segnosaur

You're right... there are a lot of people in the U.S. who are jailed (probably unnecessarily) over the possession of small amounts of pot. Is it a "dumb" idea to do so? Probably. But much of the discussion has not centered around such victimless crimes; the discussion has centered around crimes such as murder, assault, and robbery. The U.S. does have a much higher homicide rate than the U.S., but when you look at other crimes (rape, assault, break and entry, etc.) some of their statistics are actually lower than those in Canada. If the issue is "do harsher prison sentences protect innocent people", the answer might be yes (if you are just comparing the U.S. and Canadian systems.)

Yes there is. But the question about what to do with individuals caught fighting in the war has been a long standing concern. In a "traditional" war you would hold any combatants until the end of hostilities. However, the "war on terror" is a bit trickier; you can't hold individuals indefinitely, so some legal frame work has to be in place for those you find fighting against you. Another thing to keep in mind: Kadhr (and his family, if I remember correctly) were not citizens of Afghanistan, nor were they fighting on behalf of a recognized Afghan government. As such, their actions were more criminal than military. He was a teenager. Most countries in the world do have some sort of "dividing line" when a person is subject to the "adult" justice system (as opposed to the juvenile system), but the U.S. (as well as Canada) does allow individuals considered below the age of majority to be subject to the adult court system, depending on the age of the accused, seriousness of the crime, and maturity of the individual. Many people would consider 15 to be "old enough" to understand the seriousness of actions that can cause the deaths of others.

Yes, a chance. Edney was a lawyer representing Kadhr. I would expect him to paint his client in the best possible light.

Keep in mind that that $3000 would have been an average. As others have pointed out, some might have seen a very substantial reduction (e.g. seniors, those with families, people doing renovations.) I myself (as a single person with no dependents) saw very little reduction in my taxes. (While I am a bit annoyed about that, before I condemn the conservatives I have to consider the alternatives. Some of the policies proposed by the Liberals in previous elections might have actually cost me money.)

Keep in mind that a "website poll" is not scientific. They don't do a full sampling of the entire population, and often only people who feel particularly strongly about an issue will answer. That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with the polling results, nor am I suggesting I want Kadhr returned to Canada. Only that there is reason to be skeptical about this particular poll. Prior to the guilty plea there was a roughly even split between those who wanted him returned to Canada and those who felt he should remain subject to the US justice system. The 'guilty' plea may cause a drop in the number of people supporting bringing him back, but until we see a proper poll we can't really say. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/32812/omar_khadr_trial_still_splits_canadians/ Edited to add: Personally, I'm very curious about the terms of his plea agreement, and the details he goes into regarding his place in the deaths in Afghanistan. There is a chance that he wasn't directly involved but only plead guilty to reduce his sentence.

The US refuses to deal with North Korea outside of the 6 party talks of the US, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and North Korea. No UN involved. Ummm... You DO realize that it was North Korea that was insisting on direct talks with the U.S. back in 2003? Of course, given your rather, ahem, limited knowledge of world history/politics, I guess its understandable that you didn't know this. (After all, you are the one who thinks Kofi Anan had an iron-man suit that he used to stop the war in Bosnia. Or something like that.) http://www.simonbaker.me/2/hi/asia-pacific/2604437.stm Of course, you were thinking logically, you might wonder "If the UN is so wonderful, then why aren't all parties talking through the UN"? Why did North Korea demand direct talks? Heck, why didn't the IAEA (you know the UN agency involved with nuclear issues) stop them before they obtained nuclear weapons? Why didn't the Security Council actually take real action if sanctions are ineffective?

Ummm... you do realize that I actually pointed out that some inspectors were "kicked out" (ordered to leave) by Iraq. Ummmmm... while it might be inaccurate to say "inspectors were kicked out" (well, except for the ones that were kicked out, which you seem to be ignoring), the fact that they: A: were prevented from doing their job, and B: were not permitted back in the country as per the U.N. mandate is a rather significant point. Remember, we're not debating the fine points of Iraq weapons inspections here (in which case I would have been more specific in my statements). We're talking about an off-hand statement about the U.N. and its ability to enforce "peace and good will".

