Machjo

The constituents of Calgary West should count themselves lucky to have so many MPs representing their riding. Can't say the same for most other Conservative constituencies.

That's the problem with Harper; he doesn't know how to separate the two in his head. in his mind, he's always representing the CPC.

I didn't know that, but thanks for the info. Then Ignatieff has been clever enough to not have let me get wind of it so far. I'll keep an eye peeled.

Wow, now that's a real mind-twister when we consider that many First Nations reject Canadian citizenship.

Sorry to break this to you, but the definition of 'Canadian' is a legal definition to me. By the way, I had an interesting conversation today. I'd gone to the Assembly of First Nations headquarters today (there are advantages to living in Ottawa) to get some information on a particular topic. Anyway, while we were taling, she'd comented at how the current Conservative government is trying to pressure the First Nations to accept Canadian citizenship, but that the First Nations will never accept it. Was I surprised by this statement? In part. I was surprised at how so directly she worded it, not holding back any words or trying to soften it up a little. I wasn't surprised at the comment per se seince, even though I don't have any close First Nations friends anymore, I used to, and had heard such comments before, just not so directly from a member of the SFN. Honestly, I still don't know exactly what she meant, since I was there for another matter and so didn't push this particular matter (and she'd mentioned she was busy too). Clearly, when the original people to whom this land belonged reject Canadian citizenship, it certainly raises questions about whether being Canadian really is nothing more than a legal definition foisted upon us. I have to say though that I'd be very curious to see the stats on this. What percentage of Canada's First Nations continue today to deny reject Canadian citizenship. I'd love to see the stats on that.

You're right. They're not. But I don't see why they couldn't be in some cases, such as Canada's ambassador to the UN, at least to some degree.

Just Google it. Or look at the video. There are plenty of articles on the issue. The interpretors are fumbling. Now, as for co-operation between Iran and us, what about the alliance between the USSR and us in WWII? What was the difference there? Iran thought the Taliban too extreme! Iran is sick and tired of Opium entering its borders. Rehab is expensive and the governemnt has to foot the bill. Most Iranians and about half of Afghans speak Persian (Farsi and Dari are about as different as British Englsih from American English, so we might as well call them one language). They share the same religion (sect, maybe not, but same religion anyway). As for trusting diplomats, they are also chosen in part for their language skills, so we can be sure we know what we're agreeing to. And we wouldn't be talking of some long-term alliance, but just a marriage of convenience like the USSR in WWII. And an alliance is not the same as mercenaries. The Soviets were not mercenaries. They were there for their own intersts too. As for Iran's interests, no, they are different formours, but compatible in many ways. They still found the Taliban too extreme, and so would still bring Afghanistan in the right direction at much lower cost (they're next door, similar culture, etc.). And besides, let's face it, just last month a democratically elected governemnt was talking about taking away women's rights, and yet our governmetns could do nothing because it was a democratically elected government. Iran would not change Afghanistan much, but would still bring about the objectives of the mission (to remove the Taliban to then search for Bin Laden, whom the Iranians dislike too by the way, as did Saddam Hussain, oddly enough). Politics and prejudices aside, a co-alition with Iran would have been a briliant idea. No, Iran's got problems without adoubt. And after the war, certainly we'd be back each on our side of the fence, but who knows, maybe some goodwill could come out of it.

That was also a technical war on both sides. Large organized armies fighting each other along clearly defined battle lines. In Vietnam, The Anglo-Afghan war, the Soviet-Afghan war, we are dealing with guerilla wars, where the battle lines are not so clearly deliniated, where even the enemy is not always clearly defined, etc. In such cases, there is constant interaction on the ground, requiring constant communication to figure out what's going on and who's who. That's very different from WWII's mechanized wars.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think an elected ambassador would be more democratic.

Yes. But since I'm not convinced that the Government always represents the will of Parliament, and thus the will of the people, giving Parliament the power to vote for the ambassador would give it an additional means of ensuring that the Government represent the will of Parliament, and thus of the people, on the international stage.

So if our neighbour commits a wrong, that excuses us to do likewise? Should we start sacrificing people too then?

The Canadian ambassador gets a vote at the UN General Assembly on resolutions of symbolic importance. And if the Government is determined by Parliament, then it shouldn't bother the Government that Canada's ambassador should be electec by Parliament too, right? After all, if Parliament determines the Government and the Ambassador, then it's reasonable to suppose that they'll speak with one voice, no?

So if he represents the Government of Canada, which comprises a handful of MPs from specific ridings, then what voice do Canadians living outside those ridings have at the UN? Is that democracy? That's why we need to change this and ensure that parliament elects Canada's ambassador to the Un, who would then have to represent the will of Parliament, not just the Cabinet. That would be a highly effective way to limit excessive power concentrated in a few hand while at the same time improving our democracy.

I fully agree to the hypocricy of having stormed onto the continent musket in hand and forcing the locals to learn our languages, and now telling immigrants to learn our language too.

And of course since Parliament comprises MP representing the will of the people, then representing the will of Parliament would be an indirect way of representing the will of the people.

Then looking at it that way, seeing that they are elected by their constituents and not the party, then they should vote according to the wishes of the constituents. usig the same parallel, then the Canadian ambassador to the UN, elected by Parliament, would be representing the will of Parliament, not the PM.

And MPs are representing their constituents. So is it silly that they're free to vote their conscience too?

And let's scrap the Senate.

Good points here. I think this could be a solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

I would also not mind having the PM and Ministers with portfolios be elected by Parliament too.

One thing I would love to see would be to have the Canadian ambassador to the UN elected by Parliament, and given the freedom to vote his own conscience at the UN General Assembly. It would be democratic in that he would be elected by people who'd have been elected themselves. It would also allow Parliament to focus on federal issues while the Canadian ambassador to the UN could worry about UN issues, thus taking some responsibility off the shoulders of Parliament there.

Thanks. Indeed, even in the more benign environments, communication is essential to accomplish anything. But in a war environment, where hearts and minds campaigns may be cruicial, communicaiton can mean the difference between success and failure.

I see nothing in here in favour of any particular economic system, be it capitalist, socialist, or whatever. He sems to be makins a simple ethical comment that could apply within the context of any economic framework.

This is not unique to Canada and the US. I'd heard of many court cases in China between international businessmen owing to misunderstandings of the English-language contract. And then there's no guarantee that the interpretors in the Chinese courts know English well either. It's a mess the world over.

Perhaps. Hey, I'm not perfect either. So what was your point? I didn't get it, so I might need a more direct pointer. Thanks.