marcinmoka

Tell this to the Chinese. Or nationalized such as with Yukos/Rosneft While I do find the interference, expropriation, and intense vendettas launched against the oligarchs to be disturbing and rather unjust, I also can't deny that they were needed. Had their energy reserves been strictly in private hands, Russia would be pathetically weak. Same goes for UABC, which was in dire need of consolidation to prevent Russia from losing so much military bite. *I am not saying Putin is the ideal, as he is far from it. But while some of you look to all alternatives as resulting in 'shiny, happy, outcomes were the masses of Russians are singing Kumbaya and roasting kartoshki on an open fire while voting freely (and ironically, masses would still be pro-Putin), I see things from a much more skeptical point of view. I believe things could get worse, SIGNIFICANTLY worse had there been a recreation of the power vacuum in the post- dissolution years. And those outcomes need to be avoided at almost any cost, rather than naively wishing for some imaginary ideal state of things.

Is it? How does one not just gain, but maintain power without some stability? And to what end? Putin and his KGB/FSB co. hardly seem the type to yearn for power for purely megalomaniacal, selfish ends (though I am not to certain about Ivanov). As a Canadian and one with family contacts in the region, I would prefer some form of stability rather than the unabashed highest bidder-take-all kleptocracy in a nation which has both 10,000 + active warheads and is so strategically vital to a relative peace in the world. Sadly, that kind of view doesn't win me friends on campus.

a. How do we know it was the tabulation of votes? b. Would United Russia not have won regardless? Maybe not by the margin they did, but they could've probably forseen a majority regardless. Granted, for many, especially amongst the idealists in the west, it is a matter of principle. For most Russians, it's a matter of stability.

What would be the point? Feelings of inadequacy? Sure the U.S is not perfect though no one is and yet they come closer than most. Not to mention we hold a (very) mutually beneficial relationship. Maybe to your (wishful/naive thinking), we should form a strategic alliance with Algeria, perhaps China? No doubt they would be just as generous in offering economic partnerships, military protection, not to mention their bang up job as leaders in domains such as human rights, scientific advancement, etc. Well, unless you prefer to follow the isolationist course of our good friend Krazy Kim in the good ol' "D"PRK. Lemme just take a stab in the dark. You are a 18-22 yr old kid who is close to finishing his/her first semester in college, enrolled in either a polisci, philosophy and/or literary theory class and feel enlightened after having read a quick chapter about Adorno's neo-marxist analysis of contemporary society, and are in the midst of demonstrating the de rigeur youthful display of rebelliousness against the 'evil' and 'unfair' establishment, i.e that same establishment which provides the security and prosperity you enjoy today while you wrote your 40 posts in one day, rather than hauling bags of subsistence crops on your shoulders.

Ex-patriot, or expatriate?

Not to take away from the massive advancements on the American side, but while I despise the doings of the Soviet Union, I nonetheless do respect their scientific advancements and their embrace of fundamental research. While they lacked the financial resources, they had one thing going for them, and that was the shortage of funds prompted a great deal of ingenuity. There is a great deal of truth in the KISS principle. Not to mention that both sides post war programs were given a tremendous boost by 'appropriating' (paychecks and amnesty on the American side, threat of death on the Soviet one) Nazi era primary research. In principle, yes I agree. In practice, its not necessarily a bad idea to keep quiet on the nuclear issue. The U.S and it's allies maintain a sophisticated, credible deterant despite all that is being said and done. By keeping mum on the issue, you at least minimize the risk of the issue being skewed and used for fear mongering by the media, and political pressures which would ensue. The media sensilization seems more of key threat to maintaining a suitable deterant force.

I would argue that this has always happened to some extent, but not nearly as reported. As per the frequency, scope and 'recreational' violence? I wish I had some valid data, although (and all the + 30 ladies correct me if I'm wrong), violence amongst female populations seems to be hitting unprecedented highs, encroaching into what was once considered normal 'boy-ish' behavior. As per the causes? Hmmm....many factors at play, such as those mentioned, although I also do suspect a role in the adoption of "progressive" (I would say regressive) ideas in parenting, where notions of punishment are deemed archaic and counter-productive, and parents think even the worst behaviors can be reasoned with. Good luck.. I think Russel Peters had some valid points in this little .