Ummm... Both North Korea and Cuba are both members of the United Nations. Both are dictatorships that supress human rights. So.... how does "talking through the United Nations" actually work now? North Korea is also "involved with" the the IAEA. Well, they were... but they expelled inspectors.

You're right... technically it was the UN that withdrew the inspectors. However, it basically did so after years of non-compliance by Iraq. The Iraqi government, for example: - Regularly refused admittance to various buildings (for example, the Ministry of Agriculture in 1992) - Dictated who could and could not be on inspection teams - Blocked the use of helicopters by UN inspection teams in some areas (e.g. in 1991) Basically they were preventing them from doing their job, as mandated by the UN. So while they may be physically there, they were often nothing more than tourists. Oh, and by the way, did you know that at one point, Iraq did kick out some of the inspectors? (Basically the ones from the U.S., even though they were mandated by the U.N. to be there.) From: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02 (in 1997)....Iraq, perhaps bolstered by the evident rift in the Security Council, announces it will not deal at all with U.S. weapons inspectors, orders them to leave the country... (Note: although the source is from a magazine which is not well known, the same information appears in other sources, suhch as the NY Times.)

Here's a suggestion... go back and read my earlier posting. I pointed out that Canada is not necessarily reducing our aid... we're giving basically the same amount as we were before (and much more than Portugal does). We have just focused our aid... giving more money to fewer countries, in an attempt to do the most good. Now, that means that we're giving more to places like Ethiopia who need it more and less to countries with, well, less need. Now that may mean some countries get cut out, but our goal should be to help as much as we can, not support the greed of some nations who may be upset that they're not getting their cut. Oh, and by the way, this 'refocusing' of Canadian aid was originally proposed under Paul Martin (although he never really followed through on it.) So, if the Liberals were in power, those nations may still have been upset with us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/23/cida-foreignaid.html As for the UNRW, as I've said before, we have not decreased our aid. We're just giving the money directly to projects that help Palestinians, rather than dumping it in the UNRW pot. http://www.thestar.com/living/article/750917--canada-redirects-funding-for-un-relief-agency I see... so not only are you accepting unsupported anecdotes as evidence, you are also blindly accepting statements made by an MP from an opposition party, who benefit whenever the conservative party looks bad. Not true. Treaties formulated at the UN go back for ratification. They become international law. Most nations vigorously enforce international law. Only the very public breaches really become public. Hence the false theory that the UN does nothing. Ummm.... resolutions that have no real "power" behind them are not "binding" (even if they are called that). The UN security council passed several binding resolutions against Saddam, on things such as support of terrorism. Result of those resolutions? Not a darn thing. No "automatic mechanism" kicked in to stop Saddam from supporting suicide bombers. And at one point Saddam threw out the IAEA inspectors. And Sudan expelled many UN aid workers. Membership in the U.N. does not guarantee that a country will automatically the activities of those workers within its borders. Uhhh, if you didn't notice, the only actual example you cited which is actually corruption is oil for food. And it was shut down. Proves my point. I see.... so you don't consider the hiring of people who want to kill Israeli children as "corruption". So, what exactly do you consider it as? Oh and while I'm at it, what exactly do you consider the UN sex scandal to be? (You know, the one where UN peacekeepers were involved in prostitution, some with underage girls.) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article405213.ece Then there's the problem of sexual harrasement... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124233350385520879.html But then, I'm sure you'll find something else to label these as. Do you consider any of those activities as "acceptable"? Which, of course, did absolutely nothing to change the situation. Ummm... first of all, the fact that member states can block the use of the term "genocide" (even as millions get slaughtered) shows how useless the U.N. is. And even if the UN does manage to declare something "genocide", it has no mechanism to automatically stop it. Like I said, it's not a perfect institution. I'm not the one holding it up to an impossible standard. Ah I get it, its "praisworthy" except when its not. But its OK, because its an impossible standard to expect it to actually be able to do something in specific cases. International aid can either be done bilaterally (i.e. direct aid/programs), or through organizations such as the Red Cross. Peacekeeping/Peacemaking can be done through organizations such as NATO, or the EU, or OAS, or other regional organizations. (Oh, and before you start claiming "oh, those organizations are useless", keep in mind that if the UN did not exist, then member countries would have more incentive to support those alternative organizations. As I pointed out, organizations like the WHO can be independent organizations. After all, there is no need to tie them to the UN. They can continue to have 'universal' membership. Most of the other activities can be done through bilateral or multilateral diplomacy. No need for the nation of Togo to care what happens during discussions between nations that it has no contact with on issues that do not impact it. Which is not exactly evidence of the usefullness of the UN. Russia has veto power in the UN. Even if every other country in the UN wanted to stop the genocide, as long as Russia was against it nothing could be done. I think that's your problem. You don't realize that good wishes, empty rhetoric and the like are ineffective. What is important is action. The UN failed to act. Maybe you think Kofi Annan managed to use prayer to stop the genocide. Or maybe he had a metal suit that could fly and he went there himself to personally stop the genocide. Or maybe that's the plot from Iron man.

