KeyStone

Israel does not mention that nukes are on the table. Given that Israel has never owned up to the fact that they have nuclear weapons, (you may remember Vanunu being abducted and imprisoned for 19 years for daring to tell the truth about Israel's lies, it is unlikely that they will come and say that explicitly. Grown-ups however, have an ability to read between the lines.

When the Canadian government does not give them the same rights and freedoms as other Canadians.

There is a pretty big difference between predicting something will happen, hoping something will happen, suggesting something will happen, and actually suggesting that you will bring this something about. I can make the following statements: Ahmadinejad will be assasinated Ahmadinejad should be assasinated Neither of these statements suggest that I intend to kill him. Israel is looking for excuses to villify Ahmadinejad, so that they continue this ridiculous double-standard of crying foul when other nations in the Middle East get nuclear weapons, and the Wester powers, are only too happy to comply with the farcical translations and interpretations.

Iran has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Arguably, Ahmadinejad has predicted, and stated what should be, but at no time has he 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map. This lie has been repeated 'ad infinitum' through the mainstream media, and through our Western politicians, but it simply is not true, and is an egregious distortion of the truth.

I think a better question would be: "Why is this one of the top stories of the day?"

They don't threaten? Have they not suggested that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran, including nukes? Is it a threat when they bulldoze a home of a Palestinian for a minor building infraction, so that they can build a palatial mansion for a Jew where the home used to be? I don't know about you, but when someone forces me from my home, destroys infrastructure necessary for basic survival, and denies me the right to earn a living for my family, I consider that a threat.

The debate is not who started what, or who is morally unblemished. The debate is which is more moral, complete annhialation, or measured responses. Given that the whole 'moral' debate is really just an attempt to defend genocide against the Palestinian people, and does not apply to any other instances, I thought I would see if anyone though that a complete obliteration of the Jews was more moral than continued persecution. As expected, no one viewed that in a moral light. Incidentally, I don't think the Palestinians were threatening anyone before they were evicted from their homeland.

Mr. Canada, you really haven't thought this through. First of all, the LCBO and the Beer Store, fall under provincial jurisdiction, not federal. More importantly, these make money. Having government hand it over to private enterprise would result in a one-time cash influx in exchange for a lifetime of lost revenue. Not a great money saver, IMHO. Next, you list the TTC. The TTC is run by the city of Toronto, not the Federal government. Surprisingly, it operates with some of the lowest contributions of any federal/provincial/state of any major transit system in North America. Yes, it does lose a lot of money, but privatizing will basically hand over a monopoly to a private corporation. How do you think that will go? Next. you list Canada Post. The problem with privatization is that the goal of the private company is to make money. Therefore, they won't have an interest in remote communities, and people in Rankin Inlet will have to pay $15 to FedEx a letter. That is just one example of the problem. You have a common theme here, which is government employees getting paid too much, which is a problem. However, the solution is not to hand it over to private enterprise, the solution, is to break these unions, and get these workers more in line with private sector wages for the jobs that they do. I don't mind a 10-25% boost over the private sector, but sometimes we are seeing double what the private sector would make for a job with that skillset. Never, never, never give control of a vital monopoly to the private sector. It never benefits anyone but the shareholders of that corporation and the politician who gets a massive kickback for arranging the deal.

I don't know if you are the original author of this, but assuming you agree with this, I am sure you agree that the Nazis were doing the humane thing by trying to exterminate the Jews? It's only those cursed inhumane allies that got in the way and allowed the Jews to continue to suffer? The problem with this reasoning, is that it assumes that never being born or being killed, is better than having a life that involves suffering and/or war. So, by extension, the genocide of a struggling people is humane, according to the very flawed logic in your above statement.

There is a common pattern in the US 'championing of democracy'. Generally, if they have good trading relationships with the country, it doesn't matter if they are a dictatorship, theocracy or communist. (see Saudi Arabia, China). If the country is veering towards socialism, it doesn't matter if they are a democracy - they are clearly not democractic enough (see Iran under Mossadegh, Venezuela under Chavez, Chile under Allende. The US has never been interested is protecting democracy, they have been interested in protecting free trade, and capitalism.

