Gabriel

Anyone feel like posting links to figuring out how this formula works? I found this link to the governmental (MoF) website discussing this stuff. I'll be back later. I don't really know the first thing about this whole equalization thing. I imagine I'm not gonna like this program once I learn more about it, though.

Although BC isn't qualifying for equalization payments this year, I think its contribution to these payments is minuscule.

Ontario is a recipient in 2009-2010, though. Apparently it's the first year Ontario is on the receiving end.

You're greatly overstating the SCOC's "agreement" with you. We've already covered that the SCOC's decision is primarily concerned with Khadr's lack of having access to a lawyer when questioned by Canadian officials as well as his status as a minor during the time of his capture. I'm not seeing any language in the court decisions regarding his unfortunate family upbringing. Why is it you always avoid pertinent points or questions in my posts? Don't bother answering... I know why.

I watched one minute of the video and turned it off. It's offensive. Parroting the same garbage about "proportionality". Apparently the Jewish death toll was high enough to bring about a sense of equilibrium for this organization claiming to desire "justice" in Israel and the Palestinian territories. As an aside, does anyone else find it hilarious when warped organizations give themselves names that don't reflect reality? This organization, "Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East" are only concerned with the welfare of Palestinians. They don't care about peace or justice, and certainly don't care about any part of the Middle East aside from the Palestinian territories. If organizations like this want to be taken seriously, they need to turn up their honesty gauges. Another funny side note, when reviewing their "research papers", they have this funny banner of images at the top that seems so out-of-place. From a picture of Netanyahu, to Obama, to a military fighter jet. Check it out, it's hilarious. Link to a random pointless article that perhaps two people have read.

Just because the FC mentioned sleep deprivation doesn't mean they qualify it as torture or abuse. I found that portion of the ruling unclear. Perhaps it was inappropriate to use sleep deprivation based on Khadr's age? Perhaps the FC was suggesting the sleep deprivation constitutes mistreatment/abuse/torture. I, and many others, reject that idea if that's what's being suggested by the FC and SCOC. Bear in mind that the reports on Omar's condition, as well as the video, do not indicate any signs of abuse. CSIS officials reported that Omar was fully cognisant of what was going on and didn't display any signs of extreme fatigue that would be compatible with suggestions that he was subjected to torture via sleep deprivation. What's your opinion - do you believe that being put on the "frequent flyer program" constitutes torture? Remember that the program means that he is never permitted to have more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep by being moved from location to location (cell to cell). I'm certain he still clocked in at least six hours of sleep or more per day. This went on for a few weeks. Are you such a wimp that you would describe that as torture?

My first impression of this place was terrible. The very first post I made on this board was an inquiry of the members of how they felt the political left in Canada exploited anti-Americanism for political gain. I was immediately greeted with some serious hostility. I remember a user named "charter rights" calling for me to immediately be banned, suggesting I was some Harper operative. I was shocked! I've never been greeted with such immediate hostility on any online forum! Of course it's been generally uphill from there. Cheers

There's no doubt that Khadr is extremely unlucky to be born into a family such as his. How do we determine how much, if any, slack to afford him, though? Do you think Khadr has renounced his actions or the ideology he was brought up with? Hardly. There's also something to be said for balancing society's need for protection with an individual's need for compassion. Assume that a person is made into a monster largely as the result of circumstances beyond his or her control. Let's assume that his or her family and overall upbringing shaped him or her into a monster beyond a reasonable hope or rehabilitation. Does the need for compassion override society's need to protect itself from such a monster? In all seriousness, I believe wholeheartedly that society needs to be protected from animals like Omar Khadr. It's most likely too late for him. He may have become a different person under different circumstances, but he is what he is and he needs to be dealt with. Would you let your children spend time with him? Would you want to work with him? Let's be serious for a moment and not philosophical, naive, or idealistic. Lastly, of course I will concede that I do not know Omar Khadr personally. Canadian officials did describe him as "salvageable" and "a good kid". Still, I think society needs much more than those statements as assurances that he should be afforded any slack at all. IMO, the onus is on the bleeding hearts to prove that any slack afforded to him isn't irresponsibly putting the rest of us at risk.

*cut* Wow. Come on, Shady, for everyone's benefit including your own, make a commitment to stop using that term. You gotta admit that's kinda hypocritical of you to criticize Emanuel for using a term that seems to be at the forefront of your vernacular. I think we can all have a good laugh about this one.

Ya, CFRA has a vibe about it calling for less government and less regulation, generally speaking. At least most of the commentators can be safely described as sitting to the right of the Canadian middle. And yeah, John Counsel is pretty out there. Rabbi Bulka has a show on Sunday, he's pretty cool.