First of all, your link is broken. It should be: ETA: Never mind, I noticed you fixed the problem in your original post Secondly, its not always easy to compare homicide rates at different points in time. A lot of things were happening around the time that the death penalty was eliminated... for example, there was the baby boom generation (born between the late 50s and mid-60s). Many of those individuals were reaching adulthood around the time capital punishment was abolished, and younger adults are those most likely to engage in crime.

A couple of problems with that particular idea: - Even though the labor that the criminal is doing helps "pay back society", such activity will require supervision, probably by individuals who will get paid more than the value of the work the convict is doing. Its like throwing good money after bad. The better solution would be to keep individual criminals isolated in their cells for the length of their sentence... while "society" would loose out on the value of that individual's labor, it would also reduce incarceration costs. - I have doubts that our judicial system would allow such forced labor and/or austere working conditions. (I also doubt the death penalty would be allowed either, not without amendments to our constitution, but that's another issue.) Remember, our courts have stated that prisoners have the right to vote; I doubt it will be a stretch for them to also enforce rules about living conditions.

Um, no it doesn't. It takes an examination of various facts... For example: - Canada has decided to focus its aid, concentrating on a smaller number of poorer African nations and/or in Latin america (the idea being we can do more by giving a larger chunk to the more needy nations.) This may have caused some African nations (who were previous recipients of aid) to vote against us. It didn't necessarily mean we were giving less, just to a smaller number of countries. That's not "ignoring its roll" (yet by some reports some African nations campaigned against us because of that.) - Canada has decided to reduce its funding of UNRWA, instead we are giving money directly to specific projects. Again, that's not "ignoring our roll". We're still giving roughly the same amount of money - Canada is in a diplimatic "spat" with the UAE over airline routes. Does your version of fulfilling our "international roll" involve giving in to any demands from foreign governments? Oh, and by the way, while we're at it: Canada gives roughly 0.3% of our GDP to foreign aid. Portugal only 0.18%. (And they have a smaller GDP so the total amounts are less too.) Does that sound like we're "ignoring our international role"? Because the country who has been conducting the largest military options refused to go through the UN because they wouldn't sanction their illegal war. Ummm.... you DO realize that most of the work the UN does is "non binding" as well? And even when it does pass "binding" resolutions (like several of those against Sadam's Iraq) they get routinely ignored. We still haven't really seen much value in what it does. What you're also leaving out is they'd function just as well. So what's the point. That being the only upside, and it isn't one, what about the downsides? Moving those organizations as independent and presumably privately run, there's absolutely no indepedent oversight to stop corruption when it happens again. Corruption happened in the UN but it was cleaned up. I guarantee you there aren't any resources to stop it otherwise. Bull cr*p. Corruption happens on a very regular basis at the U.N. - UN cultural conferences widely viewed as antisemitic - Oil for food scandal - UNRWA hiring people with ties to terrorist groups - Despotic countries heading up human rights commissions So tell me, given the fact that these types of problems happen regularly, why exactly should we expect that they have "cleaned up"? Actually, no... they could have debated / presented their case anywhere in the world. Uh, no... there is no such "binding". I hate to use Wikipedia, but since its a historic event, it should be safe. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council because the war was opposed by permanent members with ties to Yugoslavia, in particular Russia, who had threatened to veto any resolution authorizing force. Lot of good that did... not only was Vietnam ravaged by a war, but when "peace" was made, the North subsequently ignored its provisions and took over the south. Yah UN. Not really. You might think its working, but pretty much everything could be accomplished without it. Uh, no... it wasn't sanctioned by the UN.

