safest possible way of action for a bureaucrat is to do nothing. The real solution to accountability lies in 1) recording information (performance, results, expenses); and 2) making it available, i.e., what is called "transparency". As far as I can tell, it's not one of this government's priorities.

Depends on how far back you want to go. There were also executions of heretics, forced conversions and extermination of entire "barbaric" civilizations. By common sense of society I mean people, at least the majority of population, rejecting extreme (or militant) ideologies of all kinds by a) setting strict limits on their activities, and, more importantly, refusing to support such in their private choices.

Is "none of the above" still a valid option? BTW I think it's the common sense of the society, not the nature of the "militant" ideology that keeps things in balance. If Christian militancy were allowed to have its way, we'll have all kind of outdated practices and beliefs rammed down our throats. Like no birth control; mandatory attendance of Sunday service to keep your job; and so on.

Maybe supervision (accounting and managerial) is only a part of the solution. A greater issue, in my view, is the disconnect between the well being of such unit and the results it delivers. If direct market exposure is impossible here, maybe, it should be simulated? E.g. the monolith public service can be broken up into smaller independent funding units each with its own set of objectives (for the year) and budget. These will report to managers and so on, up the chain. Cases of overspending and/or underperformance would have less chance of being lost in the mass, and people in the units would have better incentive to report cases of abuse.

We had Radvansky, Stewart, this time its the Ontario's Childrens Aid society: CBC report. What (if anything) can be done to ensure that PS delivers value for money for the taxpayers?

That's right, I wonder if it'd do good to simply disband the UNSC structure (which, as was rightfully pointed out hasn't been very successful anyways - I mean when there's a need to act there's no will, and when there's a will(ing), they wouldn't bother about getting formal permission anyways). All projects will then be done on ad hoc and consensus basis.

A side by side comparison with bodycounts from botched democratic experiments (Vietnam; death squadrons in Central America; Iran's shah; Chile; and recently, Iraq) may not be a favourite one; even that is not the point. The point is, it would do a lot of good to our (i.e, "West") credibility in the world to drop the moral superiority complex and the desire to teach and guide all and everyone (on which we, sadly, cannot deliver anyways) and let the other people live the way they used, desire and able to. We can then focus our efforts on solving problems one at a time and on consensus. Just think of savings (in life and resources) such a policy would yield, in just few instances like Vietnam, Iraq and possibly (and quite likely) 9/11.

Actually, Rue, I think we're saying the same thing: that boundaries in the region cannot be set based on the rights of land ownership alone and should have been decided by compromise and mutual agreement. It's the only way it can be worked out into a lasting solution that is acceptable to all living in the area.

On and on it goes. I think it is more then simply the majority of countries aren't doing what the US or Canada wants. Its a question of having no vision-no reason to exist-no role to play in preventing terrorism and promoting peace-allowing itself to be compromised so it just pays lip service to the environment or AIDS. Or, that the agenda established by those same five dominant nations and their allies after WWII is by far too much self centered and self serving and fails to meet needs of most members. Maybe UN should be like a village meeting point - no central authority or power, all projects are created by consensus based on need and voluntary participation. I wonder, if such a UN would have made, in close to 50 years, greater progress than what we have now.

I'm sure man-made emissions weren't the cause there my friend. And how can you be so sure? Do you have first hand information? The result can be the same though, at least according to some scientists (I read it, I believe, on the BBC Science & Nature site). Can we afford at this point in time to take bets with the side that suits our preferences and keep fingers crossed for the better?