myata

Does that mean that despite President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase the US, from the Mississippi River to the Continental Divide (excepting Texas and points west of Texas) is still French? Does that mean that Alaska is still Russian? That is utter nonesense and you know it. Utter and absolutely incredible nonsense it is. Those were treaties between states. These are deals between private individuals. Now you should be able to see the difference? It's as if someone from e.g. Italy bought a cottage in NB and declared it to be italian territory. On a positive side, all hope isn't lost for the region: Olmert calls for talks with Palestinians.

There are also theories that our Solar system neighbour, Venus, was once not very unlike our Earth before it experienced that runaway greenhouse effect. Who is right? And can we afford to make gambles if the future of the planet can be at stake?

Fair and just solution must be all of it - fair and just or it won't have much chance of being accepted. I don't see why any one side should have the control of Jerusalem if the original settlement saw it divided between the parties. Anyone should be allowed to have the "ceremonial" thing but the administrative control of the city should be divided along the 1967 lines or mutually agreed modification. I just don't see how anything less than that would have any chance with the Palestinian side.

Rue, I beg to differ on that. Purchasing land in private does not change its nationality. If there were to be a "fair" allocation of land to the original Jewish population in the area, this territory could only be increased through a treaty between the state of Israel and the other state (which could but did not have to involve any purchise). Other than that, the land would remain in the Arab (would be) state no matter who is the owner. Unilateral proclamation of Israel and subsequent mass expulsion of Arab population cast huge shadow over the legitimacy of Israel's claim to its land. Anyways, the time cannot be turned back. There's now more or less "natural" delineation of borders and that is 1967 state. I'd think that formal recognition that unilateral creation of Israel contributed to the problem plus possibly, an apology and compensation to those who lost their land in the incident, plus settlement on the 1967 border (or mutually agreed modification thereof), plus international guarantees of security would make a fair place to start.

I agree that UN human rights agenda isn't very credible but for a different reason. Maybe in part, because the whole idea has been a bit premature, or too ambitious or both. Some of concepts such as e.g. political freedoms are relevant only in western societies and have little meaning in others. May be they this agenda should be limited to really fundamental and universal rights such as life, at least untill and unless there's a consensus to add other, more sophisticated rights.

We can only hope that with time people on both sides will come to inderstanding that their lives mean more than any sacred symbols. Till then, I don't have much hope for the lasting peace in the region.

Without question, there were many twists in this story and it would be over-simplification to put the blame on any one side. Just as to paint it rosy good. There was original population whose interests deserved to be provided for in the turmoil. There was large mass of people escaping the horrors of the conflict in Europe. And there were cold blooded ideologues who exploited this situation to their advantage. It's pretty clear that a resolution which would have lead to any kind of a negotiated resolution with all parties from the start would have provided a more secure and stable present for the region, even if it would have taken longer to achieve. It is also clear that this opportunity is gone. All history of the conflict shows that force will not lead to a solution, not to a lasting one in any case. The way out could be to admit (and accept responsibility for) the wrongs of the past, and to renegotiate a resolution which would have a chance to be accepted by both sides. The idea of such resolution has been floated many times - return to 1967 borders, peace treaty and international guarantee of safety. We can only hope that eventually courage will build on both sides to follow this route.

Stupidity and bigotry are anomalies.

For once, I agree with Rue that the interests of original Jewish population in the lands should be taken into account. The question is how it was done. If it can be proven that peaceful coexistence wasn't possible any longer in the certain parts of the region, separation would have been the only natural choice. BTW the above it means persistent state policies directed against the minority and not isolated incidents. A fair approach to such separation, in my view would (have been): 1. Draw the area of conflict (in which peaceful coexistence wasn't any longer possible); 2. Estimate the fair land allocation based on the proportion of the original minority population. That would of course and obviously exclude massive immigration that has occurred during British rule of the region. By all laws and principles they should not have allowed significant change in the ethnic balance of the territories under their control. 3. Negotiate the territory and bouindaries to be given to the new states based on fair principles such as: size (as per 2.), areas of concentration of ethnic population; continuity; access to water and other resources; 4. Formalize separation by a formal treaty between all newly created states. The above would have been a better and more sustainable approach. Especially, it would be much harder to promote the claims against Israel's right to exist if that right was formally declared and accepted in the treaty. That however, as someone pointed out, has little to do with the reality. As many many other imperial decisions it has created long term problems which even the almighty may not know when will solve themselves. Just another illustration and reminder that decisions based on arrogance and superiority are probably wrong.