Actually, it seems pretty straight forward to me... Lets say you have a security officer earning $500/day. As part of the summit, there's an extra expense of lets say $100/day (overtime, housing, etc.) Note that I just made up the numbers for illustrative purposes. Now, when you try to determine summit costs, how much do you assume that officer 'costs'? One way is to assume he costs $600 (salary+expenses). On the other hand, you could assume that the officer was already on the government's payroll and you'd be paying them regardless, and so the cost for the summit is only the $100 (the costs directly related to them working at the summit.) So, 2 different ways of accounting for the costs. Both are accurate in a way, but one value is 6 times higher than another. When you compare summit costs, you have to make sure you're using the same methodology.... are you comparing actual costs, or just the 'added expenses' associated with the summit.

The fact that we're "received badly" may be more the fault of the other countries, rather than Canada. I doubt anybody will ever know for sure why Canada failed in its bid to become a member of the security council. But your characterization that its somehow a fault/flaw of the Conservative government at this point seems rather baseless. Actually, every government in the world is run by people concerned more with "domestic political gain". Actually, no they haven't. They may have changed some of their policies (as every party has the right to do), but they are still involved in "international relations". Ummm... do you really think countries actually care about attendance? No there isn't. NATO is a military alliance... Yes its primarily a military alliance. But in recent years its been much more effective than the United Nations at handling international problems. Actually, its quite a bit more than that. Although it is focused on North America, it does involve substatial integration of U.S. and Canadian forces for mutual protection. In my previous post, I also forgot to mention groups like the G8/G20, EU, OAS, and many other large scale organizations. Although the focus of these nations is narrower than the UN, they can be quite effective. Yes, there are parts of the U.N. which are useful (such as the WHO)... however, such parts could easily function as independent organizations outside of the U.N. umbrella. Actually, much of the defusing of the Cuban missile crisis occurred through things like one on one meetings, personal notes, etc. The U.N. didn't really play a big part in ending the crisis (other than perhaps agreeing to verify the removal of the missiles, although I suspect the U.S. would have done its own independent verification.) Up, and they stopped the massacre in Rwanda. Er, wait... no they didn't. But at least they stopped the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Er, wait, they didn't do that either. At least vietnam wasn't ravaged by war. Oops. Think that was more due to NATO actions than the UN.

and your link says.... not sure what you are trying to show from that Well, first of all I thought it was pretty obvious... I was trying to show that the Ontario government was involved in at least some of the decision making regarding the conference. If you want to blame the (federal) conservatives, you should also be prepared to blame the (provincial) liberals. All of the claims that the Liberals are somehow superior fiscal managers should be seen in that light. Secondly, the reason for the different costs is because the $1.9 million was for a complete pavilion, of which the "fake lake" was just a small part. Media attending the summit required some facilities for reporting on the events. Now, there were certain items that were set up in order to put Canada in a good light (the fake lake, wide and food tastings, etc.) The costs of these items might be seen as "marketing".

But as I have pointed out, it may be a case where Canada is just reporting the numbers differently. For example, from: http://www.canadiansecuritymag.com/Top-Stories/Expert-defends-G20-security-spend.html Some have suggested that the U.S. government did not disclose the true costs of the G20 and that Canadian officials have chosen to be completely transparent. For example, intelligence services provided by CSIS are included in the cost, but other countries have not necessarily included those services in their final tally.

