udawg

US was ready to use force in '73 oil crisis Ya know, I don't mind if the US wants to use force in this and other situations. I just get aggravated when they put on sheep's clothes and say it's for "the better good", rather than for "the American good". Not saying that's what they did here, but this article reminded me of it, and I felt it needed saying.

While I agree completely that the current system has its flaws, I don't really like the idea of having the minority governments and coalitions that would be the norm in another scheme. At least with a "majority" government under the current system, things get done... and they can be undone by the next government if the people don't like what they do. I'm afraid that under a different system, nothing might get done at all, and then what would we do. Voting another party to have the largest minority accomplishes nothing either, since the largest minority is just as useless as the smallest minority. I propose having a no-party system. I'm sure there are precedents, anybody familiar with them? Sort of like municipal elections, all candidates in a riding get their names on the ballot, and they can spell out their personal policies, etc. And the ballot also has the various choices for prime minister (like electing the mayor). No party allegiances, no party line to follow, each member has equal right to propose bills, etc. Members vote according to their personal beliefs on each subject (in a perfect world, the beliefs of their constituents...), and the elected Prime Minister has minimal powers involving the day-to-day operation of the Legislature. This starts to sound similar to the American system... but it seems to work for them. And I won't complain about Canada becoming too much like America, either. It's their policies that make them American after all, not their system of government.

Without reading the article, I suspect mad cow came in second? Or the war in Iraq? From a purely Canadian perspective, SARS is probably the right choice... but the war in Iraq certainly made alot of headlines too.

Good post, AF. Something I forgot in my previous post, and is quite important, in my view. Some members of this forum, indeed, many members of society, advocate life sentences for offenders, to preserve the sanctity of life. While this may be a valid argument, it simply doesn't work in real life (under our current justice system) if the goal is actually to protect the public. In Canadian justice, the longest I have heard of someone staying in prison, for a "life sentence", is about 30 or 35 years. A long time, but not their whole life. If they get out on parole, the whole idea of "life sentence" is a joke. The Crown prosecutor saying "Don't worry, you're not in danger anymore, he's in prison for life" should not console the victim and family of the victim in Canada. The parole system is flawed, where a serial rapist and killer can be set free after 15 years of "good behaviour". Of course it was good behaviour, there were no women around to assault and kill! And besides, good behaviour, professed remorse, etc, will not make a difference when a serial rapist, just released from prison, hides in a bush waiting for a women to walk by. BTW, anyone know what the re-offend rates are for various crimes, or where I can find them?

I see this as one of the biggest political crises in Canada today. It affects all parties equally, so I don't know why they don't try to do something about it. You may get bad leaders, and insane policies, but if you can get Canadian voters to the polls, there won't be a problem. If anything, reduced voter turnout is part of the reason so many crazies get into positions of power. If people turned out to vote these politicians out of office, the major parties would get the picture very quickly: the Canadian voter will not accept fanatics, bigots, and radicals in politics.

Just because he's smart and has done alot for himself, doesn't mean he'll be the best leader. I think a little time living with a single-parent, half-income family with 5 kids would do him good. He needs to understand the people he'll be leading, and the only people he probably understands are other scholars and doctors.

Although this case might be one of overreaction, I understand the sentiment behind the requirement. In a nation that, for most of its history, was predominantly Christian, requiring students to learn about other culture's traditions is to help promote acceptance and understanding of other people. The idea is to help the supposed minority fit in. And I think we can agree, most school-age children in Ontario probably know about Christmas already.

Regardless of this, there should be a stronger punishment than a state-paid ticket to old age. Brainiac: In spite of this, I think that for a murderer/rapist/other evil-doer to live another moment of life after committing a horrific crime is completely unconscionable. Especially when you consider that the worst of the worst are psychopaths anyway, and really don't care what they've done. Now... if you were to condone the beating of the offender into oblivion over and over again, for every remaining day of their life... I might accept that. Perhaps if it is a crime of passion, so to speak, the sort of offender who really DOES regret what they've done, and where the situation in which they killed someone is unlikely to ever occur again, the death penalty is not warranted. But for repeat offenders, serial rapists... hell, any rapists, serial killers, sociopaths, and other bloodsucking unproductive vermin, death is the only recourse for their actions.