I think most of us can agree, that this particular representative of the Jewish faith, is an abominable individual. So, he has written a book that suggests there is nothing morally wrong. He is the not the first Jewish religious leader to express similar thoughts. If one were to accept his views that it is OK for Israeli Jews to kill non-Jewish children if they are likely to grow up and do harm (aka Palestinians), then it seems likely that Israeli Jews are likely to do harm to Palestinians, in which case, it seems perfectly just (by the same logic)for the Palestinians to kill Israeli children before they can do this harm as advocated by the Good Rabbi. Now, we can not blame those that have past associations with the man, prior to the book, anymore than we can blame Obama for his association with Rev. Wright prior to a few startling revelations about his views. However, given that the Jewish community both in Israel and abroad lobbies hard for hate crimes laws, and seek to punish those that say vile things about Jews, it will be interesting to see what the response will be towards this man, who would probably be jailed in Canada under our hate crimes legislation. His Rabbinical order should cast him out, but I have heard nothing of the kind so far. In fact, I have not heard of any chastisement of any kind. Unless, anyone can prove otherwise, it would seem that this published viewpoint, seems to be accepted. If his rabbinical order does not cast him out, then it would stand to reason that his order accepts his viewpoint. although it would be a stretch to suggest they endorse it. This man is a head of a religious school in the occupied territories. Should he not, at the very least be relieved of his duties? I have heard nothing of the sort? Do we not hear endless complaints about how the Palestinian children are 'brainwashed' to hate the Jews. It seems that the pendulum swings both ways. It would be very interesting if the Rabbi tried to visit Canada. Would our brave government deny him entry for his hateful opinions, and threat to national security? Or more likely, would our Liberal and Conservative sycophantic government dare not say anything, for fear that their might be a temporary breach in their otherwise continuous stream of pandering to the Jewish lobby in Canada?

Exactly. The double standard is simply astounding. One of the interesting things, if you have ever actually read the terms of the non-proliferation treaty is that the nuclear nations are supposed to help the non-nuclear nations obtain nuclear energy and technology for peaceful purposes. In fact, the nuclear nations have done everything imaginable to deny Iran nuclear capabilities of any kind. So, given that they have reneged on their part of the treaty, it is fully with Iran's rights to withdraw. This coupled with the fact that the US continues to veto resolutions such as forbidding a nuclear nation to use nukes against non-nuclear nations, as well as forbidding the development of new nuclear weapons - and yet these very same nations have the audacity to tell Iran it can't develop nuclear energy? Puh..lease.

I predict that she stays. She has done everything asked of her, from shutting down parliament for six weeks at the bequest of Mr. Harper to propping up the seal hunt. A trained seal couldn't be more obedient.

"Your model is not a true parallel. You are ignoring the fact that the rulers of Iran have repeated shouted that they will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth." You have pretty selective information sources, as well as interpretive abilities, if you're clinging to a statement given four years ago, that was misinterpreted, (and which Ahmadinejad has clarified on many occasions), as evidence that Iran wants to attack Israel with a nuke. Even if you accept the premise that he said Israel should be wiped off the map, he in no way said that Iran was going to do it. As an example, Peter Munk said recently that Hugo Chavez should be removed. That does not mean that Peter Munk needs to go to jail for threatening the life of Chavez because he neither said who should remove him, nor did he say how. "Iran has also been caught a number of times shipping large quantities of armaments to groups like Hamas in the Gaza, so that they can keep firing missiles into the residential areas of Israel." Why can they not ship armaments to Hamas? They are only terrorists in the hands of a few countries. Furthermore, Palestine has a right to defend themselves from frequent IDF incursions, do they not? And do they not need weapons do to so? It seems to me that the US and Canada have been 'caught' supplying weapons to Israel to assist them in the murder of women and children in Palestine. Does this mean that the US should not have any nuclear weapons or fuel? "So Iran repeatedly says they are going to destroy Israel, they supply and arm enemies of Israel and are working on getting nuclear weapons so that they could carry out their threats." Your flawed assertions look just as transparent when lumped together. "Someone says he's going to kill you. Right in front of you, he buys a gun. Apparently, you believe that since he has a right to have a gun you should just ignore him." No one said they were going to kill anyone. That would be a very different scenario. "You haven't convinced me with that argument and you certainly wouldn't convince the government of Israel. Given the reality of the situation they are being boxed into a position where they may feel they have no choice but to launch a first strike. The only other option is to sit there and get "wiped from the face of the earth", as Iran has promised." Quite right. Israel will do as it pleases. In our current political climate, it is very unlikely that anyone will rise to the defense of Iran, regardless of what Israel does.

