myata

Good riddance. I'm sure we'll see you there, in the first lines of new colonization. And don't forget to bring your buddies along as well. Don't rush, take your time coming back. We'll hold it for you here.

If you wish to communicate with someone on your terms, you can ask it of them (if you find it polite of course). The guy is a public official however, and they're paid enormous $$$ to grow skin of which any elephant can only dream. They're by the way, the same people who were selling us the (in)famous "45 min threat" from Iraq along with other bbs - never losing straight face. That their sensitivity leaves them unable to talk to someone with covered face leaves me oh so emphatic. Almost to the point that I'll step up to offer standing in for them - for a fraction of reward.

This is a deeply flawed approach. There's no such thing as generally "appropriate". What is an acceptable dress on a gala night may not be the same on the nude beach. I personally would find it inappropriate to visit a bureaucrate in shorts and sandals (and socks, anyone?) but I'm sure any number of people will have no problem with that.

Now we're back to the square #1. Is it the official itself who gets to decide what is "appropriate"?

And I agree with you! 100% percent. However, .... do we have to go back and remind that the issue was with the public (not private business) official? And public official is supposed to serve all people of the country (at least, in my understanding) - not only those it considers "worthy" of its attention? In a country that does not dictate to its people what they should and should not be dressing in?

No matter what you think: is it a question is what you're comfortable other people being dressed in, or them being comfortable in their clothes? Or, to rephrase: how would you react if someone weren't entirely comfortable with e.g. your own attire?

Just stumbled on this story on BBC news: Muslim cleric condemns women not wearing hijab. It's always interesting and ironic to observe how those on the extreme ends of the argument come done to the same position (i.e, denial of personal freedom to choose). Mr. al-Hilali: "thou dost wear thine hijab!"; Mr. Straw: "no, thou donst!"

That would make sense. Not to say that certain tools cannot be added to help police investigate and prosecute specific kinds of criminal groups and organizations. But it should be done within the existing law. What's gained by creating this separate concept of "terrorism"? It looks like people who wrote these laws didn't quite undertand themselves what they meant. Or, more likely, were driven by political considerations more than logic and common sense (i.e. 9/11 bandwagon).

I thought maybe random indeterminate nature of terror attacks may deserve special consideration? But on the other hand - if we recall the case of the travelling sniper that created so much terror - no one seem to have been keen on branding it as "terrorism". It's definitely something interesting to discuss - what do we understand by "terrorism" and should it be treated (i.e. prosecuted - detection and investigation is another story) differently from the "regular" crime?

Well, there's still the intent part that sounds something like "terrorize with the intent to achieve goals" (don't have the exact quote). Which may, depending on the definition and/or interpretation include e.g. mass targeting of innocents. All in all, the issue seems to be with the definition of the crime. I tend to agree with the judge that it should avoid including vague and subjective notions of "motivation".

As reported in the press, "motivation" clause of definition of terrorism (e.g. political, religious ) has been deemed unconstitutional by a judge of Ontario Superior Court. As far as I understand it, the only remaining clause that differentiates terrorism from a "regular" crime is the intent to "terrorise". To me it makes certain sense: imagine a group that conspired to terrorise (through violent means) for the sheer fun of it (or some kind of twisted tournament or any other weird reason). In what sense would they be better than a political or religious group or organization to receive preferential treatment by the law?

This is something that can be easily testing by bringing it up in an election. No taxation and no guaranteed gevernment services. How did the Libertarian party of Canada (does it exist btw?) do in the elections last time? The above statement is incorrect because of incompleteness. People don't want taxation but they do need the benefits coming from it. So, most settle at what they deem as acceptable cost of those benefits. By the same token one could say that working is wrong because many don't like doing it (but still want benefits it provides).

I have seriouos doubts that after Iraq the mantra with "authorised force" will work anymore (or at least, for a long time). UN needs a renewal process, including improving its credibility, legitimacy and policies. That should include some kind of a solution for a standby force (or Peace Corp), authorised by a balanced and representative organ.