Ummm... perhaps because many of the security personnel would have been stationed outside the hotel, and would have needed infrastructure? Your right... because whenever you have the leaders of the free world show up, you want to have them stay at the local Econolodge. Maybe the next time Obama visits Canada we can find a hotel that has an hourly rate. I can lend them my Honda Civic for use in the motorcade. You see, some of us believe in a thing called skepticism. That means you actually base your opinions on this little thing called evidence. At this point, I have not seen evidence suggesting that either the money was well spent, or was wasted. So far all I have are the expenses of previous Canadian summits, which, like I said, fall roughly in line with what was spend in the summer. I know its not as much fun as starting with a premise (i.e. "The government is wasteful") and specifically searching out evidence to support that predefined assumption.

I see. You believe, therefore its true. You'll have to excuse me if I am a little skeptical when you base everything on beliefs. At this point you have provided no evidence that the same company was given both jobs, and even if it did, that it wasn't the lowest cost bid to begin with. But as long as you have your beliefs, well, color me unconvinced. You know, to be honest, I have no idea. However, the thing is, I doubt you do either. I've never actually organized a large scale event like this. I can imagine they would have needed some facilities like tents for basic things like first aid, food, etc. (And having everything outside would be risky in the event of bad weather.) There were a lot of security personnel, so the needed infrastructure would be large. Until someone can point out specific reasons why the tents were not needed, then the only thing we can do is question whether the bidding processes used in the acquisition were done fairly.

Possibly. Or possibly not... From: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/822478--g20-summit-why-face-time-still-matters As part of her doctoral research, Maggie Wenjing Liu studied the effectiveness of face-to-face meetings compared with video conferencing and even situations where people were in the same room but sitting back-to-back, unable to see each other. She found that face-to-face meetings were more effective in producing tangible outcomes and can’t be replaced by technology. ... Geoffrey Leonardelli, a professor at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, agrees that meeting in person produces a sense of a shared mission that’s hard to replicate over the phone. Which of course would make it significantly more difficult to reach any sort of large group consensus if it has to be "built up" from smaller groups. Oh, and what about the time that would be wasted having our leaders running around meeting in small groups, rather than in a single large meeting?

First of all, perhaps the most important part of your post is the use of the phrase "will be"... the French summit hasn't occurred yet, so there's no guarantee what the final costs will be. More importantly though, there may be differences in the way the countries account for spending. For example, holding a summit in a more populous country may reduce costs if they have better security infrastructure in place already (e.g. more military bases in the area of the summit). Furthermore, some countries may count all personnel costs as "summit costs", as opposed to just overtime costs.

The second entry in that lists specifies that it was done through a competitive bid process. If you think $800k was too much for that particular bid, then why exactly do you think other companies weren't lined up to charge much less? Or do you have any proof that the bid was somehow rigged?

If you have specific accusations for misspending fine, lets here some details. Like, where it occurred, what the government's rational was for spending it, and exactly how much money we're talking. As I pointed out before, the "fake lake" was such a tiny cost in proportion to the rest of the summit that it can hardly be blamed for the price tag.

Ah yes, the famous fake lake. The one that actually cost $57,000, or to put it in perspective, less than 0.006% of the summit costs. Heck, I wish all government projects only wasted 0.006% of their budget. So what exactly do you think happened to the other 99.994% of the summit costs? I suppose you think the summit would have been free if they had just forced all news reporters to use blank rooms with the walls painted white. Oh, by the way, just so you know, the Pavilion where that "fake lake" was located was actually jointly funded by both the federal and provincial (Liberal) governments. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/819841--g20-media-centre-with-fake-lake-to-cost-1-9m

I wouldn't say its a bargain or a waste. Its just the cost of doing business in a global environment where such meetings between leaders are necessary. Perhaps we should wait until we actually get reports pointing to specific areas that the government overspent. When Canada last hosted the G8 summit, we spent around $200 million. While that was less than the more recent G8/G20 summit, it also A: ran shorter, and B: involved fewer countries overall. If you look at things on a per-guest basis (adjusting for inflation) the costs are really not too far out of line with the previous summit. The only alternative is to withdraw from organizations such as the G20, but since those organizations are rather influential it would likely be detrimental to do so.