Reminds me of scene from "Les Invasions Barbares", by Dennis Arkand, where a group of intellectuals sit around, discussing the plethora of "bonafide" causes and intellectual movements they took up, one of which, was communism....that is, until the apparition of Sholtzenitzyn's work which painted the socialist experiment in a less than flattering depiction. Only than, did they move on to the next intello' flavour of the week. ------------------------------ I must admit, I still am quite curious.

Is it......yes. But as with all rights, there are duties. A right for one individual correlates to a duty for another to respect said right, and so on.

Wrong. Socialists often do have money. The only folks who have time to complain about the evils of money are the ones who have it. Whereas I grew up dirt poor, and the question of 'money' was always a basic question of 'survival', whereas had I ignored it it would've only been to my detriment. ----- As per the rest of your post, um, I don't quite get the point. Lost in translation perhaps?

Is it? I don't believe that 'respect' necessarily (although it may, depending on context) requires some level of admiration, rather it is simply treating others with some level of dignity, but defining dignity just opens another can of semantic worms. Afterall, I can respect your right to privacy without you having to earn it, just as I respect strangers on the street by not cutting them off. A social abstraction.....

Unfortunately, greater transparency on the surface will only serve to push that which they wish to hide further from sight, and that is too risky.

WOW!!!! I can hardly belief some of the things being said. And equally as shocking, that such a pitiful Wah'habist pawn hails from Jersey (in fact, right on JBG's doorstep).

Closest - Nice, France (hopefully where I will retire ), which would either place me in griminess of Cagnes-sur-Mer or the opulence of St. Jean Cap Ferrat. Furthest....placing the Seychelles near Fiji. Ouch.

11....and the priceless realization that I know far too little about Africa despite learning my E.S.L from a decades worth of National Geographic.

Whatever floats your boat. Granted, It would be funny to expect a full patch Nomad to be slangin' joints outside of the UQAM station, Eaton's Center or a local high school. The sheer logistics involved in the macro supply side, rather than some worthless anecdotal evidence. And it is true that numbers can be inflated in order to pursue and agenda, so for that reason let us put a very conservative estimate; that only 70% of Canadian marijuana production heads south, and since you said: I guess that just means there are a lot of cross border trips being made by independent mom and pop grow houses, selling dime bag by dime bag.

Well you didn't discriminate when you used the 'blanket all' sentence : My take on the issue, if marijuana is to be prohibited in the first place (forget idealism for the sake of argument, law is law is law) is too widely used, too easily grown, and not enough of a social nuisance to be worthy of significant judicial and police resources which could otherwise be allocated to other more pertinent (see meth/crack/smack/date rape drugs + hillbilly heroin a.k.a misused painkillers) issues. And from what I've seen, many police do in fact follow this line of reasoning and pursue the more major social nuisances, and rightly so. The down side to this approach is that production has become fairly consolidated and concentrated in the hands of powerful and dangerous criminal organizations (pseudo triads, bikers, etc) and these groups musn't be taken lightly. However, since many smaller dealers are simply let to run free without fear of prosecution, it is much harder to work your way up the distribution pyramid and get to those who are a genuine menace to society. This in turn, increases incentives to enter said business, but unlike the regulated world of legitimate business, competition here generally translates into violence, rather than paperwork for the accountant in the mergers & acquisitions dept.

Granted, so is the sale of handguns! Though in support of your argument, I guess that the bulk of crystal meth or heroine users are otherwise responsible individuals who only use recreationally with friends and family, or social gatherings, go to "gourmet meth tasting" events or organize bicycle tours of Afghanistan's beautiful opium growing regions and chateaux (...Riyads????).