Toronto Star: Lift beef ban, US pleads I hope Canada follows the US lead on this one, banning downer cows. I still don't think US beef should get the A-OK this fast, but they've taken steps in the right direction. Now all they need is more rigourous testing. As do we here in Canada.

I just hope Martin has the brains to raise our military capability to the level that would be expected of a supposed world-leader such as Canada. As much as peace is desirable, I would like a military that would hold out for longer than an hour in case of an unlikely invasion. And where the hell are those helicopters we've been promised for 10 years.

Good to have someone in control of the EU other than those Italian maniacs... [laughing] Don't see any fault with the Irish goals. Hope they can get things rolling in their short 6 months.

The difference now lies in whether one believes that land won in war, whether in defence or on the offensive, is rightfully yours. Right wing says yes, you win it, you can keep it. Left wing says, no, land should be returned to its historical owners. But you run into a problem here, because how were borders decided historically? By warfare, for the most part. So the left wing is essentially defaulting to historical right wing victories. Any left wing argument is weakened, because all land that anyone currently owns had to be WON at some point. So why shouldn't nations continue to win land.

Just a side note. There's a series of books by Orson Scott Card about some military geniuses, children bred to command the human forces in a battle against the alien attackers. Good books, all of them, not the point however. In the third book of the series, a war is set to erupt on earth, after the aliens have been defeated. For years, this outside threat has caused international differences to be set aside. Now that the threat is gone, all the countries have national interests as priorities again. Makes for good reading, if you look at the subtext, where the children have to decide between serving their birth countries and serving the interests of the world.

Wow, you sure do sound like my good friend, Dubbya. Maybe the reason that human history is plagued by violence and warfare is exactly what you call the "right side of history"... decentralization, etc. etc. The Roman Empire, if I recall, was one of the most peaceful times in history for your average citizen. Centralization... taxes... economic coersion... mainstays of the Roman Empire.

Craig, Krusty, I supported the invasion of Iraq, and I still think the US will do a better job of governing that country than Hussein ever could. Not to mention bringing a little stability to a part of the world that could use more of it. No arguments that Hussein was a brutal ruler, with no regard for human values, rights, or even life. No arguments that he needed to be removed from power, even without UN backing. Which would have been, of course, entirely ceremonial. Because the US only uses the UN as political leverage... look guys, the UN says it's okay... The United States has a long history of only doing as the United Nations decides as long as what the UN decides falls in line with US policy. The reason the UN is entirely useless today is because the member nations made it that way. If the nations of the UN actually abided by UN rules; followed the policy laid out by international...if not concensus, at least majority; the UN would actually have some global credibility, and you might see further participation by nations other than the US. The UN has long been viewed by the majority of the world as a lapdog of the USA...which it is. The United Nations has no credibility in the third world, in the middle east, or in any country outside the western world, because those nations and regions have no say in the UN. When the US or any other major western power can veto any bill coming through the UN, it completely nullifies the purpose of the UN. The western countries don't always agree, but that only serves to increase the number of issues in which a veto-power country might wish to use that power. This leaves all the little, second-rate countries of the world, who, to my understanding, were supposed to benefit from the formation of the UN, wondering how the hell the UN is different from NATO or NORAD or even the G8. They have little opportunity to present their views, and even less actual power when it comes to real decision-making time. And you wonder why nobody respects the UN. The same could be said of the States...

And just a follow-up: Do you think we should bring capital punishment to Canada? If so, are there any procedures or controls you would like to see in place to prevent wrongful convictions and similar incidents?