Way to go!!! Here's the BBC story. I hope it'll make impact even if he won't go trial. The next on the agenda would be to make war a crime under jurisdiction of ICJ. That could make those benevolent enlightement crusaders spraying cluster bombs think twice before jumping on another foreign adventure.

Well, writing all capital expenditure off now (against the profit now) as opposed to 30 years later is a substantial money given the size of this investment. The tax written off by this instant amortization is the tax revenue lost is like a direct subsidy for the oil industry. The question is, does it really need this subsidy more than the same Toyota? As for environmental efficiency, the only way to make industry (ies) "care" about the environment is to associate money cost with it. That will make them want to reduce the cost i.e. reduce the polution. The relation should be positive ie. more pollution = higher cost, otherwise there's no incentive to do anything.

Your comments on #2 do make sense but #1 and 3 need further discussion. Is there a consistent federal policy to the extent which industry should qualify for the capital tax exemption and why (i.e. on which criteria)? Oil industry is already making stellar profits with the raise of price of oil. Giving them additional tax advantage w.r.t. e.g. manufacturing may create an imbalance (e.g. by inflating job growth in one sector at the expense of another). I'm not saying it is actually the case just a possibility. Another effect is the loss of the tax revenue, or, which is the same, direct federal investment in the oil industry. Is it justified, compared to other industries? On #3, I agree that environmental cost of all industries must be measured and balanced. Ideally everyone should pay their share according to the volume of pollution they create. I'll try to find some numbers on the federal govt site.

An article in a recent issue of "L'Actualite" examined the costs and benefits (for Albertans and the rest of the country) of the oilsand development. One of the readers letters from the discussion that followed caught my attention. The author is claiming that there's substantial investment in this development from the whole country, while Alberta's government has steadfastedly refused to any sharing of revenues. Federal public investment comes through these three channels: 1. 100% tax on capital investment exemption for oid industry. The cost is paid by all taxpayers of Canada; Benefits are oil industry and provinces with significant oil industry; Losers are the taxpayers in the provinces which have no significant oil industry (they pay their share of the capital tax exemption but receive no revenues from royalties or job creation); 2. Exemption for revenues generated from development of natural resources from equalization payments. The cost is paid by taxpayers of provinces that have no significant natural resources revenues. E.g. Ontario has to pay higher, per dollar of real GDP, equalization payments, than Alberta; recepient provencies with no oil revenues receive less equalization payments. Benefits provinces whose revenues are based on netural resource development; Losers are the taxpayers of provinces with non natural resource economy (e.g Ontario, Quebec) 3. Environmental cost. In particular, development of oilsands generates 3 times the greenhouse gases of the regular oil extraction methods. The cost is paid by all residents of Canada (in fact, the planet). Benefits oil industry which is under no obligation to limit or even reduce the amount of generated greenhouse gases till 2020 ? Of course, it is often claimed that there are benefits for everyone in the country through job creation and wealth redistribution. It is not clear if / how they outweigh the costs. I do not immediately subscribe to this analysis as I haven't done much research on this issue. But it seems like an interesting topic. Is the current handling of the oilsand development on the federal level fair to all provinces and taxpayers?

Without doubt, the best way to find out whether any particular country qualifies as, or graduated to being a democracy, would be to consult with yourself, or, at the least, a trusted proxy. However just in case none happen to be around, we humble ones need some guidelines which we in our simplicity can understand and interpret without the need to appeal to the lofty who may just be too busy with the matters of higher wordly order to answer our calls. Without doubt your definition is the perfect one, it's just what in our simple minds it creates more questions than it answers: e.g. kicked out by who (and what if nobody seem to be keen on "kicking out"? or has to go to the streets to kick out? or if the kicked out is replaced by another one from the same group (it's usually called oligarchy) - would it too be a democracy)? See, we would have to constantly bother you on such unworthy matters. Back to the topic though, on the second thought I agree that setting one numer as a democratic boundary is somewhat artificial. Instead there should be a band or range of "in transition", in which we'll see the countries with some democratic attributes, which are still on the way to achieving functioning and stable democracy. In my understanding, the lower boundary of this band should be around where Russia is now.