"Since the Premier of Iran has many times promised publicly to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth one would think that Israel would be taking the threat as very real." That is one translation, which Ahmadinejad has denied. 'Vanish from the pages of time' does not equal nuclear holocaust. Some Arabs/Persians do not want Israel to exist as a country. Some Jews/Israelis do not want Palestine to exist as a country. There really isn't that much of a difference. To conclude that his ramblings can be seen as evidence of a nuclear threat is a huge stretch. "This same Premier keeps repeating the claim that Iran just wants nuclear reactors, even though they are sitting on oceans of cheap oil." Perhaps you can also explain why the US helped Saudi Arabia obtain nuclear technology. Are they planning to build nuclear weapons to finish the job they started on 9/11? "During all his speeches, has anyone heard any words at all intended to re-assure Israel that Iran will not nuke them? Has any one heard Iran make any offers to guarantee Israel's security?" Hahaha! That's funny. Iran who has said many times that they only want nuclear energy should be reassuring the country with a 'secret' stockpile of nuclear weapons that they don't mean them any harm? Perhaps, it is Israel and the US who should be reassuring Iran that they don't mean any harm. How about doing it with actions instead of BS? Let's look at why Iran might feel threatened, shall we? 1) UN resolution to forbid nuclear nations from using nukes against non-nuclear nations - vetoed by the US. 2) Iran listed as part of the axis of evil. 3) UN resolution to forbid development of new nuclear weapons - vetoed by the US. 4) Iraq complies with demands for inspection and disarmament result: invaded, occupied - Saddam and sons killed. 5) Iraq nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel - consequences: none. Israel gets away unscathed. "Myself, I've heard diddleysquat! What I have heard sounds like Iran can't wait to get a bomb and start throwing its weight around. It's not just Israel that's afraid. Countries like Kuwait have already learned the hard way about aggression from fellow Islamic countries." I'm not sure what assurance you expect from Ahmadinejad, other than him saying he is only building reactors for energy. Do you want him to add: "But if I were using this all as a ruse, and was actually building a nuclear weapon, I would not use it against Israel. Would that make the nation with the pile of nukes feel safer. God forbid, that Iran and those Islamic savages be on a level playing field with the Israelis. We have to assure the Israelis, that the Persians will stay in their proper place.

"In this case, you might consider that the deal was NOT for the US to supply them with the enriched uranium for their proposed nuclear reactors! It was for Russia to do the supplying." It was just an example, although I wasn't very clear. My point is that we don't know the details of why things fell apart. We can't assume that because the negotiation fell apart, Iran is at fault, and secretly wants to build nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. As for Russia, I am sure you can understand why a country would not want to be dependent on Russia for its fuel? Just ask the Ukraine what it's like. "You ARE right when you say that the West has no right to forbid Iran from developing nuclear technology. However, if Israel and other countries believe that Iran intends to develop the bomb and use it as a threat against them then they also have the right of self-defense." So, by that same logic, if Iran believes that Israel and the US is going to use their bombs as a threat against Iran, then they must surely have the right to self-defense as well. "Israel is so small that if Iran lobbed even a handful of nukes at it there would be nothing left of the country. That means a preventive first strike may be the only logical option." I see. Israel thinks Iran might attack, so they are justified in attacking. Following that logic through then, there is a real threat that Israel could attack Iran, which means of course, that Iran would be fully justified in making a preventitive first-strike against Israel. Do you really think that the fear of attack justifies an actual attack? Imagine if that was how our courts worked. "I killed him, your honour, because I saw him looking at a gun in a window, and I thought he might be thinking of buying a gun to kill me, so obviously I had to kill him out of self-defense". Do you think that would hold up in court? Don't you think your premise that killing someone because you suspect that they might try to kill you, is a bit absurd?

Circa 1937, DogonPorch sounded like this: Conditions are fine for Jews in Germany. There is no need for us to interfere.