I'm not sure if this has been covered in a previous thread, so forgive me if it has, I didn't see it. I have to do an essay on capital punishment. With the research materials given, I have developed a technical knowledge of the subject... but the material is a little dry. What I am looking for here is some more emotional, human reactions to the debate. I started this essay with a firm belief for capital punishment. All the arguments of the critics can be brushed aside. Capital punishment does nothing to deter other offenders, in fact, states in the US that brought back CP have seen increases in violent crimes since the return. So I say, oh well, the death penalty is not meant as a deterrent, it's meant to make bad people dead. So I get to thinking. Exactly what are we accomplishing by killing the offenders? Preventing them from ever harming another human? The same thing can be accomplished by putting them in prison for the rest of their life. (No chance for parole... ever) Every time the death penalty would normally be invoked, they are simply sentenced to spend the rest of their natural life in a high security prison. But it costs money to keep a prisoner in jail for decades. I can't recall where I read this, it may have been Reader's Digest or something like it, and I honestly don't know how they came by their figures, but it worked out to show that sentencing a convict to death costs something like 10 times what it would cost to imprison the same person for the rest of their life. (I hope someone can verify/clarify/prove me wrong on this one.) Counter-intuitive, but true. And then you bring in the whole wrongful-conviction side of it, and all of a sudden I was almost convinced against capital punishment. Killing an innocent man gets really ugly with the public. (What with media hysteria over these sorts of issues.) So what is it that drives us to believe in it? My answer: it's emotionally satisfying, for everyone involved (save the convict) to see the offender put to death. The victim and/or their family get closure, the people see justice done, and everyone is happy to see an evil-doer eradicated from this earth. Am I against capital punishment? Not yet. That emotional satisfaction again. And I believe that someone who has commited atrocities on the scale of some offenders really don't deserve the air they are breathing. So I look forward to the debate on this. And maybe I can get a new perspective for that essay.

Thank you Morgan, for YOUR articulate response. And yes, it is out of self-interest... but isn't everything?

Yes Craig, CNN, but what can you do. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/1...hals/index.html France... aren't they the supposed antithesis of Americanism? And yet... they are the first to adopt this American idea... Can't wait for Craig's comments on this.

Israel's Agriculture minister announced plans to double the number of settlers on the Golan Heights today. Full article at aljazeera.net Any discussion on this? Israel says it wants to "solidify its hold over the Golan before opening any peace negotiations with Syria." ... some peace negotiations.

The problem for the USA is not so much the terrorist acts themselves, but the publicity that such acts, and the reactions of the goverment, get. The way I see it, the US cannot win the battle of popular support against Islamic terrorists: Case One: The US goes after these terrorists, the way they have, with, I believe, the full right to do, in Afghanistan. The US then fulfills the fears of the Islamic fanatics, whose entire PR campaign in the Middle East is based on the premise that the US and other Western Satans want to destroy their religion and way of life. They preach that the US wants to invade their countries, and eliminate their culture. Which, to a certain extent, is what they are now doing. Now the fanatics have a precedent. Case Two: The US does not go after the terrorists. The terrorists can strike at will, escape back to their countries, and claim victory over the Great Satan. "Look everyone, we just killed 5000 evil Americans!" They still win the PR campaign with other Muslims. The only way I see the US winning the campaign for support, is by eliminating the terrorists, then indoctrinating everyone left to believe that the fanatics were in fact terrorists, not "freedom fighters". Which they were, in fact, but not everyone understands that. This flies in the face of almost everything I believe about free will, but it's the only way I see to get rid of the terrorists and eventually please everyone. Maybe personal rights have to be suspended in the quest for the greatest good.

Great post. I was looking at it as though the people were agreed on the standard they want. If we can't agree, I suppose we can't hold anyone to that standard. You win. .... this time

Way to go Elder, getting right to the heart of the matter. Is this another case of decreasing individual rights, for the better good? [think: US terror laws] (And before Craig goes off on another anti-leftist rant, I approve of most of the procedures dealing with terror suspects.) The obvious question is, though, is banning pornography a better good? See Elder's post for my views on this.

I just think there's no point in holding our leaders to a standard that the people don't believe in. If it's a standard of the politician's choosing, it undermines the complete idea of democracy. Democracy is an idea in which representatives do what we want them to. In other words, they must meet OUR standards, not theirs.

Little nationalist minds, indeed. So much worse than any other country banding together in a time of crisis. And prove that the American cow came from Canada. The US is the one here bastardising the whole process... looking for any way to escape the blame.