It would be interesting to rate two other countries: 1) India, 2) Russia, which are big enough to generate pretty consistent (and sufficient) media image and also should provide further insight into what this word "democracy" actually means. Criteria: 1. Responsible, competent and functional government that extends its authority over all national territories and local territories of competence; 2. Free and independent media and information system; 3. Representative and just lawmaking system; 4. Independent, competent and accessible legal system; 5. Civil society with free and independent groups and organizations watching and reporting functioning of the government; 6. Population that is educated in understanding its rights and freedoms; 7. Legitimate system of delegation of authority on all levels of government (such as e.g., free elections); 8. Independent business environment India: 1: 3, 2: 4, 3: 4, 4: 3, 5: 3, 6: 3, 7: 4, 8: 4; Overall rating: 3.5 Notes: #1: transparency; security problems in some local regions (Kashmir); #4: sporadic reports of political and/or religious interference in the legal system; #6: large part of population is uneducated; remnants of cast system; Russia: 1: 3, 2: 3, 3: 3, 4: 3, 5: 3, 6: 3, 7: 3, 8: 3; Overall rating: 3.0 Notes: #1: weak government control in certain regions (Chechnya); lack of transparency and corruption; #2: government control over main media channels; independent media suppressed via indirect means; #3: independency of legislature from administrative power; #4: administrative and political influence in the legal system; access to legal system; #5: independent political, some religious and / or NGO groups suppressed via indirect means; #6: large part of population is unducated in rights; #7: elections are influenced via indirect means; #8: government influence and/or control of business environment This is interesting because India is generally accepted as a democracy, while Russia is not. This means that the division line of between the democracies and the rest of the world lies somewhere between 3.0 and 3.5 on the democracy scale.

OK, you're a joke, right? For the sake of saving my time I'll have to ignore your posts from now on.

I agree that there should be a compromise, but why should it be about somebody's body (pun not indetended)? Should we also discuss and compromise on the shape of their nose? Size of their belly?

The proposed list of criteria: 1. Responsible, competent and functional government that extends its authority over all national territories and local territories of competence; 2. Free and independent press and information framework; 3. Representative and just lawmaking system; 4. Independent and competent legal system; 5. Civil society with free and independent groups and organizations watching and reporting functioning of the government; 6. Population that is educated in understanding its rights and freedoms; 7. Legitimate system of delegation of authority on all levels of government (such as e.g., free elections); 8. Independent business environment 9. Setting the agenda I'm not sure what exactly the last one means so it won't be rated on. Canada and China will be rated as etalons, on the scale 0 to 5, according to information available in the media. The number associated with the rating actually means a range of possible positions, e.g, "0" means bottom 10%, while 5 is top 20%. I'm not expert on either of the countries, so the rating will represent limitations of my knowledge as much as their "true" democracy standing. Still, it's worth a try. Canada: 1: 4, 2: 5, 3: 4, 4: 5, 5: 5, 6: 5, 7: 5, 8: 5; Overall rating: 4.75 Notes: #1: in my view the system of government in Canada is needing better transparency; #3: in my view, Canada would benefit from some form of proportional representation; China: 1: 3, 2: 2, 3: 3, 4: 3, 5: 2, 6: 3, 7: 2, 8: 4; Overall rating: 2.88 Notes: #1: government in China is less transparent, lack of independency and corruption are known issues; #2: China imposes severe restrictions on what information can be delivered by the media; #3: don't have much information on China's legislature but political independency is an obvious issue; #4: same as #3; #5: independent political and some religious groups are suppressed; #6: political rights of population are suppressed; #7: political and independent choices in elections are suppressed; And here's my rating for Iraq (please feel free to comment): 1: 1, 2: 3, 3: 3, 4: 3, 5: 3, 6: 3; 7: 3; 8: 3; Overall rating: 2.75 Notes: #1: Iraqi government does not have full control over the country, corruption is a known issue; #2: media dominated by government and foreign sources; #3: political and religious independency of the legislature is an issue; #4: political and religious independency of the legal system is an issue; #5: political and religious violence affects functioning of civil groups and organizations; #6: population has little education in rights; political and religious violence; #7: religious and tribal influence; violent environment; presence of foreign and local armed units; #8: unstable business environment; infrastructure problems; corruption. On the overall scale, Iraq rates below China, which is generally not considered to be a democracy. Hence, Iraq cannot be a democracy either.