Surprised that the West failed to offer a deal that satisfied the Iranian requirements? Not really. The entire negotiation has been incredibly one-sided, and is framed with the premise of 'We can't let crazy people get nuclear technology', in addition to the ludicrous double standard applied to Israel and other countries in the Middle East. Can you really blame Ahmadinejad for wanting the technology for their own nuclear fuel, instead of being dependent on Western powers. I mean, hundreds of people have died in plane crashes in Iran, because the US refuses to sell them the parts they need to repair their civilian planes. Is this really a nation that Iran wants to be dependent on, for building a major part of their infrastructure? Iran has every right to build nuclear technology and the West has no right to forbid them.

Up is a great movie. My wife cried watching it, which is impressive for a cartoon. The best voice, was the voice of the dog, and a big part of the success of the movie was dog lovers going out to see it, because the little talking dog was irresistable. And as for star power, this movie really didn't go for starpower to sell it. They took mostly unknowns and a few lesser known actors. It isn't one of those animations where they have Brad Pitt, and Cameron Diaz trying to draw people into the theatre to hear their voice because they lack a good plot. This is entertaining for kids and adults.

Hey Greg, it's an admirable effort. Obviously, it's a first draft, and while there are a lot of good thoughts in there, here are some critiques. 1) You can't be all things to all people. There is a reason the the Conservatives cut spending on various social programs - and that is to feed their constant tax cuts. 2) You have to balance the amount of new spending and revenue negative changes (ie cutting taxes) with increased revenue and cost reductions. While the Conservatives, often claim that a tax cut will magically make our economy boom, creating new companies and new jobs - resulting in increased government revenues - that never actually happens - in the US or Canada. 3) If you're going to make a fundamental change, that no one else is proposing (ie outlawing attack ads), think about why the current structure exists, and the possible detrimental effects of such widespread change. For instance: what would happen if parties lied year after year, and the opposition couldn't call them on it. Wouldn't that encourage all parties to make false election promises? 4) Generally, parties aren't created by people isolated from the political community that come up with policy in a think tank - they usually start with a splinter group from an established party. Before you start a new party, spend some time with an established party, get to learn the ropes, and what motivates people to contribute to a campaign. Try to find someone with poltical credibility to be the face of the party. If you don't have a great background (education or business), it's going to be very hard for you to lead. You would be better suited to being hte puppetmaster policy guy, who writes the policy but lets someone else pretend to lead.

It's hysterical to see this woman ranting about how shortsighted it was for everyone to criticize her husband when there was a hiccup in the polls. She then goes on to bemoan the lack of unity the party had when her husband was leader. Then as soon as Ignatieff has a hiccup in the polls, she brings out the knives herself. Does she not see the irony? The supporters of Ignatieff liked him for no reason other than his chance at winning. No one liked his people skills, his vision, or his record. But, the Liberal party has been filled with 'supporters' trying to broker there way back into power, whose only vision is power, not a better Canada - and they all seem to be drawn to Ignatieff. His strategy so far seems to be to come up with no policies, and simply wait for Canadians to realize how very suave and sophisticated he is, so that he can continue the entitlement of the Liberals.

You certainly have a finely tuned ability filter out any information that is inconvenient, as well as to put more stock on information that supports your pre-existing beliefs (Arabs=evil), than information that opposes your beliefs. I posted links to four widely reputable organizations that show the malnutrition in the occupied territories. The problem has become much worse since the latest incursions, largely due to intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure, a freeze on exports from the occupied territories. In response, you post a video showing that there are merchants with good in Gaza, and you choose to believe that there is no food problem in Gaza? That's just absurd. It's like saying that there are no poor in Guatemala because you have evidence that there are some nice houses, and food in the markets. No one will ever get through to you ever. You will believe whatever you want. No amount of evidence will sway your beliefs.

How about keep them out of stupid wars?

They are raising these children to be farmers (of the animal slaughtering type), so it should come as no surprise that they are teaching them a lack of compassion towards animals. The Nazis taught children a lack of compassion towards inferior races. This school appears to be teaching its children a lack of compassion towards animals. It is necessary if you want them to grow up to slaughter without remorse. Even for those with no concern for animals, they are teaching these children that if you kill something, you can get rewarded. That should disturb just about any responsible parent.