UN cannot and will not be better than the average of the countries of this world. To think that it can somehow "lead the way" or force better, more progressive way of life on its members is a total illusion (and, as Iraq example shows, can lead to delusion). The choice is between making it work in the world as it is now, or not to have it at all. The nations will not agree to dictate even if it's coming from benevolent "democratic" source.

I do, as long as he who makes the rules doesn't preach freedom and democracy.

Well, if anything, it's at least attempting to be fair (not very likely to happen though). It's understandable that you prefer the others to be the obedient side, but it can only work both ways.

For a security organ, it's essential (and in my view) critical for its successful mission to be be seen as "fair". Current state of affairs gives someone like Iranian president grounds to call it illegitimate and biased. Funding is only one of the issues and probably one of the easiest to solve. Fair composition, mandate and process for UNSC is far more challenging. Without going deep into specifics, in my view the special power such as veto should be distributed across the whole world, e.g.: US; EU; China; India; Pakistan; Brazil; Africa (one of countries on rotating basis or organization such OAS); probably Russia too at least in the first phase because it'll never agree to let go of the priviledge. Even if it'll make decision making process more complicated and less predictable, the benefit of perceived legitimacy will be more important in the long run.

The simple answer is, the superiority of system with equally accessible social goods (education, medical assistance, etc) is proven by evolution. We started couple of centuries ago where there barely were any public goods. Now, among the countries of the "first world" i.e. those with highest standard of living, there's barely any that do not have extensive and equitable public system. What better proof do one need?

No, there's no obligation. But there's reason. By distributing public good to everyone, we can tap on greater pool of "possibility" - a chance for a new development that will bring new benefits to the society. More restrictive ones, simply by the rule of statistics will have smaller chance. Of course, all depends on how much "public good" a society can afford. Regarding distribution of new knowledge, it does happen and every day. Just look around: the country isn't the same now as a few generations ago.

One can argue about equal opportunity w.r.t higher education. In my interpretation, the barrier is set to prevent waste of resources due to abuse, while still allowing pretty much everyone who really wants in. Even if it were to be true, it doesn't mean that the principle is wrong, only that the society is lacking the resources to implement it to the full extent. That's one way of looking at things. Another one is to discover better practices and technologies and share them with the world. Of which everyone will benefit. Just like engineers in India and China are enjoying the benefits of technologies developed elsewhere.

Here I have to disagree. Equal opportunity is more efficient in the long run than concentrating the resources on selected few. Why? Because, again, we never know beforehand who has the promise to fulfill. So limiting the pool of recipients of public good will inevitably result in less developed talent -> lower productivity -> less resources coming back into the public system. How did the idea of equal opportunity came to be in the first place? The countries which invested in universal education obtained huge technological advantage over others due to increased productivity.

From what I recall from basics of genetics studied years ago (correct me if I'm wrong), a time frame for even minor genetic change in the population should be in the order of 100 generations. So we have some breathing space before (and if) it happens.

And I can very well see why. If there was a recipe for guaranteed individual success, we'd be living in a totally different world.

Well, what I mean by "equal" is something like "everybody has the same rights to access service as deemed reasonble by the society". E.g. elementary or high school education. Not "exact same service" as it would be impossible to achieve. So as long as my kid can go to a public elementary school, there's no issue with the private ones. Simply because it (the society) has not much control over the over two factors, it'd be impractical to make any formal requirement to guarantee anything like "equal chance of success" (what radical left is dreaming about) as opposed to equal opportunity to succeed. This is not to say that it (the society) should not attempt to mitigate negative effect of the other factors, to the extent that is possible and practical.

UN is a vast organisation with wide variety of mandates some of which (e.g. WHO or Atomic agency) seem to be working well. The main issues which are also interrelated, are legitimacy of UNSC and enforcement of its decisions. UNSC in its current form is absolutely skewed toward West (3 of 5 permanent members = 60% of veto holding power representing less than 10% of this planets' population). Because of that, it's decisions are often suspected of bias and interference and have problems finding resources to enforce them. The answer - I don't know. It's very unlikely that any of the permanent members would voluntarily agree to part with the seat. And as for adding new members - the arguments can go on forever.