Good point. Far too often there are kids for whom run-ins with the Police mean nothing, and even worse, are almost a badge of honour, as one kid tries to demonstrate how 'tough/fearless' (a.k.a stupid) they are to their peers. Sadly, many on the left incessantly claim the need for nothing more than counselling and being given a 'second chance', which could work for some, but is just plain naive when they are . given this 'second chance' their fourth or fifth time around. As per drug offences, while I sort of agree (especially in regards to those dealing with harder substances, and driving intoxicated), they government should focus more on those involved in violence and theft, seeing as those seem to be better indicators of future tendencies (and also frequently stem from involvement with harder narcotics).

Wow, a discussing radical Islam being headed by a title evoking Socialism, Fascism. Not bad. Next time, you should go for a record, something like Gay Socialists and their Maoist Zionist Anti-democratic Hippy Fascist followers while discussing Pro - Teletubby Islamo-Sheikh Anarchy. ------------------------ On to more serious issues; While I agree that normally this would've been a shocking/tragic development (and a veritable blow to democracy), one cannot assume this unless you know all the bases. Who knows, perhaps the reason the police were upset was not that investigation per se, but the fact that some over zealous nosy reporter was poking around where they should not be and risked upsetting some already present (and probably far more in depth) Scotland Yard/MI5 investigation. By publicizing a fact, you risk pushing certain elements under ground and out of sight for those who actually have the capacity to rectify a very dangerous situation. And we all know that out of sight is not necessarily out of mind, especially when dealing with hell bent radicals.

Bon apetit! Granted, numbers can be easily ramped up to convey an agenda, I doubt anyone would disagree with that. As per Americans; I've met countless Americans, and yet apart from some crackhead at a Greyhound station in Detroit yelling at me to repent/asking for change, I am yet to meet any overt 'in your face' Christian Pentacostals/Baptists. Granted, on a drive through Ohio or Pennsylvania, the barn yard inscriptions of "Jesus Saves" start to loose their novelty quite quickly, but quickly fade to memory when one encounters a New Yorker or two. Whether they are atheists? Who cares. Let them practice their faith if they do it in peace. The real issue is whether they are secular, and I think on that level, they fare quite well.

Pro : The Hippy/NDP/Caviar Gauche/"I'm not a communist, I am a socialist" bloc can keep dreaming. Pro : No faith based funding, and even better, judging by the disastrous impact it had this time around, the conservatives, or liberals won't dare make the same folly any time in the near future. ---------- Con : General political apathy and the worst turnout ever.

Which God? The concepts of 'logic' and 'jihad' should never (supportingly) be used in the same sentence. Heck, I believe no concept of pertaining to divinity should be used as such, but that is just my own humble opinion.

A while back, there was a study published stating that religious folk place greater emphasis on values (or at least the WORDS expressing them) such as compassion, honesty, etc. As a result, posters on the G&M started reciting "told you so" and claiming that a distancing from faith will precipitate the fall of our nation, until someone else brought up an interesting point, that on a GLOBAL SCALE, the most secular nations (i.e North Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the U.S) were also the ones who who in PRACTICE valued education the most, were the least corrupt, and in general, had the most freedoms, as opposed to the obvious quasi theocratic states such as Saudi Arabia (despite considerable wealth). Granted, you cannot compare Saudi Arabia with our own society, but even than, I would prefer doing business in relatively secular Germany or the U.K than corrupt catholic Italy or Poland. And to pre-empt those who will try to radicalize my position, religion can be a good thing, and most often is. But I find it to be most beneficial on the individual level.

As per my likings: McCain. The only republican candidate with credible diplomatic skills, a solid military background and usually not afraid to go against the minorities representing deeply vested interests which are often irrelevant to the majority of voters. It just happens to be a shame he doesn't stand a chance in hell, as his age (and wisdom) is considered more a liability than an asset. As per the Dems....meh, I don't mind Hillary [much to the anger of the 'Clintons are the AntiChrist(s) crowd]. From a practical standpoint, I would much rather see Hillary in the Oval Office than than an Edwards type figure, no? ------ Ideals aside, it will be Guiliani vs. Clinton.....and who will win.....time will tell.