Hey there waldo, As Army Guy has said, the court's decision never mentions torture or mistreatment. It's clear the court is concerned with Khadr not being treated differently (or, more softly) due to his age at the time of his arrest and with him being deprived of access to legal counsel when being investigated. Furthermore, the information yielded from CSIS' interviews with Khadr were shared with American officials and are likely to contribute to Khadr's continuing detention. Not one mention of torture or abuse. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding what is and isn't torture. In the case of Omar Khadr, however, there doesn't seem to be much legal agreement that Khadr was indeed abused or mistreated. As I stated earlier, the best support one may have regarding his or her opinion that Khadr was indeed tortured is the Obama administration's decision to cease the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized during the Bush Administration - which included the specific sleep deprivation techniques used on Khadr.

It's right here, "...These are Amnesty International’s key demands on Gilad Shalit’s case, based on his status as a prisoner of war." Please read the article before commenting further. AI *clearly* states that Shalit's status is a POW. No such description is extended to the Palestinian prisoners or to Omar Khadr. Omr Khadr is regularly referred to as a "child soldier" by AI in many (if not all) of their information regarding him. I'm talking about the disparity between how AI reports on Shalit and Khadr, and to a lesser extent between Shalit and Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. You're indicating that AI has made equal calls for treatment towards Shalit and the Palestinian prisoners with respect the visits from the ICRC and family members. Yes, they do. As I've already stated, Israel did permit many visitations in many circumstances until September 2008. Israel also does not torture its prisoners and has facilities that operate under standard legal accountabilities. Do you think there is a similar legal mechanism among the terrorists? Israel is much more compliant with all sorts of standards of human rights and legal freedoms than Gaza. No acknowledgement of this is made by AI, obviously. Reading the article, you'd get the impression that Hamas is some sort of legitimate political entity. Peter, READ the article. AI attaches the label of POW to Shalit, and not to Khadr or the Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. One again, here is the exact language from the article, "These are Amnesty International’s key demands on Gilad Shalit’s case, based on his status as a prisoner of war. What I am suggesting is very clear - that attaching the label of "POW" to Shalit legitimizes his abduction. In other words, Shalit wasn't abducted, but was captured in a war. Aside from the legalities, this was done during relative peacetime at a southern Gaza/Israel crossing. There is legitimacy extended to Hamas and its operations when Shalit can be described as a POW by AI. That's my perspective. AI, however, only views Shalit as a legitimate POW. Khadr is never described as a POW, but as a child soldier. AI isn't calling for them to be treated the same in all respects, though. AI is calling for Khadr to be treated as child soldier and claims that Khadr has been tortured, abused, and denied international standards with respect to access to a lawyer and due process. AI doesn't make these demands with respect to Shalit. Shalit is NOT being held illegaly, according to AI, as AI views Shalit as a legitimate POW rather than a soldier abducted during peacetime for propaganda purposes by a terrorist organization. AI does demand that Shalit not be abused and have access to ICRC visits as well as visits from his family, but makes no demands for him to have any form of legal course. The inconsistencies here are glaring. How can you not see them? I have no intention of denigrating AI to the level of organizations that really are anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Semitic, or anti-whatever. I'm simply making quote obvious observation about discrepancies in their approaches to similar cases and suggesting that politicization is responsible. Once again, the exact language from the article is "These are Amnesty International’s key demands on Gilad Shalit’s case, based on his status as a prisoner of war." You're welcome to press crtl-f to find it. What I am suggesting is clear, that there are inconsistencies in AI's approach to similar stories, whose differences I have acknowledged, that can be explained by politicization. After reviewing material on HRW, I find HRW (at the moment, based on my limited experience with the organization) to be more even-handed and consistent in their values. AI simply isn't complying fully with its mission statement with respect to these stories, as it is affording different levels of care to these two stories. Israel doesn't arrest people for political purposes. It is Hamas that engages in this activity and puts Israel in a position to deal with this sort of thing out of deep concern for one of its young citizens.

Alta4ever - Let's talk broadly for a moment. Are you opposed to the very concept of equalization? Forget about the details of how it's implemented in Canada for a moment and tell me if you think it'd a good idea to transfer money for better performing provinces to poorer provinces in order to maintain some level or uniformity among provincial services. I'm unsure where I stand on it, I haven't thought much about it. My instincts tell me if shouldn't be a steady thing, some sort of dependable savior from poor economic performance rather than an option for the federal government to exercise in the event of great need - such as some natural disaster. Hopefully I'm not coming in too late into this conversation... perhaps this conversation has already been done to death around these parts. Let me know if you're opposed to the very idea of equalization payments.

A black gay Jewish communist vegetarian animal rights activist woman.

I agree, I just don't think it's on par with usage of the n-word.

Well, perhaps there are some legitimate examples of where this is true. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Generally speaking though, saying that certain races/ethnicities are less able than others one one thing or another is definitely prejudice. I don't known if 'hate speech' is some sort of legal term, but as I understand it, deliberate negative prejudice towards a race or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation or creed or religion or whatever, is likely hate speech.