Contacs like meddling in their affairs, remoivng, installing and supporting friendly governments by military force and such upset them? How strange and unusual!

OMG! Myata'a actually now going to argue that the US and Britain are not democracies whereas the Soviet Union, Cuba and China are! This is going to be rich! Just showing that your argument "elections approved by UN" is not universal and other, more objective criteria are needed. Like those listed earlier, for your perusal. I.e., to lay it out perfectly clear even for a baby: US and UK are democracies because they satisfy the criteria of democratic and civil society and not because their constitution has been approved by UN. To qualify as a democracy too, any country should satisfy the entire set of criteria for a democratic and civil society, not the few specially selected ones. Pseudo quasi "democracies" such as Afganistan or Iraq fail the very first test of being able to control their own country. Anyways, you're clearly demonstrating that you're either seriously thick, or deliberately obtusing / confusing the subject. In either sitation, further argument is pretty much useless.

Much easier approach, which would also save us much philosophical searching and self-conscious goodness would be, of course, to leave the medieval people alone in their medieval barbarity. But we are too good for this, aren't we? We'll confront them, and we'll drag them into civilization, even against their will.

There're several discussions about the prospects of democracy in the countries like Afganistan or Iraq. While revealing many interesting facts and ideas, the question of whether the regimes in such countries can be classified as democratic remains unanswered mostly due to conflicting interpretation of the term. Here's a proposal that may help establish some rational framework for such evaluation (see bradco's post, On Democracy by Robert Dahl). We can start with a set of criteria (e.g. 1441 and later posts) on which a country can be rated, e.g. on the scale 0-5 (the finer the scale, the more detailed knowledge of the country is necessary for a meaningful result). Any number of users can vote on any criteria (possibly after a brief discussion), but the extremeties on both ends are discarded. The resulting average rating is the country's score on that aspect of democracy. The sum of all scores yields its overall democracy rating. Of course, any number will be meaningless without some reference framework. To establish it, we can define a short list of "etalon" states in each region of the democracy spectrum, e.g.: - obvious dictatorship (would probably come round with 0 or close, so may not be that interesting) - not really a democracy in common understanding; - an aspiring democracy; - an established democracy (Canada!) All etalons must be accepted by consensus. By positioning the etalon states on the democracy scale (0-5!) we should be able to interpret any other countries's rating with respect to its claim to being a democracy. Anyone interested?

Yes, oops. Neither of the US or UK (as pointed out above by another user) constitutions were voted in the general vote which was approved as fair and open by UN. Keep trying to wiggle your way out, without admitting that neither formal peace of paper, nor formal going to the polls, by themselves, constitute democratic society. I certainly wouldn't believe anything from sombody who believes the Cubans, Soviets and Chinese have constitutions that were voted in with 99.9 of the popular vote (or, any vote for that matter). You can certainly believe in your own, private, alternative version of recent history. It's a free Universe. The rest is your usual BS.

Well I wouldn't qualify anything that depends on significant foreign power to sustain its life as a democracy. Such a "state" is simply would not be an independent entity, which would fail the first condition of having full control over the country's territory. I'll agree to call them "transitional" states or any other term that you would like. Once foreign power is out, and the state is able to maintain democratic institutions for some time (e.g. one year), it can be qualified on the Dahl's scale. By the way, to that scale I would also add some form of independent and free business environment. Without such, a state with many other democratic attributes would wield too much influence over individuals choices.

I would not call a law that that only allowed those exceptions 'reasonable'. It is disturbing that 45% of people actually voted for the proposition. I wonder what is next for South Dakota: a proposition to prohibit women from working outside the home and wear a burka? Exactly. I'd title the tread "A narrow victory for basic sanity" instead. Regarding the polls, one should be very careful about the question that is being asked. Individual attitude toward abortion is not the same as support for its legal prohibition.