I read that article when making my earlier posts. That article illustrates some of the inconsistencies in AI's approach to the two prisoners I'm comparing, Khadr and Shalit. AI actually considers Shalit to be a legitimate POW, yet doesn't extend this description to Khadr, although Khadr was captured after real conflict and Shalit was abducted during peacetime in a non-conflict area. Don't you find that odd? Suggesting that Shalit is a legitimate POW also implies that there is some sort of legalistic war being fought between Israel and another party adhering to the laws and conventions of war (i.e. declarations of war, uniformed combatants, etc). Israel's enemies are unlawful combatants, terrorists who operate within civilian areas and break every single convention of war. This is one example of the double standard of AI's approach to these two stories. Granted, Khadr was fifteen at the time of his capture, but he was old enough to playing a direct role in the harming and killing of American troops and its allies (Canadians, for example). I don't believe that Khadr's age at the time of his crimes absolves him from being a legitimate enemy combatant/POW. Let's examine another inconsistency - if Gilad Shalit is a prisoner or war, what are the 900 prisoners from Gaza being held by Israel described as? According to the article, apparently they're just prisoners. This difference in description seems to suggest that there is some legitimacy to Shalit's abduction, while the 900 Palestinians from Gaza in Israeli prisons are not related to this conflict. Apparently Shalit's a POW, but Israel's prisoners aren't. Strange, eh? Consider that Israel did, prior to September 2098, permit many visitations from family members to prisoners from Gaza. Do you think the Palestinian terrorists have ever permitted such courtesies to soldiers and other Israelis they've kidnapped over the past many decades? There's a definite inconsistency there, as well, however this consistency is between how Israel treats its prisoner and how the terrorists treat their victims. AI will clearly not acknowledge this difference, however, as it seems to put Israel and its enemies on equal footing. Anyways....

It doesn't matter what the largest expenses in the country are. There's one relatively simple comparison that matters: how much do illegal immigrants contribute, on average, and how much they consume, on average. Clearly collecting the data isn't the easiest task in the world, but the costs incurred by society are much larger (financially, anyways) than are the benefits received (again, financially). You're welcome to tell me that these costs are justified by enriching the fabric of American society, but that's something entirely different I'll take it upon myself to look for some research studies on this. Granted, it's a complicated subject with complicated analyses. It just occurred to me, if what you've said is true (and it certainly isn't!), then illegal immigration on the whole BENEFITS the American economy. EDIT - Here's a piece of information, I know it's not too juicy, but it indicates that at the state and local levels (combined), the average illegal immigrant household received ~$14000 in benefits and paid ~$5500 in taxes. Here's the link. Let me ask you a general question - do you honestly believe that you just said prior to doing any research? Does your judgment lead you to believe that it's likely that illegal immigrants in the USA, on average, contribute more than they receive in taxes? I can tell you that my judgment tell me the EXACT OPPOSITE prior to doing much homework. I'll concede that I have spent quite a bit of time looking at this issue over the past couple of years. Even before doing any research, though, I assumed that illegal immigration was much more of a burden than an asset (financially speaking, of course).

In case you folks haven't yet seen these videos, here is the "don't ask don't tell" hearing: It isn't bad practice to put so many links in one post, is it?

please delete.

I just explained one way in which it isn't the same. Another way in which insensitive use of the term 'retarded' when trying to insult people for doing something one sees are stupid is different from usage of the n-word is the loaded history of the n-word and other historical events it's associated with. You can say what you want, but I don't think Palin's comparison here is valid. There's no need to draw such a comparison, either. Chastise Rahm, let him apologize, and move on. I doubt his words are evidence of some sort of deeper animosity he harbours towards mentally handicapped people. Drawing parallels between his insensitive remarks and usage of the n-word is just overexaggeration designed to enhance emotional response to he criticism.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still untrue that MacKay or other in the government used personal insults against Colvin. Questioning the validity of his assertions isn't the same as calling him a mean name.

It's not unheard of that enemy combatants and terrorist exploit our human rights values to their advantage. They are aware that civilized countries such as Canada have internal mechanisms for adhering to international standards. Our enemies aren't stupid, they're known to lie about things in order to advance their interests. Does this mean that every claim of mistreatment and abuse from a detainee is a lie from a terrorist? No, but let's not believe every claim their make that they are victimized when in custody, either. Colvin's support for his assertion were largely (or was it entirely?) based on his talks with two former detainees, who may or may not have been captured by Canadian forces. Colvin could have done two things better, A> he could have done more research into substantiating his claims that "all detainees were likely tortured", or B> he could have been more careful in his assertions, and not assumed that based on his limited information that "all detainees were likely tortured".